Florida Concealed Carry banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Around September 2009, in NW Florida, I was baker acted for 72 hours. The police had a valid reason at the time to take me to a crisis center. Long story short, I made some comments online and it resulted in someone contacting the police, they showed up at my door and had asked if I had any weapons in the home. I disputed their right to take my weapons and they stated they had a right to their safety and I was asked to come outside with them which I was handcuffed. I asked multiple times if I was under arrest and was told I was not and it was for their safety. I asked for a lawyer and was told I did not need one.

I arrived at a crisis center and was interviewed, I denied being suicidal or wanting to harm myself, I was taken to the hospital due to kidney pain and transported, I was interviewed again by hospital staff and told I was being held under the baker act, I was in a section with others also under the baker act in hospital beds. I was transported to the psychward for a few hours then removed and transported back to the crisis center. I asked staff about my guns and if it would impact joining the military and told I needed to contact a psychiatrist.

Within 24 hours I was brought to some form of board or commitee of doctors and was told nothing was wrong with me and sounded like an outburst, they were going to release me and I had called my mother who petitioned against it and wanted to be allowed to speak, the doctors advised me about this and I was coerced into potentially being kicked out of the house, my mother made comments which the doctors wanted to keep me for 48 more hours so 72 hours and I argued she was going to affect everything. I signed a document which I dont remember what it was and then was released, I was told to followup regarding discharge and asked about other facilities where I was moving to, I dont remember much about the details. I dont recall ever meeting any judge.

I attempted to get my guns back which the local pd originally gave me run arounds and was told to contact the clerk of the courts who if I recall referred me back to the PD. I called a few months later and told they would do a background check and release them. I was given back my guns in 2010.

I consulted with many people including a lawyer, my cousin who himself is active law enforcement and was familiar with the situation, I was told that it wasnt a commitment but an involuntary examination for observation. I have contacted the police involved years later, the hospital, the facility and they said the documents would have been shredded or destroyed due to how long ago this was.

I bought guns and passed background checks in 2011, 2012, I believe 2018 and 2 times in 2022 with instant approval. I have reviewed the baker act and it appears the new process a person has to sign a document and a prohibition is usually submitted to FDLE which I think this was not retroactive but changed in 2016? Is it safe to assume that I am not a prohibited person and due to the time period and passing the background checks I am safe to apply for a ccw permit?
 

Super Moderator
Joined
31,887 Posts
Around September 2009, in NW Florida, I was baker acted for 72 hours. The police had a valid reason at the time to take me to a crisis center. Long story short, I made some comments online and it resulted in someone contacting the police, they showed up at my door and had asked if I had any weapons in the home. I disputed their right to take my weapons and they stated they had a right to their safety and I was asked to come outside with them which I was handcuffed. I asked multiple times if I was under arrest and was told I was not and it was for their safety. I asked for a lawyer and was told I did not need one.

I arrived at a crisis center and was interviewed, I denied being suicidal or wanting to harm myself, I was taken to the hospital due to kidney pain and transported, I was interviewed again by hospital staff and told I was being held under the baker act, I was in a section with others also under the baker act in hospital beds. I was transported to the psychward for a few hours then removed and transported back to the crisis center. I asked staff about my guns and if it would impact joining the military and told I needed to contact a psychiatrist.

Within 24 hours I was brought to some form of board or commitee of doctors and was told nothing was wrong with me and sounded like an outburst, they were going to release me and I had called my mother who petitioned against it and wanted to be allowed to speak, the doctors advised me about this and I was coerced into potentially being kicked out of the house, my mother made comments which the doctors wanted to keep me for 48 more hours so 72 hours and I argued she was going to affect everything. I signed a document which I dont remember what it was and then was released, I was told to followup regarding discharge and asked about other facilities where I was moving to, I dont remember much about the details. I dont recall ever meeting any judge.

I attempted to get my guns back which the local pd originally gave me run arounds and was told to contact the clerk of the courts who if I recall referred me back to the PD. I called a few months later and told they would do a background check and release them. I was given back my guns in 2010.

I consulted with many people including a lawyer, my cousin who himself is active law enforcement and was familiar with the situation, I was told that it wasnt a commitment but an involuntary examination for observation. I have contacted the police involved years later, the hospital, the facility and they said the documents would have been shredded or destroyed due to how long ago this was.

I bought guns and passed background checks in 2011, 2012, I believe 2018 and 2 times in 2022 with instant approval. I have reviewed the baker act and it appears the new process a person has to sign a document and a prohibition is usually submitted to FDLE which I think this was not retroactive but changed in 2016? Is it safe to assume that I am not a prohibited person and due to the time period and passing the background checks I am safe to apply for a ccw permit?
Welcome to FCC from Palm Beach County, Cerebellum! 馃嵒

I got to your post too late to consider and provide my input on your questions, but considering that you've just recently joined FCC, please take the time to actually educate yourself on how FCC really works (see last paragraph below) and then please post you're own proper Introduction Thread to FCC. This lets forum members get to know you more, of course without getting too personal while you also get to know us more! You can make that introduction by going to the Introduce Yourself section of The Front Office and start your very own introduction thread. Then lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, will be more responsive in answering your questions.

If you're a veteran, take a look at our Military Service Thread where you'll find many of us there, too!

In case you weren't aware, you can stay current on pertinent Florida Statutes regarding use of force and firearms law by going right to the source using these links for Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force and Chapter 790 - Weapons and Firearms. I'd also like to suggest you obtain your own copy of FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership by Jon Gutmacher!

Also, I highly recommend you read this thread to understand how to navigate FCC to get the most out of your experience. One particular item that's caught many veteran FCC members off guard is the "Recommended Reading" at the bottom of each page, which MAY contain quite old threads of inactive conversations lacking up-to-date information or context. So beware of the date of the last post (just to the right of the post number) in any thread you come across so you don't mistakenly think every post is recent and start responding to very old posts/threads that been dormant for quite some time, sometimes for many years.

Again, welcome to FCC and good luck! :cool:
 

Registered
Joined
9,202 Posts
I would think so but I'm no expert and our favorite lawyer is out on sick leave, back injury and some one pissed Roger off . Calling all Shark's with back pain.
 

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
So it looks like in 2013 the definition was changed, I am not a lawyer so not to be intepreted as legal advice but I don't believe this is retroactive because the underlined portion were changes to submit people to a prohibited persons list maintained by the FDLE.

The 4 criteria I dont believe existed prior to 2013 but looks to have been added to include involuntary examinations if/and the person was changed to a voluntary or involuntary status under certain circumstances and had signed documentation resulting in some form of placement. I am assuming this is why I am not on a prohibited list because it was prior to 2013.

HB 1355
b. As used in this subparagraph, "committed to a mental 54 institution" means involuntary commitment, commitment for mental 55 defectiveness or mental illness, and commitment for substance

abuse. The phrase includes involuntary inpatient placement as 57 defined in s. 394.467, involuntary outpatient placement as 58 defined in s. 394.4655, involuntary assessment and stabilization 59 under s. 397.6818, and involuntary substance abuse treatment 60 under s. 397.6957, but does not include a person in a mental 61 institution for observation or discharged from a mental 62 institution based upon the initial review by the physician or a 63 voluntary admission to a mental institution, unless the 64 voluntary admission was for outpatient or inpatient treatment of 65 a person who had an involuntary examination under s. 394.463, 66 and: 67 (I) The examining physician found that the person is an 68 imminent danger to himself or herself or others; 69 (II) The examining physician certified that if the person 70 did not agree to voluntary treatment, a petition for involuntary 71 outpatient or inpatient treatment would have been filed under s. 72 394.463(2)(i)4.; 73 (III) Before agreeing to voluntary treatment, the person 74 received written notice of that finding and certification, and 75 written notice that as a result of such finding, he or she would 76 be prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and would not be 77 eligible to apply for or retain a concealed weapon or firearms 78 license under s. 790.06 and the person acknowledged such notice 79 in writing, in substantially the following form: 80 81 "I understand that the doctor who examined me believes 82 I am a danger to myself or to others. I understand 83 that if I do not agree to voluntary treatment, the
doctor will file a petition in court to require me to 85 receive involuntary treatment. I understand that if 86 that petition is filed, I have the right to contest 87 it. I understand that by agreeing to voluntary 88 treatment in this situation, I will be prohibited from 89 buying firearms and from applying for or retaining a 90 concealed weapons or firearms license until I apply 91 for and receive relief from that restriction under 92 Florida law." 93 94 (IV) Within 24 hours after the person's agreement to 95 voluntary admission, a record of the finding, certification, 96 notice, and written acknowledgement is filed with the clerk of 97 the court for the county in which the involuntary examination 98 under s. 394.463 occurred and the clerk presented the records to 99 a judge or magistrate within 24 hours after receipt of the 100 records. 101 (V) A judge or a magistrate has the lawful authority to 102 review the record classifying the person as an imminent danger 103 to himself or herself or others, and to approve the record for 104 submittal to the department. If a judge or magistrate approves 105 the submittal of the records to the department, it must be 106 submitted to the department within 24 hours. 107 c. In order to check for these conditions, the department 108 shall compile and maintain an automated database of persons who 109 are prohibited from purchasing a firearm based on court records 110 of adjudications of mental defectiveness or commitments to 111 mental institutions. Clerks of court shall submit these records to the department within 1 month after the rendition of the 113 adjudication or commitment. Reports shall be submitted in an 114 automated format. The reports must, at a minimum, include the 115 name, along with any known alias or former name, the sex, and 116 the date of birth of the subject.
 

Registered
Joined
7,967 Posts
Around September 2009, in NW Florida, I was baker acted for 72 hours. The police had a valid reason at the time to take me to a crisis center. Long story short, I made some comments online and it resulted in someone contacting the police, they showed up at my door and had asked if I had any weapons in the home. I disputed their right to take my weapons and they stated they had a right to their safety and I was asked to come outside with them which I was handcuffed. I asked multiple times if I was under arrest and was told I was not and it was for their safety. I asked for a lawyer and was told I did not need one.

I arrived at a crisis center and was interviewed, I denied being suicidal or wanting to harm myself, I was taken to the hospital due to kidney pain and transported, I was interviewed again by hospital staff and told I was being held under the baker act, I was in a section with others also under the baker act in hospital beds. I was transported to the psychward for a few hours then removed and transported back to the crisis center. I asked staff about my guns and if it would impact joining the military and told I needed to contact a psychiatrist.

Within 24 hours I was brought to some form of board or commitee of doctors and was told nothing was wrong with me and sounded like an outburst, they were going to release me and I had called my mother who petitioned against it and wanted to be allowed to speak, the doctors advised me about this and I was coerced into potentially being kicked out of the house, my mother made comments which the doctors wanted to keep me for 48 more hours so 72 hours and I argued she was going to affect everything. I signed a document which I dont remember what it was and then was released, I was told to followup regarding discharge and asked about other facilities where I was moving to, I dont remember much about the details. I dont recall ever meeting any judge.

I attempted to get my guns back which the local pd originally gave me run arounds and was told to contact the clerk of the courts who if I recall referred me back to the PD. I called a few months later and told they would do a background check and release them. I was given back my guns in 2010.

I consulted with many people including a lawyer, my cousin who himself is active law enforcement and was familiar with the situation, I was told that it wasnt a commitment but an involuntary examination for observation. I have contacted the police involved years later, the hospital, the facility and they said the documents would have been shredded or destroyed due to how long ago this was.

I bought guns and passed background checks in 2011, 2012, I believe 2018 and 2 times in 2022 with instant approval. I have reviewed the baker act and it appears the new process a person has to sign a document and a prohibition is usually submitted to FDLE which I think this was not retroactive but changed in 2016? Is it safe to assume that I am not a prohibited person and due to the time period and passing the background checks I am safe to apply for a ccw permit?
If I may ask, are you saying that LE seized your guns anyway, even though they were Baker acting you? Also, you say they gave you the "run around." How much time lapes from the point they were seized until you got them back? And did you get them back in the same condition as when they were seized?

This is one of the reasons why I believe Red flag laws are unconstitutional. LE should not be allowed to seize the weapons as there's a risk the owner will never get them back, The owner should be allowed to give them to a 3rd party in that case.

As for Shark, I would not count on a speedy return here if at all. You might seek your own counsel. On the surface, it would seem that if you were not "adjudicated" as mentally unstable by a court, then you should not qualify as a prohibited person. Although, as others have said, IANAL, so please get you own counsel to verify.
 

Registered
Joined
56,816 Posts
If I may ask, are you saying that LE seized your guns anyway, even though they were Baker acting you? Also, you say they gave you the "run around." How much time lapes from the point they were seized until you got them back? And did you get them back in the same condition as when they were seized?

This is one of the reasons why I believe Red flag laws are unconstitutional. LE should not be allowed to seize the weapons as there's a risk the owner will never get them back, The owner should be allowed to give them to a 3rd party in that case.

As for Shark, I would not count on a speedy return here if at all. You might seek your own counsel. On the surface, it would seem that if you were not "adjudicated" as mentally unstable by a court, then you should not qualify as a prohibited person. Although, as others have said, IANAL, so please get you own counsel to verify.
Disagree on that point.
 

Registered
Joined
7,967 Posts
Disagree on that point.
I'm sure you do. And I understand why. But it's just my honest belief that there's too much of an "incentive" for LE to seize weapons and get them off the street and then create all kinds of road blocks to keep the rightful owner from getting them back. That's unacceptable. It's Theft. As is "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It happened all the time back in the PRNJ. LE would make an excuse to go raid someone's house and confiscate their weapons. When the owner was cleared, the weapons were "nowhere to be found." Totally Unacceptable.

I can understand if you don't want "private parties" to have custody of them during the adjudication process (thereby allowing the owner to get them back before the adjudication process is complete). I get that. But there are other reputable companies that offer storage for an owner's weapons for just this type of issue. Example: "Gunsitters" in PA. There could be a setup where two locks could be put on the locker. One by the owner and one by the Authority responsible for the Red flag order (or Baker act). Whichever side doesn't prevail in the proceeding has to take their lock off first upon completion. If we could get some franchieses of this or a similar service in FL, I think that would work fine.

Or do you still disagree? :)
 

Premium Member
Joined
6,739 Posts
Watch what you say on FartBook and Tweeter.
Ronnie

PS: I say a lot of stupid crap on this forum, but I got "G" ---"BH" and the rest of you to keep me straight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeerHunter

Registered
Joined
56,816 Posts
I'm sure you do. And I understand why. But it's just my honest belief that there's too much of an "incentive" for LE to seize weapons and get them off the street and then create all kinds of road blocks to keep the rightful owner from getting them back. That's unacceptable. It's Theft. As is "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It happened all the time back in the PRNJ. LE would make an excuse to go raid someone's house and confiscate their weapons. When the owner was cleared, the weapons were "nowhere to be found." Totally Unacceptable.

I can understand if you don't want "private parties" to have custody of them during the adjudication process (thereby allowing the owner to get them back before the adjudication process is complete). I get that. But there are other reputable companies that offer storage for an owner's weapons for just this type of issue. Example: "Gunsitters" in PA. There could be a setup where two locks could be put on the locker. One by the owner and one by the Authority responsible for the Red flag order (or Baker act). Whichever side doesn't prevail in the proceeding has to take their lock off first upon completion. If we could get some franchieses of this or a similar service in FL, I think that would work fine.

Or do you still disagree? :)
A set up as you describe might work well. But there's nothing in place nationwide presently.
 

Premium Member
Joined
6,739 Posts
The Baker act has been in Florida since 1972 and has been abused ever since.
Ronnie

PS:
I should say , " Abused by some people" ever since.
 

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
If I may ask, are you saying that LE seized your guns anyway, even though they were Baker acting you? Also, you say they gave you the "run around." How much time lapes from the point they were seized until you got them back? And did you get them back in the same condition as when they were seized?

This is one of the reasons why I believe Red flag laws are unconstitutional. LE should not be allowed to seize the weapons as there's a risk the owner will never get them back, The owner should be allowed to give them to a 3rd party in that case.

As for Shark, I would not count on a speedy return here if at all. You might seek your own counsel. On the surface, it would seem that if you were not "adjudicated" as mentally unstable by a court, then you should not qualify as a prohibited person. Although, as others have said, IANAL, so please get you own counsel to verify.
Law enforcement seized the guns yes, a Romanian G AKM clone that was sold to me private party and a D-Technik VZ58 rifle and ammunition.

We are talking about an event that happened in September 2009. Initially when trying to get back my guns, I was told the ammunition was destroyed and that I had to have clearance by a psychologist or the clerk of courts to get these guns back, I contacted the clerk of courts who from memory stated I needed to contact the police department involved. My cousin had the ammunition and returned it to me. I called stating that I wanted my guns back and they told me they would run a background check and give them back if I provided receipts. I got them back around January 2010 so 4 months later in original condition.

The issue was that the attorney general had released a letter that if a person was not charged with a crime that firearms were personal property and had to be returned.


The specific issue at that time was while "property" could be returned, it wasn't clear if under federal law it made someone prohibited to purchase new firearms as the term "committed to a mental institution". On form 4473 there is an instruction set that states a person in a mental facility for observation may mark "No" on the question and Florida for some time did not have a clear definition on what was considered an involuntary commitment although I think this was reflecting criminal convictions (not guilty reason of insanity). My case as far as I am aware was ex parte by 2 police officers(?) but as far as a court, I never saw a judge nor was provided any legal council despite asking for it multiple times.

The recent changes to the baker act seem to imply now that an involuntary examination (and switching status) now counts someone as lnvoluntarily committed as of 2013 but its not clear if its retroactive.

 

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
The specific issue is commonly known as firearms disability relief in Florida which to my knowledge did not exist prior to 2013 for a baker act because it doesnt appear a person was submitted to this database at that time. I would assume in a hypothetical situation if the same happened today, a person would be detained and then at the 72 hour mark the board would make a decision, file the documentation with FDLE and the clerk of the courts and the person would be provided legal council and have a hearing to determine inplacement status similar to any other probate court.

Additionally here is a faq myflfamilies and some of the challenges law enforcement faced regarding weapons. This stood out.

[/URL]

There is an interesting note in the document, I think this may have applied up until 2013.

"The attorney for the Miami Dade Police Department issue the following advice: LEGAL NOTE 2005-4 by Miami-Dade Police Legal Bureau May 5, 2005. Chapter 933.14 states that no pistol or firearm taken by any officer with or without a search warrant upon a view by the officer of a breach of the peace shall be returned except pursuant to an order of a trial court judge. Breach of the peace is a generic term which includes disturbances of public peace or order. Use of a firearm or a threat or reference to use of a firearm would constitute a breach of the peace. An incident which resulted in taking a person into custody pursuant to the Baker Act would also constitute a breach of the peace. As a general rule, when an officer impounds a firearm for safekeeping only, this is an indication that no breach of the peace occurred. With every case, review of the police report should indicate whether the incident was a breach of the peace, and if the narrative so indicates, the firearm should not be returned without a court order. (see AGO below) However, the above legal advice was contradicted by the Attorney General in 2009 as follows: AGO 2009-04 Regarding Confiscation and return of firearms by law enforcement agencies when firearm owner is subject to Baker Act Evaluation . In the absence of an arrest and criminal charge against the person sent for evaluation under the Baker Act, the Sheriff may not retain firearms confiscated at the time of the event. Baker Act proceedings are not criminal proceedings. The AG suggested the Sheriff seek legislation to address the problem. "

"790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons. (2)USES NOT AUTHORIZED.鈥 (b)The protections of this section do not apply to the following:

1.A person who has been adjudged mentally incompetent, who is addicted to the use of narcotics or any similar drug, or who is a habitual or chronic alcoholic, or a person using weapons or firearms in violation of ss. 790.07-790.115, 790.145790.19, 790.22-790.24; 2.Vagrants and other undesirable persons as defined in 1s. 856.02; 3.A person in or about a place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05, unless such person is there for law enforcement or some other lawful purpose. Much of the above language is very vague and imprecise. Words or phrases such as 鈥渃ommitment鈥, 鈥渁djudication鈥, 鈥渦nsound mind鈥, etc are unclear and not consistent with the Baker Act or other mental health statutes. A simple voluntary or involuntary examination under the Baker Act may not be sufficient 鈥 it may actually require an adversarial hearing before a judge resulting in a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the person meets involuntary inpatient or involuntary outpatient placement, along with an order for placement or treatment. Finally, the following issue might be of interest regarding 933.14, FS that governs Search & Inspection. "

see page 7 towards the end, the general council for the sheriff

This was a reply by the individual answering a question about commitments and a central registry

"There isn鈥檛 a central registry. The form initiating each involuntary examination must be submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration within one working day after the person鈥檚 arrival at the facility. These are submitted to the Florida Mental Health Institute at USF for inputting into the Baker Act reporting system. As you point out, these are examinations, not commitments. Since 1/1/05, receiving facilities have also been required to submit involuntary placement orders of the court 鈥 what probably would be considered 鈥渃ommitments鈥, although this terminology isn鈥檛 used in Florida. Submission of these orders has been inconsistent. Most people are either released prior to their involuntary placement court hearing or are transferred to voluntary status and never have the hearing at all. In any case, these records are as you suspected, highly confidential. A court could order the information released, after a good cause hearing, weighing the public鈥檚 need to know the information vs. the person鈥檚 right to privacy. Even the Florida AG has a couple of opinions out adding to the statutory protection indicating that the records of the Clerk鈥檚 of Court related to Baker Act and Marchman Act are confidential."
 

Registered
Joined
4,726 Posts
Why not apply for the permit and find out what they say? I know that there is a bit of a cost involved, but not all that much. If they deny you the permit then you will be able to find out why, and talk to an attorney with some specifics to see if it can be removed from your record. Of course, if they grant you the permit then you know all is well.
 

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Why not apply for the permit and find out what they say? I know that there is a bit of a cost involved, but not all that much. If they deny you the permit then you will be able to find out why, and talk to an attorney with some specifics to see if it can be removed from your record. Of course, if they grant you the permit then you know all is well.
My worries are with the updated statute if I fall under the state definition of committed and if I answer no if it can be interpreted as perjury.

My goal was to try and get documentation from the clerk of courts but they want me there in person, and then based on it being simply an evaluation or examination that I could provide the correct answer. Its about an hour and 20 minute drive there so I would need to certainly plan it out.

The clerk of court, police department, and hospital have not been helpful providing documentation and have really created significant obstacles.

On the 4473 I have been answering "No" because the federal form is pretty clear it wouldnt fall under a commitment and if it did, it would have been picked up on the bg check.
 

Registered
Joined
56,816 Posts
My worries are with the updated statute if I fall under the state definition of committed and if I answer no if it can be interpreted as perjury.

My goal was to try and get documentation from the clerk of courts but they want me there in person, and then based on it being simply an evaluation or examination that I could provide the correct answer. Its about an hour and 20 minute drive there so I would need to certainly plan it out.

The clerk of court, police department, and hospital have not been helpful providing documentation and have really created significant obstacles.

On the 4473 I have been answering "No" because the federal form is pretty clear it wouldnt fall under a commitment and if it did, it would have been picked up on the bg check.
If you've purchased through ffl's after being baker acted, what's the problem you're having? Obviously NICS checks don't have you as a prohibited person. Best advice, let an atty work the details of the records collection from the courts/pd's etc. Better chance of getting some documentation through his efforts.
 

Registered
Joined
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
If you've purchased through ffl's after being baker acted, what's the problem you're having? Obviously NICS checks don't have you as a prohibited person. Best advice, let an atty work the details of the records collection from the courts/pd's etc. Better chance of getting some documentation through his efforts.
The only issue is just trying to make sure I am answering the question for a ccw truthfully and not lying or marking information incorrectly.
 

Registered
Joined
56,816 Posts
The only issue is just trying to make sure I am answering the question for a ccw truthfully and not lying or marking information incorrectly.
Understood, and a 2a atty would likely be your best option on that question sir.
 

Registered
Joined
11,407 Posts
The only issue is just trying to make sure I am answering the question for a ccw truthfully and not lying or marking information incorrectly.
Considering that prohibited persons attempting to purchase firearms from licensed dealers are rarely, if ever, prosecuted, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the number of people prosecuted for lying on a Florida CWFL application is hovering right around zero.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top