FYI. This is not a "sky is falling", "LE is coming to take your guns" thread, so lets not take it there. Apparently LE in south Florida have now used the new gun control law Governor Scott signed to confiscate the ammo and firearms of a man they deemed to be a risk to himself and others. After reading the details of this particular incident (assuming the media got it right), I'm not terribly concerned with this particular incident, however, this new power for LE in this new law is a concern, given the potential for abuse. That's really where I'd like to focus the discussion. So what are your thoughts on this new 'solution' to address the issue of people who have guns that shouldn't have them?

Link

A Broward County judge on Friday issued the state’s first order temporarily removing guns from a person under Florida’s new gun-control laws.

Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man who was determined to be a potential risk to himself or others.

The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed.

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.

The man is also prohibited from trying to purchase or obtain guns or ammunition from any source.

The legislation is part of a bill signed one week ago by Gov. Rick Scott. The new laws impose some restrictions on gun sales and give law enforcement new power to take action when they have evidence that a person may pose a danger. The National Rifle Association immediately filed a lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee challenging some aspects of the law, including the legality of banning gun sales to people under the age of 21.

“We put the safety of our residents first,” said Lighthouse Point Mayor Glenn Troast. “This is not about the Second Amendment and it’s not about the NRA. We need commonsense gun laws and this is a commonsense gun law that gives police officers new tools they need to help us protect our community.”

The small city lies 14 miles east of Parkland where 34 people were shot — 17 of whom died — in the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Before now, officials who attempted to remove guns from a person they thought was a danger could be removed from office and fined up to $5,000, the mayor said. Troast said he grew up in a law enforcement family, hunted with guns and has a healthy respect for firearms and gun rights.

Lighthouse Point police made the request on March 14, one week after they were called to conduct a welfare check on the man, who they said was behaving strangely at his condominium building. Authorities said it was the latest in a series of encounters law enforcement had with the man, though he has no prior history of arrests in Florida. 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.”

Officers said they saw weapons in his home after they were called to check on his welfare. They also found evidence he had “a voluminous amount of notes containing numerous references to former President Barack Obama, that he was killed in the 1980s but came back and now murders children to place their spirits into [the man’s] head, is a member of [al-Qaida], and is [the man’s] enemy,” the judge wrote in his order.

'Red flag' laws allow police to take guns from people who show signs of violence
The man was involuntarily committed for treatment in a separate proceeding and it is not yet known when he would be eligible for release, records show. The man did not attend the initial hearing, which temporarily removes his access to guns, because he is hospitalized.

The guns that were temporarily seized were a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun, according to the court order. Authorities have also begun the process of notifying federal and state authorities, as required by the law, so that the issue would be flagged if the man attempts to purchase a gun.

Lighthouse Point Police Chief Ross Licata said officers have had interactions with the man over a number of years but none of them had risen to the level that would have warranted removing the man’s access to guns. There was also no legal method to do so in the past.

“I think this is what the general public has been looking for — for law enforcement to be able to intervene in these kinds of situations — for a long time,” the chief said.

He said he wished he had such legislation a couple of years ago when another city resident was involuntarily committed for psychiatric help after a domestic incident and police took his guns for safekeeping. A very short time after the man was released from hospital, he demanded the return of his firearms. Police were still concerned for his well-being and the safety of others. Officers eventually agreed to release the guns to a family member, Licata said.

Licata said he anticipates other communities around the state will soon file their own requests as issues arise in their own communities.

NRA sues after Scott signs gun-control bill
“This may be the first but it’s certainly not going to be the last,” he said.

Under the requirements of the state law, Lighthouse Point police, Cirullo and the man whose guns were removed are due in court on March 28 for a final hearing to determine if the guns and ammunition should be removed for one year.

At that hearing, police would have to present “clear and convincing” evidence — more than was needed for the temporary removal of guns and ammunition — to keep the weapons in their custody for the next year. Any violation of the court order would be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in state prison and a $5,000 fine.

If the judge grants that request, police could seek an extension of the order if they are still concerned about the man having access to firearms.

Licata, the police chief, said people who oppose the law should know that officers had to go through a significant process to prove to the judge that they had valid concerns.

“We’re not in the business of going out and violating people’s Second Amendment rights,” Licata said. “In this particular case, we identified a significant public safety risk to the person who owned the firearms and others.”

Broward County Commissioner Chip LaMarca, a Republican who lives in and represents Lighthouse Point, said he is glad that law enforcement has more leeway to handle these kinds of difficult situations.

“The whole conversation we’re having in the month since Parkland has completely changed because the person who is charged with committing that crime certainly should have never had a gun,” LaMarca said. “Law-abiding, sane people should have their gun rights and those who don’t have the mental capacity shouldn’t have guns.”

Seems like a case where we would want the police to remove the man's guns. As second amendment supporters, we always say the responsible course of action is keeping guns out of the hands of people who suffer from mental illnesses that make them a danger to themselves or others. Seems like that's what they did here. The law isn't perfect, but the man will have his day in court and will receive due process.

Any power granted to the government is ripe for abuse, and I am sure that the NRA and SFA and others will be on the lookout for abuse of this new power given to authorities. But overall, I think this is a step in the right direction and is a much more reasoned and rational policy than banning certain weapons or limiting magazine capacities.

I have no issue with temporarily removing guns from the mentally ill, but there should be a requirement that LE retain them in good condition, and not just throw them into a shipping container out behind the station. It is the same as destruction if the firearms are returned as piles of rust. Some of mine are rare and valuable, are never shot, and would represent a significant loss of property if they weren’t properly stored.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I have no issue with temporarily removing guns from the mentally ill, but there should be a requirement that LE retain them in good condition, and not just throw them into a shipping container out behind the station. It is the same as destruction if the firearms are returned as piles of rust. Some of mine are rare and valuable, are never shot, and would represent a significant loss of property if they weren’t properly stored.

This x1000.

Friend of mine had his guns temporarily seized due to crazy accusations from his ex. Had several firearms in mint, unfired condition. Went to pick them up after they determined everything was unfounded, and discovered Baltimore County police "test fire" all firearms that go into their custody. They also left a huge scratch on his FN shotgun. Of course he had basically no recourse. This should definitely be a consideration in these laws.

quote:

This is not a "sky is falling", "LE is coming to take your guns" thread, so lets not take it there. Apparently LE in south Florida have now used the new gun control law Governor Scott signed to confiscate the ammo and firearms of a man they deemed to be a risk to himself and others. After reading the details of this particular incident (assuming the media got it right), I'm not terribly concerned with this particular incident, however, this new power for LE in this new law is a concern, given the potential for abuse. That's really where I'd like to focus the discussion. So what are your thoughts on this new 'solution' to address the issue of people who have guns that shouldn't have them?

Yes, it is only a matter of time before the abuse starts. That you can take to the bank. Give the government more power/authority, nothing bad could ever happen, right?

Yeah, no way in hell they should be able to shoot or even handle them until after the court decision. They need to let the owner place them in cases and lock them if they are going to come onto someone's property and do this. I don't like it. I'm not saying this case was wrong, but you know there will be abuse of power with this.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
We need commonsense gun laws...

I want some commonsense driving laws:
Everyone would have to meet the requirements of a Class A CDL.
All nonemergency cell phone use would result in confiscation of all cell phones in the vehicle.
Anyone stealing a car would be required to pay to fix the car. Even if it cost $27,000 to fix an '89 Civic.

Guess I wouldn't get far running for political office.

Isn't MD one of the states that has a fired case law? I would assume they "test fire" them to put the cases in their database. Not that they would ever help solve a crime, but "hey, look at us we're doing something".

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigdeal:
We need commonsense gun laws...

No sir. Under no circumstance do you attribute that comment or idea to me. "Common Sense Gun Laws" is nothing but liberal BS designed to remove 2A rights for all Americans. This new law may or may not intrude into that issue, which is 'specifically' the discussion point of the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I have no issue with temporarily removing guns from the mentally ill, but there should be a requirement that LE retain them in good condition, and not just throw them into a shipping container out behind the station. It is the same as destruction if the firearms are returned as piles of rust. Some of mine are rare and valuable, are never shot, and would represent a significant loss of property if they weren’t properly stored.

Personally, I would much prefer (where possible) a family member be given responsibility for ownership of the ammo and firearms until the court challenge is resolved. Until the final hearing, where the person who's firearms have been removed is given an opportunity to defend themselves, I have issue with LE taking possession of the firearms, again, assuming a legal relative is available. To me this is very different than the person under review having been charged with a crime, and LE confiscating their firearm(s) in response to the crime and prosecution.

"confiscate the ammo and firearms of a man they deemed to be a risk to himself and others"

They who? This is how abuse starts. This is a case no one could resist. Clearly this individual should not have firearms. But in this act is a poison pill. It is in the above quote. Once we accept 'deemed' by LE, then we enter the octagon of force against risk rather than force against threat. All that is needed is to begin distorting and expanding definitions to include anyone for any reason. Look at what gov't officials have done to the constitution with the FISA court. Now imagine a politically corrupted official with you in his reticle. Did you yell at your neighbor last week? Drive aggressively? Recently visit a therapist? Take anxiety meds? Did your disgruntled ex-spouse accuse you of abuse? Trust me when I say, they will find a reason to confiscate without your ability to defend yourself first to a judge. This is a law built on a bad foundation if it does not include a day in court for the accused.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Isn't MD one of the states that has a fired case law? I would assume they "test fire" them to put the cases in their database. Not that they would ever help solve a crime, but "hey, look at us we're doing something".

If you have some time, read this...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-...appeals/1687073.html

The casing law is inconsequential to the way they mishandle firearms. And the Court backed the police.

Lemme ask this question....

The cops scoop said crazy guy up and "Baker Act" him for an involuntary commitment, doesn't that three day or longer stay, with a medical doctor who is trained in making decisions about said crazy guy, keep said crazy guy away from any and all guns?

Then if doctor thinks crazy guy is unfit to be around guns, can't he petition the court with his medical opinion and thus serve due process where said crazy guy is also present to defend himself to the courts and voila no one has to take his guns until a judge orders it.

I am curious about what is going to happen when they take your guns and throw them all in a 55 gallon drum and you finally get them back with thousands of dollars worth of damage. Something like that happened to a friend of mine in Maryland about 20 years ago. I do not remember all the details of why they seized his guns, but I know it had something to do with an erroneous background check and waiting period. He said the cops had a good time throwing his stuff in the yard and then in a drum. They were laughing and joking and had him and his father handcuffed. Nothing to worry about, just good, commonsense gun laws. It took him several years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get his guns back and he was never compensated for the damage to his guns. I think any time I hear commonsense and gun laws that the person saying it is an idiot. Until you realize that the only way the anti gunners will be happy is if maybe one farmer in North Dakota has one single shot shotgun locked up in the Sheriffs office and no one else in the country has a gun. Then the anti gunners will tell you about how much they love the Second Amendment and how fortunate we are to have such a strong healthy Second Amendment and how wonderful all of our common sense gun laws are. The next time you hear anyone talk about commonsense gun laws, ask them to tell you about all the gun laws we already have, and if they think any of them are not commonsense. Ask them if they will work to eliminate any gun laws that are not common sense. Ask them why a person who is dangerous with a gun and should not have one is allowed out on the streets? Why can they drive a car, buy knives or axes or chainsaws or gasoline or any of hundreds of different things people are killed with?

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
"confiscate the ammo and firearms of a man they deemed to be a risk to himself and others"

They who? This is how abuse starts. This is a case no one could resist. Clearly this individual should not have firearms. But in this act is a poison pill. It is in the above quote. Once we accept 'deemed' by LE, then we enter the octagon of force against risk rather than force against threat. All that is needed is to begin distorting and expanding definitions to include anyone for any reason. Look at what gov't officials have done to the constitution with the FISA court. Now imagine a politically corrupted official with you in his reticle. Did you yell at your neighbor last week? Drive aggressively? Recently visit a therapist? Take anxiety meds? Did your disgruntled ex-spouse accuse you of abuse? Trust me when I say, they will find a reason to confiscate without your ability to defend yourself first to a judge. This is a law built on a bad foundation if it does not include a day in court for the accused.

Re-read the story. The man does get his day in court to defend his position. And although that is relevant to the discussion, its not really the key point I was aiming at. I phrased my comment above in the way I did to try and illicit the response you gave. Prior to this new Florida law, LE could confiscate firearms in response to a crime (including threats on another), or after a judge had adjudicated an individual mentally unstable in court. Now we seem to have moved into an area where LE can seize weapons if they view a person as "a danger to themselves and/or others". I've read the new Florida law Governor Scott signed and find it rather lacking in how LE must qualify an individual as a "danger to themselves and/or others". Are the opinions of one, or two, psychiatrists enough to remove a constitutional right without a court hearing first? That seems to skirt legal requirements to me too. Where's that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" thing before LE can take action to deprive someone of their rights/freedoms.

The individual noted in this story may indeed be bat shit crazy (as he's been portrayed) and needing of LE intervention, but given the inadequate procedures and requirements detailed in this new Florida law, I see nothing but problems with its use.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigdeal:
We need commonsense gun laws...

No sir. Under no circumstance do you attribute that comment or idea to me. "Common Sense Gun Laws" is nothing but liberal BS designed to remove 2A rights for all Americans. This new law may or may not intrude into that issue, which is 'specifically' the discussion point of the thread.

No attributes given, expressed, or implied.

Just quoting the most ridiculous part of the whole bit. If there is such a thing as a commonsense law, what would make something be considered a dumbass law?

quote:

The cops scoop said crazy guy up and "Baker Act" him for an involuntary commitment, doesn't that three day or longer stay, with a medical doctor who is trained in making decisions about said crazy guy, keep said crazy guy away from any and all guns?

Yes it does. In Mississippi it is not uncommon for law enforcement to take firearms if an individual has been picked up on a committment affidavit. This is particularly the case if someone has suggested that the individual might be a harm to others.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
"confiscate the ammo and firearms of a man they deemed to be a risk to himself and others"

They who? This is how abuse starts. This is a case no one could resist. Clearly this individual should not have firearms. But in this act is a poison pill. It is in the above quote. Once we accept 'deemed' by LE, then we enter the octagon of force against risk rather than force against threat. All that is needed is to begin distorting and expanding definitions to include anyone for any reason. Look at what gov't officials have done to the constitution with the FISA court. Now imagine a politically corrupted official with you in his reticle. Did you yell at your neighbor last week? Drive aggressively? Recently visit a therapist? Take anxiety meds? Did your disgruntled ex-spouse accuse you of abuse? Trust me when I say, they will find a reason to confiscate without your ability to defend yourself first to a judge. This is a law built on a bad foundation if it does not include a day in court for the accused.

Re-read the story. The man does get his day in court to defend his position. And although that is relevant to the discussion, its not really the key point I was aiming at. I phrased my comment above in the way I did to try and illicit the response you gave. Prior to this new Florida law, LE could confiscate firearms in response to a crime (including threats on another), or after a judge had adjudicated an individual mentally unstable in court. Now we seem to have moved into an area where LE can seize weapons if they view a person as "a danger to themselves and/or others". I've read the new Florida law Governor Scott signed and find it rather lacking in how LE must qualify an individual as a "danger to themselves and/or others". Are the opinions of one, or two, psychiatrists enough to remove a constitutional right without a court hearing first? That seems to skirt legal requirements to me too. Where's that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" thing before LE can take action to deprive someone of their rights/freedoms.

The individual noted in this story may indeed be bat shit crazy (as he's been portrayed) and needing of LE intervention, but given the inadequate procedures and requirements detailed in this new Florida law, I see nothing but problems with its use.

I did read the story. Who deemed him a risk? Did he have a day in court before his liberty was removed?

The problem begins with a neighbor determining that you are a problem.
Just more P.C. B.S.
Just like at work, if someone said what you were doing or saying, was bothering them, you could be disciplined.
Anybody that did not like you could give you shit by this practice. Now, it gets worse. This type of thing ruins a society.
It all sounds good, but in actual practice, the abuses will outnumber the good it does.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bigdeal:
We need commonsense gun laws...

No sir. Under no circumstance do you attribute that comment or idea to me. "Common Sense Gun Laws" is nothing but liberal BS designed to remove 2A rights for all Americans. This new law may or may not intrude into that issue, which is 'specifically' the discussion point of the thread.

No attributes given, expressed, or implied.

Just quoting the most ridiculous part of the whole bit. If there is such a thing as a commonsense law, what would make something be considered a dumbass law?

You quoted a member who DID NOT SAY what you ‘quoted’. It’s not hard to read and understand.

Why not change your quote(s) to accurately reflect who said that? That would be Lighthouse Point Mayor Glenn Troast, if you missed it.