quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Here is a case where there was intervention and we don't like it.

Ummm, no. This is not an intervention. It is an abuse of power. This whole tragedy was due to government incompetence. And somehow people feel giving more power to the same incompetent body is the answer? Not for me. PLENTY of signs were ignored by law enforcement. PLENTY of chances to get the shooter in front of a judge before he went off. And the government FAILED. So now due to that failure I have to give up my rights? No friggin' way. How many lives could have been saved if those incompetent cowards in the sherrifs office had simply done their job? So because they are failures I need to sacrifice my due process? Ridiculous.

I have never said "we need to do something" after an event like this. Know why? When the story finally comes out it will show that it was 100% preventable but wasn't due to failures in government. Giving more power to government is NEVER, EVER, the answer.

I posted last night (and deleted) that many states, including Kentucky, have been doing this very thing for years. And the streets haven't run red with the blood of corruption, or misuse. I deleted it because of the obvious reactions of the echo chamber.

When we say "we don't need more regulation, just enforce the laws on the books" after each and every tragedy, it is evident that we don't mean it in these threads. Because there is a potential that their *might* be the chance for corruption, so we nit pick every law that has to do with these instances. We are never happy.

I guess I probably should not say this, but BATF is actively flagging people that are committed to mental institutions as prohibited people in NICS. Because this could happen to anyone? Family could make statements to get the person picked up by the cops, cops agree the person is a danger to self/others, psychiatrist agrees danger to self/others, and second psychiatrist agrees at the mental hospital. Each step would have to be in it together for this to happen to you. And the "Q" pretty much does not commit people to state mental unless they say "I AM GOING TO KILL.." myself or others.

Guys, the ones that believe that this could happen to just anyone, probably do have some danger of this happening to them. 1) It would take a massive conspiracy. 2)They are going have to build more institutions before the conspiracy can work. They always run at or near max capacity at state hospitals. Or, they have legitimately got mental issues and are a danger to themselves/others.

These threads run on raw emotion, just like the gun controllers operate on, and there is little or no sense to be made of them. The guys in this thread probably have a MUCH greater chance of getting their guns removed by LE by a mad woman filing a false EPO, than they do the mental health process. THAT should scare and concern people, but it never gets but barely a whisper.

I think we're getting a bit off target. I actually support the basic premise of what this particular Florida law is trying to accomplish as I recognize we have a growing mental illness problem in this country. My issue(s) are with how poorly this particular law was written, and the ultimate goal it was written to address (i.e. Publicity. Hey we did something). I can't and won't speak to the appropriateness, constitutionality, or success of similar state laws.

I do not believe the new Florida law as written provides adequate protections to insure due process. That's my issue.

I do however agree with others here that government is far too incompetent and cowardly (due to political correctness and ridiculous ideology) to proactively accomplish much of anything regarding this issue. FBI, Police, and social services had everything they needed without the new Florida law to prevent Nikolas Cruz from ever becoming the threat he evolved into, yet they did exactly nothing. I'm doubtful this 'new' law will accomplish much aside from being challenged in court.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This law is complete and total anti gun legislation disguised as common sense legislation.

1. Unless you remove the person from every potential harm causing item (i.e. knives, cars, pressure cookers) taking away guns does nothing.

2. How do you know what guns to confiscate? Did you get them all? Florida does not have any form of registration. My wife could not give you an accurate list of all of my guns. Don't be surprised when this becomes a driving force behind requiring gun registration.

3. Will a judge ever rule in the initial hearing that a person is not a danger and can keep their guns, and risk being the judge who let the next mass shooter walk? Judges here are on the ballots.

4. And last and most importantly; Due Process.
Any process that does not allow the accused to face the accusers in court prior to a constitutional right being removed is wrong.
The state has 72 hours to get their case together due to the Baker act. If they can't put enough together to face me in front of a judge in that time frame then they probably don't have a case to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
When a subject is Baker Acted in Florida, they can be held in the institution for up to 72 hours. Often times they are released before that.

Ok, lets chat about that for a moment. For 72 hours (three days), a person can be legally detained and evaluated under the Baker Act. There is no requirement that I know of whereby they have to be released early. During that three days, they are physically separated from their firearms. My contention is, the government should be 'required' to have them evaluated, and if necessary, get them in front of a judge with defense counsel, and adjudicate them mentally unstable such they are found to be a "danger to themselves and/or others', before LE is given any latitude whatsoever to seize firearms.

And I know the argument is going to be that the government would be incapable of moving fast enough to meet the three day Baker Act time frame. To that I say, I do not care one bit. Removal of someone's constitutional rights without their appearing before a judge first (as this law allows LE to do), is unconstitutional, unlawful, and just wrong outright. The bar for LE needs to be set a whole lot higher than this law sets it.

That makes sense to me. Baker Acting a person takes him away from every potential weapon he owns without the need to seize any of the person's property. Give him his day in court before any seizures of property.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I guess I probably should not say this, but BATF is actively flagging people that are committed to mental institutions as prohibited people in NICS. Because this could happen to anyone? Family could make statements to get the person picked up by the cops, cops agree the person is a danger to self/others, psychiatrist agrees danger to self/others, and second psychiatrist agrees at the mental hospital. Each step would have to be in it together for this to happen to you. And the "Q" pretty much does not commit people to state mental unless they say "I AM GOING TO KILL.." myself or others.

Personally I am good with this procedure. There is still a chance of abuse but there always will be... I, like others, think there should be a time frame where the evaluation is done and then a court appearance before any type of property is seized.

We need a procedure. It just needs to be fairly hard for the state to get to the stage of property confiscation.

I have 2 questions and 1 observation:

1) Does any state confiscate cars after "x" number of DUI convictions? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

2) My wife is a teacher. She happens to teach in a very well run school system. When I first started telling her about things that happen in other parts of the country she pushed back pretty hard. After a while she started listening and now she tells me about things before I can read them. She is horrified by what some school systems are doing

3) Here is my other question: I know Jerry fairly well and have met several of the officers he works with and a few from agencies that are not as geographically as close. They have all been very much aligned with my thoughts on life in general. Really, if you know Jerry that doesn't surprise you.

But, There are a ton of places (usually big cities) where law enforcement is filled with people that think they know best or their masters know best. Jerry and his fellow officers (and the other LEO's both current and former that post here) should never be painted with the same paint brush as officers that abuse their power. We also need to remember that the LEO representation we see here can be a minority viewpoint in the world at large. We have to support the good guys because their honest convictions could easily put them out of a job. I fear the day that the good guys quit putting on the uniform because they aren't supported by the public or their chain of command...

This particular instance may have well saved lives. in general, limiting crazy folks' ability to harm themselves and/or others is a good thing.

The fear of government overreach is real and cannot be ignored either.

There is a very narrow space in which I think some very smart people could likely find the sweet spot of not infringing on Rights and still having an effective tool to commit crazies.

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
But, There are a ton of places (usually big cities) where law enforcement is filled with people that think they know best or their masters know best. Jerry and his fellow officers (and the other LEO's both current and former that post here) should never be painted with the same paint brush as officers that abuse their power. We also need to remember that the LEO representation we see here can be a minority viewpoint in the world at large. We have to support the good guys because their honest convictions could easily put them out of a job. I fear the day that the good guys quit putting on the uniform because they aren't supported by the public or their chain of command...

But again, I think this misses the point. I don't think the particular officer or department involved should be the focus of any of this. I personally want a law in place (assuming its really needed) that...

• Is constitutional and protects due process for all accused.
• Is designed well enough that it provides a very rigid/finite framework for LE to work within.

The new Florida law appears, at least in my view, to accomplish neither of these most basic goals.

An emergency injunction is an ex parte order by its nature. The courts generally reserve ex parte orders to a very narrow area, involving emergencies where failure to act would result in irreparable harm to other parties. For example, a family owned winery sells several barrels of wine to a restaurant but they do not pay. The winery may obtain an ex parte order to seize the remaining wine and hold it before it is all consumed.

I have also seen a judge come to our command post as much as 30 years ago while we were there dealing with a crazy barricaded gunman. After hearing the exchange between the gunman and the hostage negotiator the judge signed an emergency commitment order ex parte, and ordered that he give up his guns for safekeeping until a hearing. We got the guy in custody and the hearing was held within a few days. The guy petitioned to get his gun back a few months later and the court said no, you can give it to a third party to have it held or sold but you can't have the gun back because you cannot legally possess it.

We see ex parte orders in Florida most often in domestic violence and child custody cases. They must be temporary and the person subject to the order must have the opportunity to contest it before it becomes permanent.

In my experience all petitions for ex parte orders are scrutinized very closely to ensure due process is afforded as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. The test is always whether irreparable harm would result if the order is not issued. That's always going to be a consideration where separating a crazy from his guns is involved.

In the case of the Parkland shooter, discussions were held as to whether he should be Baker Acted a couple years ago, and there were several episodes where he could have been arrested but was not. One report says he strangled his mother at one point. That's a felony of the 3rd degree in Florida and he should have been arrested. The sheriff there is a political hack and the law enforcement community there was so poisoned by the politically correct "de-emphasize arrest" school of thought that they were impotent in dealing with this little asshole.

quote:

They must be temporary and the person subject to the order must have the opportunity to contest it before it becomes permanent.

I'm good with this if the property is returned undamaged and all accounted for.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
The test is always whether irreparable harm would result if the order is not issued.

And until we reach the point of having a system like the movie "Minority Report", where LE can predict human behavior with some systematic level of accuracy, any actions going either direction are going to be attacked.

quote:

In the case of the Parkland shooter, discussions were held as to whether he should be Baker Acted a couple years ago, and there were several episodes where he could have been arrested but was not. One report says he strangled his mother at one point. That's a felony of the 3rd degree in Florida and he should have been arrested. The sheriff there is a political hack and the law enforcement community there was so poisoned by the politically correct "de-emphasize arrest" school of thought that they were impotent in dealing with this little asshole.

And this is my biggest argument 'against' the new Florida law. Government at every level had all the tools they needs to prevent the Parkland shooting, yet due to incompetence, negligence, and adherence to flawed ideology, they did nothing, and 17 kids died as a result.

I just wish the damn focus for once could be on identifying the 'real' issues and failures here, and addressing them, rather than passing more laws of dubious value and legality.

^^^

in Coward County it was the authorities that failed, not the people

exactly how many 'tools' do they need?

they're crafting laws to deal with the exceptions that blankets everyone

I can see some justification in what they are trying to accomplish but they are going about it all wrong

as for the seizures of weapons, I am still convinced that the last people that should maintain control of the weapons is the police

seize them, and transfer them to either a responsible family member, or have them stored at a local gun shop

get a shipping container and use that.