Ever hear of due process and the 2nd amendment? From whet I read in the story, these people could not even defend themselves in court
450 Gun Owners See Weapons Taken Under New Florida Law
More than 450 gun owners have been ordered to give up their weapons under the Florida law that went into effect weeks after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on Feb. 14 in which 17 were killed,
Fox News reported.
Read Newsmax: 450 Gun Owners Ordered to Give Up Weapons Under New Florida Law | Newsmax.com
Without due process, if I had guns, they would mysteriously leave the warrant location before getting lost within the government system. Maybe boating accident?
As a proud, responsible, sane gun owner, I can say this is a response to the NRA's unwillingness to give an inch, when it comes to common sense gun laws. We have to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill and violent people and if lawmakers are going to be swayed by the NRA into doing nothing, then this will be the response by the far left. Right now, each side wants all or nothing and no one is willing to compromise. Extremes are what results, when people aren't willing to come to the table and make some concessions.
(07-31-2018, 01:46 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Without due process, if I had guns, they would mysteriously leave the warrant location before getting lost within the government system. Maybe boating accident?
Why? Have you been deemed to be a danger to yourself or others by the state of Florida? Because those are the only people having their weapons seized.
Seems like a very basic common sense measure that should already have been in place to me.
(07-31-2018, 02:04 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 01:46 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Without due process, if I had guns, they would mysteriously leave the warrant location before getting lost within the government system. Maybe boating accident?
Why? Have you been deemed to be a danger to yourself or others by the state of Florida? Because those are the only people having their weapons seized.
Seems like a very basic common sense measure that should already have been in place to me.
Agreed. If you have a past of violent crimes or or have been committed to a mental institution, you shouldn't be owning guns anyway.
(07-31-2018, 02:04 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 01:46 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Without due process, if I had guns, they would mysteriously leave the warrant location before getting lost within the government system. Maybe boating accident?
Why? Have you been deemed to be a danger to yourself or others by the state of Florida? Because those are the only people having their weapons seized.
Seems like a very basic common sense measure that should already have been in place to me.
How is this being measured and what is considered “sufficient evidence”? What recourse do these individuals have to prove otherwise? I know what has been said and what the law is supposed to offer, but that seems to have been placed aside. Giving up rights for the perception of increased security appears flawed and does not scream common sense.
Hey, I know you haven’t done anything wrong, but I’m going to come confiscate your vehicle because you’ve been a little stressed at work and like to enjoy a beer or two when you get home. No chance that you’ll drive intoxicated and kill someone using your car, if we have it. You can get it back in a year, maybe, if you promise to never attempt to unwind with alcohol again.
(07-31-2018, 02:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 02:04 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Why? Have you been deemed to be a danger to yourself or others by the state of Florida? Because those are the only people having their weapons seized.
Seems like a very basic common sense measure that should already have been in place to me.
How is this being measured and what is considered “sufficient evidence”? What recourse do these individuals have to prove otherwise? I know what has been said and what the law is supposed to offer, but that seems to have been placed aside. Giving up rights for the perception of increased security appears flawed and does not scream common sense.
Hey, I know you haven’t done anything wrong, but I’m going to come confiscate your vehicle because you’ve been a little stressed at work and like to enjoy a beer or two when you get home. No chance that you’ll drive intoxicated and kill someone using your car, if we have it. You can get it back in a year, maybe, if you promise to never attempt to unwind with alcohol again.
The red is where you're confused.
If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done
something wrong.
Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure. The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.
(07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 02:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]How is this being measured and what is considered “sufficient evidence”? What recourse do these individuals have to prove otherwise? I know what has been said and what the law is supposed to offer, but that seems to have been placed aside. Giving up rights for the perception of increased security appears flawed and does not scream common sense.
Hey, I know you haven’t done anything wrong, but I’m going to come confiscate your vehicle because you’ve been a little stressed at work and like to enjoy a beer or two when you get home. No chance that you’ll drive intoxicated and kill someone using your car, if we have it. You can get it back in a year, maybe, if you promise to never attempt to unwind with alcohol again.
The red is where you're confused.
If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done something wrong.
Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure. The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.
Am I? My issue isn’t with the intent of the law. All for it. Blindly going with the flow of some arbitrary system seems dangerous.
(07-31-2018, 02:44 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The red is where you're confused.
If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done something wrong.
Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure. The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.
Am I? My issue isn’t with the intent of the law. All for it. Blindly going with the flow of some arbitrary system seems dangerous.
So you think the system with which the state of Florida deems an individual dangerous to himself or others is "arbitrary?"
What I'm reading seems to suggest that the law is plenty specific but unfortunately only marginally enforced with tens of thousands slipping through the cracks.
All it would take is for some relative of yours to get pissed off at you and report you. You would have no recourse even if the allegation is unfounded. You do not have the right to represent yourself in court to challenge these orders so....
The law effectively stripped away your 2nd amendment rights without due process....
It's a BS Law
(07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 02:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]How is this being measured and what is considered “sufficient evidence”? What recourse do these individuals have to prove otherwise? I know what has been said and what the law is supposed to offer, but that seems to have been placed aside. Giving up rights for the perception of increased security appears flawed and does not scream common sense.
Hey, I know you haven’t done anything wrong, but I’m going to come confiscate your vehicle because you’ve been a little stressed at work and like to enjoy a beer or two when you get home. No chance that you’ll drive intoxicated and kill someone using your car, if we have it. You can get it back in a year, maybe, if you promise to never attempt to unwind with alcohol again.
The red is where you're confused.
If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done something wrong.
Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure. The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.
I have not seen the criteria that states what level of proof the state needs to deem you dangerous. Where did find it? In the example B2 gave the confiscatee has done nothing wrong. I believe we all agree some people should not be in possession of firearms, the fear of abusing that concept is a valid concern IMO.
I understand and support the law as it's intended.
However, this is one of those laws that has the potential to be abused.
If the tail wags the dog, one could decide we want to take their guns and then go on a search to find "danger" to justify taking them.
Kind of like what we're seeing today... we have our target person in our sights we want to nail because of political or personal reasons, now we have to find (or perhaps even create) a crime... even if unrelated to the focus of the intended investigation.
(07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The red is where you're confused.
If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done something wrong.
Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure. The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.
I have not seen the criteria that states what level of proof the state needs to deem you dangerous. Where did find it? In the example B2 gave the confiscatee has done nothing wrong. I believe we all agree some people should not be in possession of firearms, the fear of abusing that concept is a valid concern IMO.
Law enforcement must petition the court system to issue a "temporary restraining order" on an individual's gun ownership and the court must sign off on each individual case. Law enforcement must convince the court that the individual is a danger to himself or others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...454395002/
A responsible gun owner who doesn't manage to convince law enforcement that he/she is a danger to themself or others should have no trepidation of such a law.
(07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]All it would take is for some relative of yours to get pissed off at you and report you. You would have no recourse even if the allegation is unfounded. You do not have the right to represent yourself in court to challenge these orders so....
The law effectively stripped away your 2nd amendment rights without due process....
It's a BS Law
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.
(07-31-2018, 03:37 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]All it would take is for some relative of yours to get pissed off at you and report you. You would have no recourse even if the allegation is unfounded. You do not have the right to represent yourself in court to challenge these orders so....
The law effectively stripped away your 2nd amendment rights without due process....
It's a BS Law
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/
(07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]All it would take is for some relative of yours to get pissed off at you and report you. You would have no recourse even if the allegation is unfounded. You do not have the right to represent yourself in court to challenge these orders so....
The law effectively stripped away your 2nd amendment rights without due process....
It's a BS Law
This law requires that the petitioner (the relative in your scenario) makes an affidavit under oath "stating the specific statements actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent." If the petitioner makes a false statement, he or she has committed a third degree felony per this law.
(07-31-2018, 03:35 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]I have not seen the criteria that states what level of proof the state needs to deem you dangerous. Where did find it? In the example B2 gave the confiscatee has done nothing wrong. I believe we all agree some people should not be in possession of firearms, the fear of abusing that concept is a valid concern IMO.
Law enforcement must petition the court system to issue a "temporary restraining order" on an individual's gun ownership and the court must sign off on each individual case. Law enforcement must convince the court that the individual is a danger to himself or others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...454395002/
A responsible gun owner who doesn't manage to convince law enforcement that he/she is a danger to themself or others should have no trepidation of such a law.
Thanks for the link.
(07-31-2018, 03:35 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]I have not seen the criteria that states what level of proof the state needs to deem you dangerous. Where did find it? In the example B2 gave the confiscatee has done nothing wrong. I believe we all agree some people should not be in possession of firearms, the fear of abusing that concept is a valid concern IMO.
Law enforcement must petition the court system to issue a "temporary restraining order" on an individual's gun ownership and the court must sign off on each individual case. Law enforcement must convince the court that the individual is a danger to himself or others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...454395002/
A responsible gun owner who doesn't manage to convince law enforcement that he/she is a danger to themself or others should have no trepidation of such a law.
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.
(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.
(07-31-2018, 04:31 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (07-31-2018, 03:35 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Law enforcement must petition the court system to issue a "temporary restraining order" on an individual's gun ownership and the court must sign off on each individual case. Law enforcement must convince the court that the individual is a danger to himself or others.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...454395002/
A responsible gun owner who doesn't manage to convince law enforcement that he/she is a danger to themself or others should have no trepidation of such a law.
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.