Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
The usual suspect.

As soon as you read these words in the story you can rest assured everything else after it is as fictitious as a Disney movie.

Red flag gun confiscation laws generally make it so almost anyone – a jealous ex, a vindictive, gun-hating neighbor, and so forth – can claim to law enforcement that someone is unfit to possess a gun and thus have his or her weapons forcibly seized without due process.

They claim this but can't produce a single one. That's all one needs to know.

They even go so far as to prove their own claims are so much manure

The judge did not accept the order, but the fact that it was made at all signals a lack of reason and practicality in the enforcement of these red flag laws, echoing a concern that many opposers to the statute have voiced.
In other words, the system these worry-warts feared did NOT happen. A judge stopped it, just as reasonable people would expect. And when it got stopped by a judge, THAT represents "a lack of reason and practicality in enforcement of these red flag laws?" Geeze, what would you call it if the judge DIDN'T stop it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,000 Posts
2500 people stripped of their rights by this bull**** law..but it HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN FLORIDA
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,096 Posts
Duplicate threads merged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,601 Posts
Let's see if I have these right...

First, it strips people of RIGHTS? Be serious! If their behavior rises to the level that merits an EOOP, that's stripping them of RIGHTS? What rights? To make threats? To endanger themselves or others? To tie up emergency resources dealing with their emotional acting out? Pffffffttttttttt!!!

Second, a historical perspective:
A kid (Cruz) goes off the rails and shoots up a school (Parkland). In the subsequent vetting of his past, we find that the local LEA had been advised of his wandering off the rails some TWENTY EIGHT times, and despite all the amazing leadership they had, they (claimed they) could do nothing about him. What they needed was a law designed to interdict subjects who ***PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE YOU WITH POOR INFORMATION ABSORBING SKILLS *** by their own ACTIONS present a danger to themselves or others. That's it - you act like a loose cannon, you get treated like a loose cannon.

Oh, NO!!! Now every ex-wife and ticked off girlfriend in FL will be jamming the courts trying to get their man's guns confiscated on a bunch of BS (i.e.- made up, no evidence) charges. Just don't ask us to produce one because we don't have ANY... at all! In fact in complaining about this, we actually present a REAL case where a judge threw out the request because it didn't rise to the appropriate level. This is the equivalent of a prosecutor presenting evidence the suspect was out of town on the day the crime happened.

So now our legislature and executive, believing this law will "fix" the problem, enacts that law despite all the ex-wife screaming and due process nonsense continually bleated out by groups who, if they had even the slightest possible case where due process was denied would have filed it a YEAR ago.

And what do we have today? The tool the SO asked for is actually being used. BY the SO. Imagine that. Whoda thunk??

Why an 8 year old? Simple answer - he made a threat. If the SO had ignored that threat and that kid laid hands on a firearm and did something stupid with it, who here would be saying the SO ought to get a pass because the kid was only eight years old? That's right... NO ONE.

Whether or not anyone here on this forum supported or wanted that law, it IS the law. Your fellow citizens wanted it right along with your politicians, NOT us, so take your fight to them. And when you do that, try not to make all gun owners look as ridiculous as you do by spouting claims that cannot be backed with evidence, only emotions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,523 Posts
Let's see if I have these right...


Oh, NO!!! Now every ex-wife and ticked off girlfriend in FL will be jamming the courts trying to get their man's guns confiscated on a bunch of BS (i.e.- made up, no evidence) charges. Just don't ask us to produce one because we don't have ANY... at all! In fact in complaining about this, we actually present a REAL case where a judge threw out the request because it didn't rise to the appropriate level. This is the equivalent of a prosecutor presenting evidence the suspect was out of town on the day the crime happened.

So now our legislature and executive, believing this law will "fix" the problem, enacts that law despite all the ex-wife screaming and due process nonsense continually bleated out by groups who, if they had even the slightest possible case where due process was denied would have filed it a YEAR ago.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There is no evidence of aliens, so aliens don't exist.)

The concern is that the law has no provision to prevent the abuse... no punishment for the abuse... of the law. The facts are, despite your denial, that property is taken BEFORE Due Process. See 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. The Founders felt this was SO IMPORTANT, they put it in THREE of the Constitutional Amendments. THREE of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,523 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,946 Posts
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/red-flag-sheriff-ordered-to-surrender-weapons-after-estranged-wife-files-for-divorce/

So, she files for divorce. THEN she files an additional complaint / restraining order based on the allegation that he choked her TWO YEARS ago. He has to surrender his firearms BEFORE Due Process.
You seem to have an erroneous understanding of what constitutes due process. When a warrant is issued, either for a search or an arrest, the target of said warrant is not notified in advance, nor are they privy to the proceedings that occur to obtain said warrant. I don't understand why anyone would think that an ERPO would be handled any differently, or how that amounts to a lack of due process.

Florida's red flag law has been challenged as a violation of due process...and that challenge has been rejected.

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/appeals-court-upholds-floridas-red-flag-law

https://www.1dca.org/content/download/537544/6066635/file/183938_1284_09252019_09405740_i.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,523 Posts
You seem to have an erroneous understanding of what constitutes due process. When a warrant is issued, either for a search or an arrest, the target of said warrant is not notified in advance, nor are they privy to the proceedings that occur to obtain said warrant. I don't understand why anyone would think that an ERPO would be handled any differently, or how that amounts to a lack of due process.

Florida's red flag law has been challenged as a violation of due process...and that challenge has been rejected.

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/appeals-court-upholds-floridas-red-flag-law

https://www.1dca.org/content/download/537544/6066635/file/183938_1284_09252019_09405740_i.pdf
No provision to face your accuser or contest the decision (to seize your property).... until later... sometimes much later... at the discretion of the government, eh?

Even with Eminent Domain cases, the land owner gets to present his case before they just knock down his house.

That the argument has been rejected (by a particular court or judge) is not an absolute determination of truth. Appeal to authority, eh? The Constitution's language is really not vague or obtuse. It's pretty clear and written in rather plain language.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,946 Posts
No provision to face your accuser or contest the decision (to seize your property).... until later... sometimes much later... at the discretion of the government, eh?
You get to face your accuser within 14 days, per the statute:

(a) Upon receipt of a petition, the court must order a hearing to be held no later than 14 days after the date of the order and must issue a notice of hearing to the respondent for the same.

You're unlikely to ever be tried in court that quickly for a criminal offense.

Even with Eminent Domain cases, the land owner gets to present his case before they just knock down his house.
The property to be seized under eminent domain is unlikely to be used to cause harm to others.

That the argument has been rejected (by a particular court or judge) is not an absolute determination of truth.
It is until a higher court overturns that decision.

Appeal to authority, eh? The Constitution's language is really not vague or obtuse. It's pretty clear and written in rather plain language.
And what exactly are your credentials to determine the constitutionality of any given law? It seems that there are plenty of people who are actually licensed to practice law that disagree with you on this topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,523 Posts
You get to face your accuser within 14 days, per the statute:

(a) Upon receipt of a petition, the court must order a hearing to be held no later than 14 days after the date of the order and must issue a notice of hearing to the respondent for the same.

That's encouraging, though I wonder if they truly adhere to it or find ways to delay it. Admittedly speculative (and pessimistic) on my part.

You're unlikely to ever be tried in court that quickly for a criminal offense.



The property to be seized under eminent domain is unlikely to be used to cause harm to others.

Red herring. We're talking about Due Process. DP shouldn't be variable depending on the allegation. It should be the same regardlesss. I don't believe the Constitution makes exceptions for certain offenses or charges or other punitive government actions.


It is until a higher court overturns that decision.



And what exactly are your credentials to determine the constitutionality of any given law? It seems that there are plenty of people who are actually licensed to practice law that disagree with you on this topic.
Being licensed to practice law makes you a Constitutional expert or scholar?? I took gross anatomy (same as med students) and then head & neck anatomy (which even the med students didn't have to take). I guess that makes me an expert on brain surgery?? :)

My qualifications to interpret the Constitution include the fact that I can read plain English. :grin And, yeah... I've read up "a bit" on it, too. But, I reject your implication that all attorneys are categorically "experts" on the Constitution (and superior to my own knowledge) by virtue of their JD. I've met many DDSes that are rather deficient in their knowledge and practice of dentistry. But, they have the degree and a license to practice.

ETA: Some folks I respect as true Constitutional scholars... Ted Cruz and Trey Gowdy. I found some articles citing Ted Cruz' concern about Due Process as it pertains to Red Flag laws. I haven't found anything from Gowdy, yet. Another "up and comer" who I like (so far) is Representative Jim Jordan, who has also expressed concerns over Due Process. It's not just me. :) There are some very smart dudes in Congress who also have concerns and come from a qualified perspective.

But, yeah... I don't give intellectual "carte blanche" to any and all attorneys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,946 Posts
You can believe whatever the hell you want; it's not me you have to convince that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Ranting about it here isn't going to accomplish squat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,523 Posts
You can believe whatever the hell you want; it's not me you have to convince that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Ranting about it here isn't going to accomplish squat.
You think I'm "ranting???"

Project much? ;) I'm not ranting, nor am I trying to "convince" anyone. Just having a discussion. I find such discussions stimulating, and occasionally I learn something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,000 Posts
Bill Clinton was licensed to practice law until he was disbarred. So much for integrity of lawyers. Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar and is a f***ing idiot who believes we are a democracy. I'll stick with the opinions of the likes of Cruz, Jordan and such
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,820 Posts
Bill Clinton was licensed to practice law until he was disbarred. So much for integrity of lawyers. Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar and is a f***ing idiot who believes we are a democracy. I'll stick with the opinions of the likes of Cruz, Jordan and such
:thumsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,219 Posts
If you think every person in this country should be allowed to have a firearm.....you are an idiot. If you think Red Flag Laws...(the way they are written and enforced at the p[resent time) are exactly perfect....you are an idiot. So, now that we have set the margins...what we need in this country is to find a way to insert a means of taking away the firearms from those that present a danger to their selves and to others....then we need to figure out a way to ensure every citizen not a danger to anyone maintains the right to own a firearm. Well, that should be easy....right? .......NOT! Anyone that can come up with a way to do this is the person we need as president or AG or on the Supreme Court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,883 Posts
If you think every person in this country should be allowed to have a firearm.....you are an idiot. If you think Red Flag Laws...(the way they are written and enforced at the p[resent time) are exactly perfect....you are an idiot. So, now that we have set the margins...what we need in this country is to find a way to insert a means of taking away the firearms from those that present a danger to their selves and to others....then we need to figure out a way to ensure every citizen not a danger to anyone maintains the right to own a firearm. Well, that should be easy....right? .......NOT! Anyone that can come up with a way to do this is the person we need as president or AG or on the Supreme Court.
I think every person has the right to a black powder pistol.

And the Florida Legislature agrees. :grin

-on Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
When you're red flagged you're life is turned upside down and your police record is a mess, not to mention your shooting irons being removed.

The cure to this red flag nonsense is an AUTOMATIC 1 YEAR IN JAIL if you cry wolf on another person....:smack

This makes the WHISTLE BLOWER think more than twice about stepping on your rights!

And that Ladies & Gents is the way this stupid legislation should of been written...
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top