(07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:31 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]So a person has to predict the future and prove a negative in order to exercise his legal, moral and Constitutional right to self defense? And when do these interviews occur? Each morning at the police station or do they come to your house? After all, you might have had an evil thought since yesterday's interview.
Your perspective is so skewed I’d need to catch a rocket to Saturn to begin deciding where to start explaining this to you.
All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
I have no idea what these interviews you're going on about are.
Well, how do you propose to "prove" you are not a danger? Aren't they going to ask you questions? And how did "law enforcement" become convinced you were a possible danger in the first place?
Hint: It's because a neighbor or family member or spouse or former friend or romantic rival or hateful coworker decides to call the cops, say you threatened them and say you have a lot of guns. At this point, the cops have to do something. But by the time they bother asking YOU about it, they will have a warrant in hand and a SWAT team at your door. Do you think you will convince SWAT that it's just your girlfriend mad because you broke off the engagement? Or it's the jerk you work with who wants your job? No. They will trash your house, take your property and you might be able to get the stuff back someday, but again, how do you prove a negative? If you've never had any history of violence, how do you prove you'll never be violent in the future?
For those of you disagreeing with the law, the reasons you give, make you sound a little paranoid. Like if you look at someone wrong, they will falsely report you and get your guns confiscated. I'm a gun owner and this law doesn't bother me at all. I have no enemies "as far as I know", no criminal record and no history of mental issues, so I should have nothing to worry about if this turns into a federal law. Some of you are trying to create outlandish and unrealistic situations, just so you'll have something to argue about.
(07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 12:51 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Ever hear of due process and the 2nd amendment?
Yes, because nothing has changed since 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was passed. Perhaps you can also fight for your right to have slaves as well since that was also legal up until 1865.
Let's just toss it ALL out, since the Declaration and Constitution both were originally written in quill and ink on parchment and not saved on "the cloud" in a font from the Century family.
DO OVER!!
Old ideas written by old people. Literally. I know, right?
(07-31-2018, 05:46 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]For those of you disagreeing with the law, the reasons you give, make you sound a little paranoid. Like if you look at someone wrong, they will falsely report you and get your guns confiscated. I'm a gun owner and this law doesn't bother me at all. I have no enemies "as far as I know", no criminal record and no history of mental issues, so I should have nothing to worry about if this turns into a federal law. Some of you are trying to create outlandish and unrealistic situations, just so you'll have something to argue about.
In your opinion...
(07-31-2018, 05:33 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Your perspective is so skewed I’d need to catch a rocket to Saturn to begin deciding where to start explaining this to you.
All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
I have no idea what these interviews you're going on about are.
Well, how do you propose to "prove" you are not a danger? Aren't they going to ask you questions? And how did "law enforcement" become convinced you were a possible danger in the first place?
Hint: It's because a neighbor or family member or spouse or former friend or romantic rival or hateful coworker decides to call the cops, say you threatened them and say you have a lot of guns. At this point, the cops have to do something. But by the time they bother asking YOU about it, they will have a warrant in hand and a SWAT team at your door. Do you think you will convince SWAT that it's just your girlfriend mad because you broke off the engagement? Or it's the jerk you work with who wants your job? No. They will trash your house, take your property and you might be able to get the stuff back someday, but again, how do you prove a negative? If you've never had any history of violence, how do you prove you'll never be violent in the future?
If, during the risk protection order hearing, there is insufficient evidence that you pose a risk, you do not need to prove that you do not pose a risk. The burden is on the petitioner to provide sufficient evidence that you do pose a risk. As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, a petitioner would be discouraged in providing false testimony as that would be considered a third degree felony.
Here is a
link to the actual statute, since there seems to be a lack of understanding of what the law actually says.
It's a Draconian law. Check section 6 which is supposed to detail how the order shall end, but mostly provides ways to extend it. Section 13 excepts all the government helpers from all criminal and civil penalties and liabilities if they screw up. And of course the key part is about the hearing (after you request a hearing; you do not get one automatically). When they finally let you speak, weeks or months after your home was invaded and property taken, it is exactly as I said:
The respondent shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. The court may consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the considerations listed in paragraph (3)©.
Here's where you get to present evidence proving you didn't do what somebody feared you might do. Good luck.
(07-31-2018, 05:46 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]For those of you disagreeing with the law, the reasons you give, make you sound a little paranoid. Like if you look at someone wrong, they will falsely report you and get your guns confiscated. I'm a gun owner and this law doesn't bother me at all. I have no enemies "as far as I know", no criminal record and no history of mental issues, so I should have nothing to worry about if this turns into a federal law. Some of you are trying to create outlandish and unrealistic situations, just so you'll have something to argue about.
It isn’t as off base as you believe. See California, Maryland, and Delaware where there are countless examples if a similar system being abused. One of the most common, at least in Delaware, is an ex spouse claiming they feel threatened. Only “proof” is a signed affidavit. Judges more times than not sign off everytime as to error on the side of caution. At least there, a hearing is held in front of a judge in 30 days to readdress the matter.
There is potential for abuse of this type of confiscation system. Anyway, I think this was rushed and is nothing by a “feel good” law. Wouldn’t have stopped any of the past events.
So a system that places trust in law enforcement that is further checked by agreement from a court of law to determine if an individual may be unfit to possess a weapon strikes fear and paranoia - but we are supposed to trust these same guardians of justice with the use of lethal force in routine traffic stops?
Hmmmm. I thought we were supposed to be able to trust these people? No?
I don’t get the gun loss fear. What are you guys so scared of?
(07-31-2018, 08:58 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]It's a Draconian law. Check section 6 which is supposed to detail how the order shall end, but mostly provides ways to extend it. Section 13 excepts all the government helpers from all criminal and civil penalties and liabilities if they screw up. And of course the key part is about the hearing (after you request a hearing; you do not get one automatically). When they finally let you speak, weeks or months after your home was invaded and property taken, it is exactly as I said:
The respondent shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. The court may consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the considerations listed in paragraph (3)©.
Here's where you get to present evidence proving you didn't do what somebody feared you might do. Good luck.
You may want to re-read the law. Subsection (6) is applicable after a risk protection order had been issued to determine termination or extension of the order. At that point, yes, the burden of proof is on the respondent. However, the respondent has already gone through the initial hearing which determined that the respondent was a risk and therefore a risk protection order was issued. Please read Subsection (3). The initial hearing is automatic (not sure where you assumed you didn't automatically get a hearing), and the respondent and/or the respondent's attorney must be presented with all evidence against the respondent. This initial hearing must be within 14 days of the initial petition order. The respondent would be able to rebut the evidence at that time.
(07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:31 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]So a person has to predict the future and prove a negative in order to exercise his legal, moral and Constitutional right to self defense? And when do these interviews occur? Each morning at the police station or do they come to your house? After all, you might have had an evil thought since yesterday's interview.
All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
In certain situations, yes, that is too much to ask, even of a person who doesn't own firearms. Any angry/jilted/jealous ex-wife/girlfriend can walk into a police station or court, sign an affidavit claiming that you physically abused and/or threatened her and obtain a temporary, ex parte, restraining order. Sadly, this all to often occurs in attempts to gain leverage in divorce and custody battles.
Under this new law, the respondent shall then bear the burden of essentially proving by "...clear and convincing evidence..." that the allegation is false, before the court will vacate the order. In a he said/she said scenario, there is often no way to definitively prove or disprove such claims and the courts tend to err on the side of caution, so...………...
(07-31-2018, 11:10 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So a system that places trust in law enforcement that is further checked by agreement from a court of law to determine if an individual may be unfit to possess a weapon strikes fear and paranoia - but we are supposed to trust these same guardians of justice with the use of lethal force in routine traffic stops?
Hmmmm. I thought we were supposed to be able to trust these people? No?
I don’t get the gun loss fear. What are you guys so scared of?
Why are you so quick and willing to support an ability to extinguish a right, without proper checks and balances, whether you use that right or not? Why are you so willing to have more government involved to decide what they think is necessary for your safety? Is blind trust that you suggest such a good thing? Should that court of law be able to take away a right without proper due process? Would this law have prevented any of the violence that brought such legislation to the table? The fact that you throw out terms like fear, paranoia, and scared shows you aren’t open to honest talk and your opinion must reign, while all others hold no validity.
(07-31-2018, 11:52 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
In certain situations, yes, that is too much to ask, even of a person who doesn't own firearms. Any angry/jilted/jealous ex-wife/girlfriend can walk into a police station or court, sign an affidavit claiming that you physically abused and/or threatened her and obtain a temporary, ex parte, restraining order. Sadly, this all to often occurs in attempts to gain leverage in divorce and custody battles.
Under this new law, the respondent shall then bear the burden of essentially proving by "...clear and convincing evidence..." that the allegation is false, before the court will vacate the order. In a he said/she said scenario, there is often no way to definitively prove or disprove such claims and the courts tend to err on the side of caution, so...………...
That is applicable only after a full risk protection order is issued. Before that, there is a hearing where the respondent could potentially rebut the evidence provided. In cases where a temporary ex parte risk protection order was issued, that order automatically ends and a hearing for a full risk protection order is held. Please read subsections (3) and (4) carefully. And this law specifically states that a false statement is a third degree felony, so hopefully that will eliminate most false claims against a respondent.
(07-31-2018, 11:52 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
In certain situations, yes, that is too much to ask, even of a person who doesn't own firearms. Any angry/jilted/jealous ex-wife/girlfriend can walk into a police station or court, sign an affidavit claiming that you physically abused and/or threatened her and obtain a temporary, ex parte, restraining order. Sadly, this all to often occurs in attempts to gain leverage in divorce and custody battles.
Under this new law, the respondent shall then bear the burden of essentially proving by "...clear and convincing evidence..." that the allegation is false, before the court will vacate the order. In a he said/she said scenario, there is often no way to definitively prove or disprove such claims and the courts tend to err on the side of caution, so...………...
You are skipping over the prior check and balance that occurs before this "respondent burden."
For the subject to initially be required to forfeit their weapon, a law enforcement officer must deem them unworthy, then petition the court to allow the forfeiture.
If a police officer deemed me a danger to myself or others and then a court of law agreed that his/her assessment was accurate, then I probably don't need to have a gun. Checked and balanced.
Seems really simple to me. Unless, of course, you think the police and the judicial system are simply out to take your guns. Which, in turn, seems really paranoid to me.
Now if we are strictly arguing the concept of a person being falsely accused of violence by a domestic partner, and that leading to a weapon seizure... that stuff was already in place before this new bill/law and I have little sympathy for folks unable to manage themselves well enough to stay clear of that crap in the first place.
Any law like this one can be weaponized against an opponent. That couldn't be more clear in today's political climate, and shouldn't need to be further explained when put in that perspective.
(07-31-2018, 03:41 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:37 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Divorce and custody would be the first things that come to mind ripe for abuse.
Kids are SWATing people and getting them killed. All for nothing, because they got angry at another person online and made up a dangerous 911 story.
A relative "baker-acting" someone doesn't just instantly make that person a candidate for gun ownership denial.
Law enforcement must intervene and convince the court of danger.
(edit: law enforcement could in fact take a weapon from an individual being involuntarily Baker Acted for 72 hours if the officer deems that action appropriate. To keep the weapon any longer requires court approval.)
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018/03/2...458854002/
If you are getting baker acted, which is for suidcidal or homicidal ideation, then by definition law enforcement is trying to convince the court that you are a danger to yourself or others. I am pretty sure your guns are going away.
Don't forget the marchman act as well, but that one is 3 pages instead of 1, cops prefer the baker. Its not hard for police to baker act people at all.
(07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 04:31 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]So a person has to predict the future and prove a negative in order to exercise his legal, moral and Constitutional right to self defense? And when do these interviews occur? Each morning at the police station or do they come to your house? After all, you might have had an evil thought since yesterday's interview.
Your perspective is so skewed I’d need to catch a rocket to Saturn to begin deciding where to start explaining this to you.
All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others. Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms? Of anyone?
I have no idea what these interviews you're going on about are.
The cops have to determine whether they think you are a threat to yourself or others before dragging you off. If your intoxicated, your probably going to spend a night in the ward. A common example would be someone jumping in the street in front of traffic, especially if the person is known to law enforcement, they are going to the psych center.
(07-31-2018, 09:58 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 05:46 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]For those of you disagreeing with the law, the reasons you give, make you sound a little paranoid. Like if you look at someone wrong, they will falsely report you and get your guns confiscated. I'm a gun owner and this law doesn't bother me at all. I have no enemies "as far as I know", no criminal record and no history of mental issues, so I should have nothing to worry about if this turns into a federal law. Some of you are trying to create outlandish and unrealistic situations, just so you'll have something to argue about.
It isn’t as off base as you believe. See California, Maryland, and Delaware where there are countless examples if a similar system being abused. One of the most common, at least in Delaware, is an ex spouse claiming they feel threatened. Only “proof” is a signed affidavit. Judges more times than not sign off everytime as to error on the side of caution. At least there, a hearing is held in front of a judge in 30 days to readdress the matter.
There is potential for abuse of this type of confiscation system. Anyway, I think this was rushed and is nothing by a “feel good” law. Wouldn’t have stopped any of the past events.
This is basically how a Baker act works in action as well in that situation. Its a lot easier to err on the side of caution (with suspicion), commit someone for 72 hours and let a court appointed officer make a determination with a psychiatrist. When compared with the alternative of doing nothing and something bad happening, its easy to see how they think.
Why would an ex partner care if you had a gun or not? Unless they were genuinely threatened by that fact...
(08-01-2018, 08:45 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Why would an ex partner care if you had a gun or not? Unless they were genuinely threatened by that fact...
You just proved my point.
(08-01-2018, 06:54 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:41 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]A relative "baker-acting" someone doesn't just instantly make that person a candidate for gun ownership denial.
Law enforcement must intervene and convince the court of danger.
(edit: law enforcement could in fact take a weapon from an individual being involuntarily Baker Acted for 72 hours if the officer deems that action appropriate. To keep the weapon any longer requires court approval.)
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018/03/2...458854002/
If you are getting baker acted, which is for suidcidal or homicidal ideation, then by definition law enforcement is trying to convince the court that you are a danger to yourself or others. I am pretty sure your guns are going away.
People get "baker-acted" all the time without having their weapons confiscated. In 2016 there were nearly 200,000 baker acts initiated in FL. I'd bet a small percentage of them actually had weapons confiscated, but I'd be curious to see the actual numbers if you can find them.
The fact that so many people were deemed "unfit" by baker acts and numerous other designations -- but still allowed to possess weapons -- this is THE REASON this new bill was passed in the first place.
(08-01-2018, 11:54 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2018, 06:54 PM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are getting baker acted, which is for suidcidal or homicidal ideation, then by definition law enforcement is trying to convince the court that you are a danger to yourself or others. I am pretty sure your guns are going away.
People get "baker-acted" all the time without having their weapons confiscated. In 2016 there were nearly 200,000 baker acts initiated in FL. I'd bet a small percentage of them actually had weapons confiscated, but I'd be curious to see the actual numbers if you can find them.
The fact that so many people were deemed "unfit" by baker acts and numerous other designations -- but still allowed to possess weapons -- this is THE REASON this new bill was passed in the first place.
Ive personally seen the Baker Act used incorrectly enough times to distrust this new law.