[7.62Kolectr]

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.

Baker Act is different than Red Flag law. To baker act someone it takes three concerned people to all agree and file for it on behalf of the person they are worried about. Done it twice in my life.

As for Shark he’s active elsewhere. His absence here is not due to his health.

 

[OHEng]

Cerebellum, since you are here in Pensacola, you might consider contacting Emerald Coast Legal Aid unless you want to hire an attorney. I'm not sure if they can help you in this matter or not, but they do a lot of family court work and that includes Baker and Marchman Act issues.

What fogs a clear answer to your question is the matter of changes to the act over the years. Were it to happen today, you wouldn't have a problem because when someone is taken for evaluation under Baker, that's not the involuntary admission to a mental facility anyone is worried about. All a Baker Act court order does is authorize a person to either go willingly or unwillingly to a facility for evaluation. That evaluation is going to do one of two things: it will say no you aren't a danger and you can be released, or it will say you are/are likely a danger and you need to remain in custody for further evaluation and/or treatment. Then the court has to order that continued custody, and THAT's the trip lever. If after the initial evaluation you are released, the only thing that should be on your record is that you were ordered in for an evaluation, that's it.

But has it always been that way? Probably, but only a legal professional can answer that.

 

[Cerebellum]

Cerebellum, since you are here in Pensacola, you might consider contacting Emerald Coast Legal Aid unless you want to hire an attorney. I'm not sure if they can help you in this matter or not, but they do a lot of family court work and that includes Baker and Marchman Act issues.

What fogs a clear answer to your question is the matter of changes to the act over the years. Were it to happen today, you wouldn't have a problem because when someone is taken for evaluation under Baker, that's not the involuntary admission to a mental facility anyone is worried about. All a Baker Act court order does is authorize a person to either go willingly or unwillingly to a facility for evaluation. That evaluation is going to do one of two things: it will say no you aren't a danger and you can be released, or it will say you are/are likely a danger and you need to remain in custody for further evaluation and/or treatment. Then the court has to order that continued custody, and THAT's the trip lever. If after the initial evaluation you are released, the only thing that should be on your record is that you were ordered in for an evaluation, that's it.

But has it always been that way? Probably, but only a legal professional can answer that.

Thanks, I tried to request the court documents if they exist and nothing shows on the ecertify or clerk of courts page. I even had problems getting the information when I asked the police for a copy of the report. I suppose at this point, I should try since I am clear on everything else.

 

[Anduril]

I am of the opinion / understanding / belief that if you can legally buy a firearm, you are eligible for Concealed Carry.
...and Florida is a "shall-issue" state.

So, you may have to jump through some hoops, but I don't know of anybody who can legally own/buy firearms who is not also automatically eligible for a concealed carry permit. The disqualifying criteria are the same for both. The CCW just requires more info (fingerprints, etc..)

I am not a lawyer.
Best of luck to you.
From Boca Raton

 

[FfNJGTFO]

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.

Receipts..... Another way LE can try to tie things up. How often is it that an owner actually keeps "receipts" for things not purchased by a dealer? Or not NIB? I believe the seizing authority is who should be writing and providing the "receipt." There should be a specific inventory of the items taken, pictures, serial nos., etc. etc. and printed out and given to the owner before the weapons leave the premises. Otherwise, LE could claim, "Hey, we didn't take it....." even if they know bloody well they did. Again... the games people play... just for a little "revenue enhancement."

Furthermore, I believe one should (for Insurance and other purposes), to keep things like the box it came in with the serial labels and take photos of those boxes. At least you can claim you had posession of it, even if you don't have a purchase receipt for it.

 

[brownie]

Receipts..... Another way LE can try to tie things up. How often is it that an owner actually keeps "receipts" for things not purchased by a dealer? Or not NIB? I believe the seizing authority is who should be writing and providing the "receipt." There should be a specific inventory of the items taken, pictures, serial nos., etc. etc. and printed out and given to the owner before the weapons leave the premises. Otherwise, LE could claim, "Hey, we didn't take it....." even if they know bloody well they did. Again... the games people play... just for a little "revenue enhancement."

Furthermore, I believe one should (for Insurance and other purposes), to keep things like the box it came in with the serial labels and take photos of those boxes. At least you can claim you had posession of it, even if you don't have a purchase receipt for it.

Lea's would normally have taken an inventory of the guns, not unlike their inventorying a vehicles contents when it's taken into custody and searched.

They may say they don't have one, but if that dept has a policy of making one of anything seized, and it wasn't performed per SOP's, there's a civil law suit the town fathers will pay handsomely for because the lea/leo's who should have inventoried per SOP are now guilty of nonfeasance causing undue harm to a citizen.

Once the lawsuit is brought forward, watch how fast they find the "inventory" list of items taken. In the case of firearms, serial numbers would be listed for each piece, if for no other reason than to check the national hot sheet for stolen firearms.

 

[Cerebellum]

I am of the opinion / understanding / belief that if you can legally buy a firearm, you are eligible for Concealed Carry.
...and Florida is a "shall-issue" state.

So, you may have to jump through some hoops, but I don't know of anybody who can legally own/buy firearms who is not also automatically eligible for a concealed carry permit. The disqualifying criteria are the same for both. The CCW just requires more info (fingerprints, etc..)

I am not a lawyer.
Best of luck to you.
From Boca Raton

Oh believe me, there is a ton of misinformation floating out there online, one word of "baker act" and everyone believes they are an attorney. Surprisingly there are many attorneys as well who either are misinformed on the law or deliberately providing half truths for clientel.

I was extremely careful when I was in the facility, I was certainly not in the best frame of mind as it was the middle of the collapse of the housing market and all kinds of regretful things I said at the time, but I also knew I had to be careful how I worded things because I did not want to potentially destroy my rights. Getting well is important as well as recognizing the issue but when it comes to permanently handicapping rights? I see it as if someone broke a leg and was told they can never drive again as if a leg cannot heal or a mind cannot heal.

I spoke in length with a friend - attorney whos a 2A advocate out of Texas but went to lawschool in Florida. My cousin I doubt would risk his career knowing the background and I trust his word as well that he is also providing the correct information.

The way the baker act was written is they call it "civil commitment" which there is really no formal due process being ex parte. It is a terrifying experience because you are at the mercy of the facility and the verbiage of the laws can create an absolute nightmare. As seen with the links I posted, many law enforcement are confused on who is prohibited and who isnt, the process to returning firearms, even giffords law center provides conflicting information to what the AG said years ago and creates a duo impression.

I am thinking the intent of the law was more along the lines of say a mother who drowns her children and is tried and pleads guilty due to reason of insanity and is sentenced to custody of the state in a psychward or a person who is arrested by the police and kept beyond the 72 hours and forced treatment for something like schizophrenia or bipolar. I would imagine many people would be permanently disbarred otherwise.

I have 2 friends ineligible to possess a firearm in 2 different states. One is in Texas, he calls it a 5150 and attempted to buy a firearm, he received a denial code with NICS and received a call from the ATF letting him know hes prohibited and if he tried to attempt to purchase again it was a felony. He found out a judge apparently had submitted the information but has no recollection of if he saw a judge. He was told to file a petition for relief from firearms disability.

The other friend is from Chicago, he seems rather secretive or not completely forthcoming about his situation saying the psychiatrist "lied" and he was there for several months, I have asked him multiple times if he saw a judge, his was a suicide attempt. He was told to see an approved psychiatrist and denied a FOID card Illinois.

Did my situation suck? Absolutely, being stuck in front of multiple doctors and psychiatrists judged and my mother speaking on my behalf telling them how my father was crazy and attempting to convince them I needed to stay there, I felt powerless and in a position that being younger if I hadnt, I would be without a place to stay and it left lasting impressions and a fear that I was forever barred. The uncertainty to this day is still there.

The only relief I have is that
1) no hospital, crisis center has records
2) Unable or unwillingness for police/clerk to release documentation
3)No documentation exists on the clerk websites
4) A cousin in LEO and a Lawyer friend reassuring me that in their belief I am not prohibited
5) passing multiple NICS checks over the last 11 years on 4473s

This is about as much closure as I will have.

 

[OHEng]

Cerebellum, below is a flow chart of the Baker process from a handbook on the Baker Act put out by FL Dept. of Children and Families. It's dated 2014, and I don't see any obvious differences from how it works today. My understanding is that when an individual case makes it to the very bottom row of boxes, where the court orders involuntary treatment, that's the point where notification would be sent to FDLE or any other agency that might impact a CWFL or a firearm purchase. Again, I am not a lawyer, so seek one of those to give you a definitive answer. I'm posting this not just for you but for benefit of others who might want to understand the process better.

Baker Act Flow Chart

 

[Cerebellum]

Cerebellum, below is a flow chart of the Baker process from a handbook on the Baker Act put out by FL Dept. of Children and Families. It's dated 2014, and I don't see any obvious differences from how it works today. My understanding is that when an individual case makes it to the very bottom row of boxes, where the court orders involuntary treatment, that's the point where notification would be sent to FDLE or any other agency that might impact a CWFL or a firearm purchase. Again, I am not a lawyer, so seek one of those to give you a definitive answer. I'm posting this not just for you but for benefit of others who might want to understand the process better.

Baker Act Flow Chart

Hello, so I never made it past the 72 hours and was discharged, I do not believe any judge was involved in my case, just a board of doctors and was encouraged to continue a treatment plan near where I lived if I recall.

The changes occurred under Rick Scott in 2013, I believe the changes that occurred was that there were 4 criteria that had to be provided to a patient that they had to sign if it was determined my the examining physician the person was a threat to themselves or others, under the new criteria, a psychiatrist would submit some form of affadavit to the clerk of the courts/and/or FDLE and I believe a petition to transfer the person to involuntary placement (past 72 hours). The workflow does appear to be what has been used since 2013. There is a mixup on the difference between a baker act and red flag laws.

this should be the older criteria which looks to be from 2002.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...cQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3MwL5kuKEPb0OwpWGeV4FL

[/URL]

 

[Cerebellum]

Cerebellum, below is a flow chart of the Baker process from a handbook on the Baker Act put out by FL Dept. of Children and Families. It's dated 2014, and I don't see any obvious differences from how it works today. My understanding is that when an individual case makes it to the very bottom row of boxes, where the court orders involuntary treatment, that's the point where notification would be sent to FDLE or any other agency that might impact a CWFL or a firearm purchase. Again, I am not a lawyer, so seek one of those to give you a definitive answer. I'm posting this not just for you but for benefit of others who might want to understand the process better.

Baker Act Flow Chart

This appears to have been specifically added starting in 2013 which triggers the firearms prohibition. I can find nothing on this statement or form prior to 2013.

"(C) Before agreeing to voluntary treatment, the person received written notice of that finding and certification, and written notice that as a result of such finding, he or she may be prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and may not be eligible to apply for or retain a concealed weapon or firearms license under s. 790.06 and the person acknowledged such notice in writing, in substantially the following form: “I understand that the doctor who examined me believes I am a danger to myself or to others. I understand that if I do not agree to voluntary treatment, a petition will be filed in court to require me to receive involuntary treatment. I understand that if that petition is filed, I have the right to contest it. In the event a petition has been f iled, I understand that I can subsequently agree to voluntary treatment prior to a court hearing. I understand that by agreeing to voluntary treatment in either of these situations, I may be prohibited from buying firearms and from applying for or retaining a concealed weapons or firearms license until I apply for and receive relief from that restriction under Florida law.” "

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Cerebellum]

I do have some good news, the clerk of courts was unable to find any case under my name in Okaloosa county but they are unsure if it would affect my application. Regardless, I now have that email as evidence and believe its safe to say that this is not a commitment as no such documentation exists showing this. At the least, I think its safe to mark "No" on commitment based on the information I have.

 

[OHEng]

There is a mixup on the difference between a baker act and red flag laws.

Those are two different things done for two different purposes. Baker is primarily aimed at a person who may or may not have a mental illness or a reduced capacity to care for themselves, make decisions, or simply be aware of their surroundings. It isn't primarily aimed at solving the problem of danger to self or others, though it could be in some cases where the person's lack of care for self might result in harm to them. A Baker can be initiated by a LEO, a licensed MH practitioner, medicall staff of a health care facility, or a court. If individuals want to initiate a Baker, they have to petition the court to get one and that will be a judge reviewing the case and issuing the order if approved.

Emergency Protection Orders (Red Flag) specifically addresses a situation where a person is or is likely to cause harm to self or others and must demonstrate that through some behavior (threat of harm, acting with violence, etc.). An LEO witnessing it may initiate the process on their own with a direct appeal to the court; an individual must report it to LE, then LE must investigate first, and if substantiated, then they petition the court for an order.

Marchman Act cases are similar to Baker Act cases except they are primarily focused on substance abuse that can incapacitate people from being aware or taking care of themselves similar to how the suspected MH issues do in a Baker case. In one of the Baker cases I was involved with, it was submitted to the court as a Baker Act request but the judge changed it to a Marchman Act case, which he felt was the more appropriate category.