Floridas new Red flag law

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Well and good, but...The mentally unstable individual takes his new, shiny AR-15 out of the closet, and steps into the school down the street. Those teachers and students have rights that are being infringed by the individual whose guns were not taken away because he has 2A rights. It just isn't as easy as saying "shall not be infringed". If we support and defend the Constitution, we have to support and defend the entire Constitution. The "gun problem" in USA is because there have been those who have taken advantage, either intentionally or unintentionally, of the freedom and easy access to firearms.

I don't have a solution, but ignoring the issue and saying that 2A is supreme over all is not a solution either.

In your scenario, the rights of the teachers and students have been infringed by government that is denying them of their RKBA to effect a viable defense. The mentally unstable person cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone. If the mentally unstable person is known to be unstable and dangerous - as would be the case in your scenario - that person should be confined in an institution upon findings after due process. That is the solution you are looking for. The same applies to violent felons. Violent felons should be incarcerated(if not executed) until it can be proven they are no longer a danger to be armed out in society. That's how you do it without infringing upon anyone's RKBA.

Woody

 

[DavidMcmillan]

sure

 

[inactive]

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri – who chairs the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission – shared this sentiment when asked about his decision to devote an entire unit to carry out the new law:

“It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.”

According to the report, every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has been granted by the judge, with the vast majority involving people with a previous history of mental illness.

I'd be REALLY curious under what grounds the minority that were not a previous history of mental illness were granted for.

Considering the law states,

Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent

I would hate for some arbitrary sense of a person being angry or threatening would be grounds for a complainant to speak to LEO and have another person's firearms seized, even if temporarily. It seems way too vague.

 

[dennishoddy]

If the mentally unstable person is known to be unstable and dangerous - as would be the case in your scenario - that person should be confined in an institution upon findings after due process.
Woody

We can't do that anymore except for the criminally insane after they have commited the crime.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We can't do that anymore except for the criminally insane after they have commited the crime.

That's where due process steps in.

Woody

 

[Glocktogo]

Like @dlmcm said, mental issues are a big problem. One way or the other, as a country we are going to have to deal with that.

My problem with this law, is that there is no representation. They issue this like a warrant from the sound of it, with no chance for the "victim" of the law to represent his side of the case.

Well and good, but...The mentally unstable individual takes his new, shiny AR-15 out of the closet, and steps into the school down the street. Those teachers and students have rights that are being infringed by the individual whose guns were not taken away because he has 2A rights. It just isn't as easy as saying "shall not be infringed". If we support and defend the Constitution, we have to support and defend the entire Constitution. The "gun problem" in USA is because there have been those who have taken advantage, either intentionally or unintentionally, of the freedom and easy access to firearms.

I don't have a solution, but ignoring the issue and saying that 2A is supreme over all is not a solution either.

This law isn't a mere 2nd Amendment infringement. It's an infringement of the aggrieved party's 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendment rights. When a state law infringes on this many rights in such an egregious manner, it should be subject to an immediate federal injunction until a final adjudication of the law can be made.

The problem here is that there's a right way and a wrong way to do this, and the FL law as it's written is the absolute worst way to do what they want to do. If you want to deny a person their 2nd Amendment rights for psychological reasons, then you MUST provide Due Process and afford the accused the right to defend themselves in a court of law. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If a person is an immediate danger to themselves or others, then take that person into custody and have a mental health evaluation made. Allow that person to have an independent evaluation performed as well. If one or both evaluations conclude that the person is indeed a danger to themselves or others, then have a hearing where the accused has legal representation. If the person is adjudicated mentally incompetent THEN remove their firearms and put them on the prohibited person's list. Then afford the adjudicated an appeals process AND a process to meet conditions for having their rights restored.

Anything less is an injustice and should be resoundingly rejected.

 

[MacFromOK]

Surely someone will challenge this...?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

A few weeks ago, we had the shooting at Lake Hefner. As soon as information came out about the shooter, the questions started, "Why wasn't something done when all this information was known about this guy?". The same is said in the aftermath of most of these events.

That is what seems to be attempted with this law. Every law, ordinance, regulation, etc. has the potential to be abused, or to be a major solution to a problem for society. And likewise, so does every Right or freedom.

There seems to be some holes in the application of this law, but standing on the sidelines and throwing rocks, isn't going to help the overall situation. This is an attempt to address one of the issues we have been saying is the problem. We should be listening, talking, and assisting in making this type of law workable. Families do it everyday when family members become no longer to care for themselves, able to drive, etc.

This can be implemented without infringing on any Right.

 

[NikatKimber]

A few weeks ago, we had the shooting at Lake Hefner. As soon as information came out about the shooter, the questions started, "Why wasn't something done when all this information was known about this guy?". The same is said in the aftermath of most of these events.

That is what seems to be attempted with this law. Every law, ordinance, regulation, etc. has the potential to be abused, or to be a major solution to a problem for society. And likewise, so does every Right or freedom.

There seems to be some holes in the application of this law, but standing on the sidelines and throwing rocks, isn't going to help the overall situation. This is an attempt to address one of the issues we have been saying is the problem. We should be listening, talking, and assisting in making this type of law workable. Families do it everyday when family members become no longer to care for themselves, able to drive, etc.

This can be implemented without infringing on any Right.

But this one wasn't at all. In fact as mentioned it infringes on many rights, and in doing so makes the whole thing worse.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I think everyone agrees that this particular law if greatly flawed, however a law can be written that will address the issue, and still insure adherence to all Constitutional Rights. There have been too many tragic events involving people that folks knew were going to do something violent, but current laws prohibited intervention. Society will not long allow that to exist, before changes are made.