It begins. Florida man has guns taken

P

pnac

New member
Florida man has guns taken and involuntarily committed to a mental facility for a psychiatric exam. What I got from the article is, that if you live in Florida, you are fair game for any family member or LEO that could benefit from having you committed under the new law.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...earms-ammunition-confiscated-gun-control-law/

After scrolling past all the ads where the article continues (the modern equivalent of the old "continued on page 19F), or whatever) it appears that I might have jumped the shark in this case. This guy seems to really be a nutcase, although I stand by my original contention that the potential for abuse is a problem.

My apologies for any confusion.
 
Last edited:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...s-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

From the article:

He had some prior arrests in Pennsylvania, records show.

Police were called after the man turned off the main electrical breakers to the condo building in Lighthouse Point, court records show. The South Florida Sun Sentinel is not identifying the man because of his medical condition.

The man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”

He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”
Click to expand...

His neighbors might be glad he's separated from his guns.
 
"...issued the state’s first order temporarily removing guns from a person..."

"...he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”...

he man told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in [his] building,” the judge wrote in his order. “[He] could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor [can] ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”

He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because “they are electrocuting me through my legs.”​

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...s-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

I haven't read the law so I don't know all the details of how it changes things, but frankly, if the information I quoted above is accurate, I don't see a big problem here. I think it's always been possible to confiscate the guns of a person who is a danger to themselves or others.

Also, I'm not opposed to temporarily confiscating guns from a person who has lost touch with reality.
 
pnac,
It's a waste of everyone's time if you only supply half a story trying to make a point that isn't valid. This is the meaning of "fake news". You can't win any arguments going about it this way. Sounds like someone who shouldn't have guns....at least for a while.
 
The man was also taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment under the state’s Baker Act. But the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under the new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
Click to expand...
As usual, everything you see in the media is true unless you have first-hand knowledge of the facts. (Which I don't.)

The guns were taken temporarily. If I understand it, Florida's Baker Act is not a commitment (and the article mentions that the new law allows removing guns from people who have not been committed) for treatment, it's an admission for evaluation. I think all states have provision for this, and it doesn't result in the person being prohibited unless the evaluation leads to an involuntary commitment.
 
You are correct No Second Best, I should have dug deeper into the article. My sincere apologies. On the bright side, maybe I can get a job at CNN, I ought to qualify!
 
The reference to CNN is that I only reported part of the story. It was sarcasm and I was giving CNN the benefit of doubt that they don't make up ALL their "facts". Sheesh!
 
The sad story is there are thousands of guys just like this one who are not even charged, let alone reported to NICS. Most of them are harmless; but that one who isn't hoses all of us.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The sad story is there are thousands of guys just like this one who are not even charged, let alone reported to NICS. Most of them are harmless; but that one who isn't hoses all of us.
Click to expand...
To be clear, though -- this guy hasn't yet progressed to where he should be reported to NICS. His firearms have been taken temporarily. He has been admitted for evaluation (not for treatment as reported in the article) under the Baker Act. Unless the evaluation period results in an involuntary commitment, he will not be a prohibited person.
 
How quickly we forget, this nation was founded by crazy men with guns, when a government tried to take them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To be clear, though -- this guy hasn't yet progressed to where he should be reported to NICS. His firearms have been taken temporarily. He has been admitted for evaluation (not for treatment as reported in the article) under the Baker Act. Unless the evaluation period results in an involuntary commitment, he will not be a prohibited person.
Click to expand...

There is actually a circuit split on this issue. Some circuits (5th) take the view that only involuntary commitments count. Others (1-3) take the view that "adjudicated mentally defective" covers a much broader category and that "other lawful authority" covers not only courts; but even just the opinions of emergency room doctors at treatment centers.

To my knowledge, the 11th Circuit has not yet addressed that issue; but it isn't crazy to say a Baker Act could permanently make you a prohibited person even if you are later released and have no problems.
 
No one can argue that dangerously unstable people should have guns. They shouldn't. Nor should they have knives, fire, chainsaws, or functional motor vehicles, or voting rights, among other things.

The trap is, who gets to decide that, before they actually do some harm???

We have a process in law to do that. The standard, since the law was passed, was that the process had to be completed, BEFORE rights were legally denied.

The new "red flag" laws make it legal to "temporarily" remove guns before the legal process even begins. There are, absolutely, cases where doing so is the best thing for public safety. HOWEVER, one cannot really know it was the best thing until after the legal process works its way through, and a judgement is made. SO, we all get tarred with the same brush, just in case.

The big risk we all face is, who decides who is, and isn't dangerously crazy, before the authorities get involved??? Just as is the case with restraining orders, the potential for abuse via false accusation is huge.

And, it doesn't even need to be a deliberately false accusation. There are people today, and in ever increasing numbers, that believe you and I are dangerously crazy just because you HAVE guns. That alone is enough reason for them to call the cops, and they think they are doing the right thing by doing it! :eek:

This isn't just a double edged sword, its a double edged sword without guard, quilions, or even a grip. Can it be wielded without injury? Yes, but one must be extremely careful, and to date, there is no evidence that the authorities will be any more careful with it than they are with any other laws...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top