Florida Concealed Carry banner
21 - 40 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,167 Posts
I'm glad he took this stance but he has not done anything for gun owners .
FIFY, perhaps? :)

Yeah, I wish, one day soon, I could have a nice chat with him and explain to him what matters to FL gun owners. I suspect he believes it's "Constitutional Carry," when it really isn't. And I understand why he might think that, as those "Florida Fisherman" seem to be the most vocal about Const. Carry in the state at present. That might be why it's getting him stuck.

If Gov. DeSantis really wants to help 2A in FL and FL gun owners, he can do these 4 simple things (my "Fab four" in order of most important on down):

1) Eliminate/Repeal ERPO laws (Red Flag laws). They are unconstitutional IMHO, violating the 4th, and the "due process" clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. Sorry, but an "ex parte" hearing where the defense is not present or allowed to defend their client is not "due process," IMHO. ERPOs are also fraught with a ton of abuse by anti-gun forces.

2) Eliminate/Make Illegal - "Civil Asset Forfeiture." Again, a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments' "Due Process" clauses. I'm not against "asset forfeiture," but it should occur only after a proper and summary adjudication of guilt, after a proper trial, as part of a properly imposed sentence.

3) Clarify and make rock solid, the definition of "Improper display of a concealed weapon" (i.e. 'Brandishing') such that there is no room for "interpretation/discretion" by LE. Accidental displays should, simply, not count, and no citizen should be harrassed by LE as a result of one. If a person draws, waives it in the air in a threatening manner, or deliberately moves/adjusts their clothing to expose it to someone else (ie."Watch out sucker... look what I got..."), that does count.

4) Work with some of our neighboring states to form a "Pro 2A" sanctuary compact to fight any possible Federal Anti-gun legislation.

That's what he needs to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
FIFY, perhaps? :)

Yeah, I wish, one day soon, I could have a nice chat with him and explain to him what matters to FL gun owners. I suspect he believes it's "Constitutional Carry," when it really isn't. And I understand why he might think that, as those "Florida Fisherman" seem to be the most vocal about Const. Carry in the state at present. That might be why it's getting him stuck.

If Gov. DeSantis really wants to help 2A in FL and FL gun owners, he can do these 4 simple things (my "Fab four" in order of most important on down):

1) Eliminate/Repeal ERPO laws (Red Flag laws). They are unconstitutional IMHO, violating the 4th, and the "due process" clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. Sorry, but an "ex parte" hearing where the defense is not present or allowed to defend their client is not "due process," IMHO. ERPOs are also fraught with a ton of abuse by anti-gun forces.

2) Eliminate/Make Illegal - "Civil Asset Forfeiture." Again, a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments' "Due Process" clauses. I'm not against "asset forfeiture," but it should occur only after a proper and summary adjudication of guilt, after a proper trial, as part of a properly imposed sentence.

3) Clarify and make rock solid, the definition of "Improper display of a concealed weapon" (i.e. 'Brandishing') such that there is no room for "interpretation/discretion" by LE. Accidental displays should, simply, not count, and no citizen should be harrassed by LE as a result of one. If a person draws, waives it in the air in a threatening manner, or deliberately moves/adjusts their clothing to expose it to someone else (ie."Watch out sucker... look what I got..."), that does count.

4) Work with some of our neighboring states to form a "Pro 2A" sanctuary compact to fight any possible Federal Anti-gun legislation.

That's what he needs to do.
Extremely Well Put My Friend & NEED YOU In the Florida Legislature ;) (y)'G'
 
  • Like
Reactions: FfNJGTFO

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,167 Posts
Hell I'll bet you are Younger than [ 65 ] ..
Not for long..... I already have my Medicare cards. It will happen soon! Sooner than I want, but...

I'll Bet you can walk up a flight of airplane stairs Without Falling [ 2-3 ] Times ;) (y) (y) (y) 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 'G'
Now that, I could probably do. I just don't want to. I have no desire to travel anywhere right now....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
Not for long..... I already have my Medicare cards. It will happen soon! Sooner than I want, but...



Now that, I could probably do. I just don't want to. I have no desire to travel anywhere right now....
Ok , well ya can't hold it against a guy for Trying ;)(y)(y) 'G'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick McC.

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
Absolutely TRUE My Friend ! If anyone doesn't think so , just click on your computer at the top where it says 'History' You will Be Shocked :eek:(n)(n) 'G'
Do you google?
Do you have location turned on on your cell phone?

People also ask

How do I see my Google tracking history?

Tips & tricks
  1. On your Android phone or tablet, open the Google Maps app .
  2. Tap your profile picture or initial Your Timeline .
  3. Select a place from Timeline.
  4. Tap Details.
  5. Scroll until you find Timeline. . Next to this icon, you can find information about the last time you visited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,099 Posts
and don't let that location button fool you.
Turning your location off only turns your access to location history.
I would bet a nickel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,971 Posts
All of those (tracking) features can be turned off. And, yes... it works.

I've always had my voice command features turned off. My mic does not track what I say. And, it's evident in the ads that are served up on social media... or I should say NOT served up. Many people (who have the features turned on) report that if they talk about something, ads related to those conversations immediately show up on their social media browsing. That has literally never happened to me.

The same holds true with Google searches. You can browse and search anonymously in a number of ways so you don't get those related ads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeerHunter

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
FIFY, perhaps? :)

If Gov. DeSantis really wants to help 2A in FL and FL gun owners, he can do these 4 simple things (my "Fab four" in order of most important on down):

1) Eliminate/Repeal ERPO laws (Red Flag laws). They are unconstitutional IMHO, violating the 4th, and the "due process" clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. Sorry, but an "ex parte" hearing where the defense is not present or allowed to defend their client is not "due process," IMHO. ERPOs are also fraught with a ton of abuse by anti-gun forces.

That's what he needs to do.
DeSantis didn't put ERPOs in place, the FL legislature was the prime mover getting that done. Let's say it's repealed... what would you replace it with? What's your solution to someone out of control making threats with a weapon? Sit around and watch until they've actually killed or injured themselves or others? In the aftermath of the Stoneham-Douglas shooting, when it came to light that Cruz was well known to be a loose cannon and no one had grounds to do anything about it, there was much public support for this legislation. If you want to un-do it, you'll have to come up with an alternative plan that meets that need, otherwise it's not going to change.

I've challenged people before to show the evidence they have for ERPOs being a vehicle for widespread abuse and they never can because abuse isn't widespread, it's extremely rare. I'll make that same challenge now to you. You claim "...a ton of abuse..." so it shouldn't be hard to list a few cases where that's actually happened and the system didn't reject the claims, resulting in harm to someone who was innocent. Let's hear them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadeyedick

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,167 Posts
DeSantis didn't put ERPOs in place, the FL legislature was the prime mover getting that done.
I was aware of that. But only he can sign the law to repeal it now, once changed by the FL legislature, hence my request. Correct, it was the FL legislature that moved it, but Rick Scott signed it into law.

Let's say it's repealed... what would you replace it with? What's your solution to someone out of control making threats with a weapon?
All I'm saying is that the "current" law, "as currently written," is unconstitutional and should be repealed. I would replace it with something that, at least, offers the accused some protections against the unlawful seizure and confiscation of their property by the authorities. First, have an independent inspector (NOT LE) interview the subject prior to any ERPO being granted. If the inspector finds the complaint is without merit, it ends there. Otherwise, the inspector notifies the court (and the subject's defense counsel) of his/her findings and petitions for the ERPO. But the defense cousel gets to appear at the hearing to argue against it. If the ERPO is granted thereafter, then a court-appointed authority (again NOT LE) ensures the weapons are no longer "in place" and provides the subject with proper receipts and documentation as to what was seized. One option for that might be to allow the subject to have them stored by a third party that would deny him/her access to them. There are places like this one: Gunsitters in PA, that could take the weapons temporarily. In fact, we can have lockers with two lock ports. One for the property owner, and one for the "authorities." Both put their locks on the locker. Whichever party doesn't prevail at the subsequent ERPO hearing has to take their lock off first.

In the aftermath of the Stoneham-Douglas shooting, when it came to light that Cruz was well known to be a loose cannon and no one had grounds to do anything about it...
And why couldn't they do something about it? To what "grounds" are you referring? What was Scott Israel afraid of? Or the School authorities? Why couldn't they have him "Baker Acted?" Why did it take LE almost an hour to penetrate the building? Why wasn't a "code red" called by school staff immediately upon sight of Cruz or witnessing what he was doing? Why didn't the on duty SRO assigned by the BCSO make entry immediately but just "waited" outside (as well as Israel and staff, once he/they got there)? That was a total Charlie-Foxtrot, and I don't think for one minute that the an ERPO policy in place would have made the difference. They already had the means to stop it, prevent it, and mitigate damage, and they didn't bother. Why? Cruz shoul d have never been allowed to enter the building in the first place. That is the primary failure. Same with Uvalde. He should not have been allowed to enter.

I've challenged people before to show the evidence they have for ERPOs being a vehicle for widespread abuse and they never can because abuse isn't widespread, it's extremely rare.
You've never lived in the PRNJ like I have. It's SOP for some LEAs, there, especially the NJSP. You have to remember and understand, they have ulterior motives and interests. They don't believe anyone but them should have weapons. Their mantra is to "get weapons off the streets by hook or by crook." All they have to do is ERPO someone for whatever reason they dream up, and the damage is done. The respondant can kiss those weapons goodbye. S/He'll never see them again, even if cleared on the ERPO charge. And it looks like those incidents don't exist because they're never reported. But I've witnessed them. It does happen.

Second, ERPOs are also a means for disgruntled people to enact revenge on the subject (I.e. a neighbor, a spouse, anyone). All they have to do is file a complaint. And Wham-o ... Ham Sandwich time. Now, if they sent that investigator I mentioned above, that could help resolve incidents like that. But don't just bust in and seize weapons without giving the subject (and/or their defense counsel) a chance.

I'll make that same challenge now to you. You claim
"...a ton of abuse..." so it shouldn't be hard to list a few cases where that's actually happened and the system didn't reject the claims, resulting in harm to someone who was innocent. Let's hear them.
It doesn't matter how many or few there are. As long as the potential for just one abuse incident is there, it needs to be eliminated. God forbid, you or I (or anyone on this board) are that one individual in a million that gets screwed by it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,874 Posts
Yep. If the person being accused or their attorney can't be present at the hearing, then the whole law is garbage. I can't believe free thinking men can defend this trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artemis and racer88

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,243 Posts
I've said before and will again every time the subject of ERPOs comes up: If a person is deemed unsafe to own a firearm(s) because they're suspected that they may do harm to someone, then that person is not safe to remain free in society without said firearm(s) either!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
That makes little sense to me. I don’t live in NJ, so I don’t care what laws they have, that’s up to their citizens just like FL’s laws are up to us. Here, it’s not up to LE, it’s up to the court to issue an order, and that court review of sufficient evidence IS your due process. It’s the same exact due process you get when LE seeks a search warrant or seeks an arrest warrant. You don’t get to argue it before it happens, you get to argue it after the fact, just like ERPOs.

Is there potential for abuse with search and arrest warrants? Why aren’t they also unconstitutional given you have the same amount of due process with those as with ERPOs?

I have, for two years, heard all the horror stories about what MIGHT happen, how they will be abused by anti-2A types and ticked off exes, but whenever I ask for an example, just as now, not ONE is ever offered. Actually one example was offered months back, and the LEA investigating the claim rejected it - it never got to court, no ERPO issued. What should I conclude from those facts? That the problem is real and widespread, or that it’s just someone’s fear driving them to present a worst-case even though in reality none have emerged?

In the case of Cruz, a Baker Act would have done no good. I really recommend you talk to people who are familiar with Baker and Marchman act cases, people that use them frequently. You will learn that each act has it’s limits, and it’s NOT an automatic incarceration. Baker act takes a person either willingly or unwillingly to a treatment/MH facility for evaluation, that’s it. If you go voluntarily, once you are there you are free to tell them to pound sand and leave if you want. The facility has NO legal grounds to force you to remain there. If you go INvoluntarily, you must remain there for a minimum of 24 hours, then you can leave. It’s only if the court who issues the order orders you incarcerated in a city or county jail that you must remain there until the court releases you. I am not aware of one single case where someone was remanded to a jail for a first Baker Act. Generally, that happens when you have people go off their meds and keep refusing to go back on them, then a judge might lock you up in jail to ensure you’re back on them. The court cannot impose an order to make any ol’ treatment facility turn itself into a custodial institution because they don’t have authority by law to be one. Ever notice when police take a suspect to the hospital and the suspect will be there a few days, that they station a cop there the whole time? That’s because the cop can by law detain them; a hospital cannot.

So in Cruz’s case, they could have tried to Baker Act him, probably should have, but that would not have stopped him and it would not have disarmed him. At best it would have delayed him one day. Baker and Marchman acts have limited use; stopping an armed potentially dangerous person isn’t one of them.

I don’t like FL’s ERPO law, but my beef is with the way it’s written, not that it’s some gross constitutional violation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadeyedick

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,894 Posts
Yep. If the person being accused or their attorney can't be present at the hearing, then the whole law is garbage. I can't believe free thinking men can defend this trash.
They are present at a hearing, but the hearing is AFTER the period where the person presents the potential danger.

Do you really think if a neighbor is out on his front porch, shotgun in hand, barking at the moon about killing any blonde-haired person he sees come up the street, the best solution to for the court to send him a notice to appear for his hearing to determine if he’s a danger or not? That’s just ridiculous.

The issue is, it’s an emergency where a threat to life or well being is in progress, and THAT is the immediate concern. All these BS stories about how jealous girlfriends will have your rights taken away are a bunch of nonsense and do nothing to solve the kinds of problems the real issues present. There is no way to deal with it by scheduling some action at the courthouse next week, it has to be dealt with now.

Recognizing that, the scheme the legislature passed was a three-fold process:
a) a complaint is made
b) the complaint must be investigated by a LEA
c) application for the order is made to a court

For the jealous girlfriend to take away rights at whim, both the cops and the court have to not do their job, and that hasn’t happened. For the cops to conspire to take someone’s guns away because they don’t like non-cops having guns, one of them would have to risk his career (and jail time) submitting a false affidavit, followed by another cop risking his job (and freedom) investigating the false affidavit and finding it to be factual, then submitting it to the court. This is about the best level of protection we can get under the circumstances of needing immediate action.

If not, how would you do it? How would you solve the problem of needing action immediately and honoring the rights you claim are not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadeyedick

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,167 Posts
I've said before and will again every time the subject of ERPOs comes up: If a person is deemed unsafe to own a firearm(s) because they're suspected that they may do harm to someone, then that person is not safe to remain free in society without said firearm(s) either!
Fair enough... But make sure that actually is the case before any property is seized, and make sure that property is protected from being 'creatively acquired" by any agency with interests to get that property off the street either for their own safety, or for any "revenue enhancement" potential. Hell, I'd even favor that person being taken into custody and held until the formal hearing takes place, Leave any property in the subject's house. He won't have access to it while in the tank facility. :LOL:
 
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
Top