Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Off Topic
Florida's new gun law already working
In Broward County alone 7 dangerous people have been denied gun ownership with their firearms confiscated by law enforcement officials
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/under-new-florida-gun-bill-broward-has-already-blocked-seven-people-from-having-firearms-10218571
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/under-new-florida-gun-bill-broward-has-already-blocked-seven-people-from-having-firearms-10218571
Replies
First, any person committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally defective is prohibit from owning or possessing firearms by default unless that right is restored to them. There is a statutory procedure the person can follow to have the court restore his or her firearm rights. So if a person gets Baker Acted, they lose their firearm rights unless they make the effort to get them back. You don't want Baker Acted people running around with guns, not until they've demonstrated some mental healing.
Second, law enforcement can petition the court for an injunction prohibiting a person from possessing or owning firearms. That petition has to be written like a probable cause affidavit by a law enforcement officer or agency and it must allege specifically that the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others via firearms and the facts that support that assertion must be alleged. The court can issue a temporary injunction based on that petition but the court has to hold a hearing to determine whether the person will receive a full injunction. In order to grant the lasting injunction, the court has to find by "clear and convincing" evidence that the person is a danger and cite to the specific evidence that establishes such. Then, the court must issue an injunction for no longer than 12 months. The injunction is not renewed automatically, but the law enforcement agency can ask the court to renew it. If the person subject to the injunction objects, then there will be a new hearing and the burden is again on the agency to prove the person still shouldn't have guns. If the person doesn't object or respond, the court can automatically renew the injunction for up to another 12 months without another hearing. If the person subject to an injunction wants to have the court remove the injunction before the specified time period is up, he or she can petition the court but the burden of proof shifts to the person to prove they're safe to allow to have guns before the natural expiration of the injunction.
The requirements to issue the injunction are almost the same as what's required in a Baker Act hearing. There has to be significant proof that the person is a danger if allowed to have firearms. The person can have their guns back in a year or less, depending on how long the injunction is issued for and whether they actually make the effort to oppose renewal of the injunction or not.
I don't think this is bad at all. Due Process is observed and the injunctions are temporary. It just creates more red tape in the legal system that we in the system have to deal with. But so be it. This change to Baker Acts and injunction proceedings is actually what I proposed before the Legislature actually took it up.
I too am NRA and proud of it. I don't like the 21 minimum age to have a firearm, not where 18 years old can have a doctor suck their unborn babies down a vacuum to be chopped up. If you're old enough for that, you're old enough for a gun. Visa versa if you're not old enough for a gun. But as far as the ability to better screen weirdos to temporarily limit their access to guns, that's not a bad idea at all.
I don't like restrictions either..but I got a Bipolar Niece that's been wanting me to give her a Pistol for years...Some folks just ain't all right and you got to do something bro...just sayin..
It's working in that is removing firearms from people that are a threat to others, per the law enforcement officers
ItsI a good thing
If your taking Anti Depressants..You don't need a Firearm anywhere near you..Sorry..
I'm not going to be your Target Practice because you forgot your Meds.
It is something that should be federally mandated. It's good to see common sense come to the forefront. I can not understand anyone who supports a mentally deranged person being allowed to have a firearm.
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
My objections:
1. What person or entity gets to say who is "mentally deranged"?
2. Which type(s) of mental illness is a dis-qualifier for gun ownership?
3. What other rights can be taken because of mental illness?
4. This is another stigma attached to mental illness which diminishes incentives for people to seek treatment.
5. Disclosure of personal health information, or individual right to privacy violations.
6. How do we determine if abuse of this system is occurring? Taking guns from people that are not mentally ill but fit some other profile and this was the easiest route.
I could list more but Tarpon says I'm paranoid.
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
What I'm saying all this concern over conducting background checks, keeping weapons away from the mentally ill, and other proposals being the beginning of the government taking weapons away permanently is misplaced. If you read the Patriot Act closely you will see they can come into your home and remove your weapons without due process already.
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
Gym coach have no confidential information per se. This is where credibility is lost although they can inform the proper authorities about irregular behavior.
Doctor's and psychiatrists can already release records with the proper application through the judicial system.
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
Overreaching, I agree 100%. I believe most American citizens have little idea what the Patriot Act really says.
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."
Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
Former Mini Mart Magnate
I am just here for my amusement.
Now her former boyfriend is an ex. How does law enforcement know that he has a firearm to confiscate?
It's just a feel good with incredibly terrible consequences when it gets abused by law enforcement. Just you wait
Of course if your thinkin about killing yourself ..Your not the kind of guy I want next to me at the shooting range.
We all know someone that's Bat Ship Crazy..That's what needs to stop.
If some group is talking bout killin Cops..I'd say their Wack Jobs...so No..
Law enforcment has to Baker Act you or otherwise make the effort to file a court case against you, or you have to have been committed to a mental institution or been found by a court to be mentally defective.
We’re dealing with a very small subset of the population, and generally this subset has a lot of overlap with felons, street criminals, and drug addicts. The people brought into these hearings aren’t just normal people having a bad day.
Worse case scenerio, an otherwise nornal person snaps and gets suicidal for a season in their life. That’s how the average joe likely gets sucked up into this system
The system provides for the average joe to get his gun rights back. Time is the biggest factor. Lots of time advanced from the dangerous period in which the person exhibits a sound mind.