The gun grab has started in Florida

And every case that has been brought to the Judge has gotten the green stamp to confiscate.

450 in Florida ordered to give up their guns

What is your plan to combat it Catch?

Yep..There are other states that have similar laws already in place called "Red Flag Law"...

Can't talk about it here, come to Church Sunday.

So anybody can just call the cops willy-nilly like and they come and grab your stuff till they say your ok or not?

Guilty until YOU prove yourself innocent

Reminds me of a Turkey leg eatin beezoe ( cause a chicken leg won't do ) crying wolf on one of her baby daddys , and the cops come a runnin .

Danged good ol' boys couldn't resist yankee money and started selling retirement properties.
To my southern brothers and sisters I'm afraid Florida has been lost to the Union, RIP Florida.

Hey sunshine,we yankees in PA most likely got more guns than you got in Arkansas.

I was in Florida for two weeks once. I did not meet a single person, who was originally from Florida. Most of the people I met were from New York. The corruption from the rotten apple spreads far and wide.

Keith

Politicians worried about getting re-elected after the school shooting where coward county cops came up short passed this.

Fairly easy to get support from the General Public by saying these folks are not stable enough to possess firearms....see, I did some common sense gun control.....vote for me again.

Judge denies the petition and the person they wanted to disarm goes postal with a firearm.....not good for that judge so you won't see to many requests refused if any at all.

The most frightening thing about this is WHO decides you are fit to own a firearm. I can not see anything good at all here. Heck, when I was a kid there were folks that said I should not be trusted with a bb gun, no idea where they got that notion.

Zim

Sad day for Floridians.

Color me shocked.

Yep..I thought I even read somewhere that the NRA supports the "Red Flag" laws to some degree..

Yep..Here it is here

What ?

So you are saying that everyone from New York is corrupt and Anti-Gun.

Please differentiate NEW YORK CITY from upstate New York when you un-load your criticism.

Upstate New York is Staunchly Pro-Gun.

w

Veddy veddy inderestink.
So does this mean that Republican Governor RickyTicky Scott's NRA letter grade will remain the same? It might even get another +.

Well I won't be re-joining the NRA hippie. It's bad enough that are politicians are selling the 2nd down the river, but to have the NRA yet again leading the way is incomprehensible. Did you watch the Chris Cox video, if so, did ya ask yourself why a anti gun control org is so in favor of gun control?

I left the NRA in I believe it was 1996 when I didn't feel they did enough of the assault weapons ban

I have concluded the gun control debate as well as the abortion debate are just ways for both parties to collect money IMO

Didn't ask what you were not going to do, i asked what you are going to do.

I meant what I said. To clarify, most of the people I met in Florida were from New York state and most of those New York City. I never said anything even remotely close to everyone from New York is corrupt and Anti-Gun. The rotten apple obviously refers to New York City, not New York State.

I dated a woman from a small New York state town, about an hour from Buffalo. Her family were all die hard democrats and their friends were too. Obviously the liberal mindset is unfortunately not confined to the City. I realise there are many good, conservative people in New York state and even in the city. Unfortunately there are more liberals than conservatives in the State.

Keith

Didn’t read the article you posted , did ya .

Here's the actual statute, 2018 Risk Protection Orders

There are some places down there where the communities are mostly Florida Cracker still, with old Scotch Irish, Spanish, African, and Native American families, often families that are a mixture of all four.

The scariest thing to me are statements like this in the law:

"3. Evidence of the respondent being seriously mentally ill or having recurring mental health issues."

A lot, some say 13%+, of Americans are prescribed anti depressants. Its not a very far jump for the govt to use your medical and prescription history to say you are not allowed to own a firearm b/c you were prescribed an antidepressant by a Dr trying to help you feel better.

The problem is where do you draw the line of who is fit and who is not.

13% of the 326 million people in the USA is 42 million USA citizens that wouldn't be aloud to own firearms.

No thank you.

Probably the same thing you are goin to do..

Yes I read it, duh. I happened to look into the law further and from what I have read, willy-nilly is on target.

Exactly and have seen this done already in reference to a concealed carry permit. So if you ever been prescribed any mod altering meds? Anti depressants, get ready cause here they come. Or a vet with PTSD issues? Being seen by a doc or going to counseling - done.

Dude I know ended up going in front a judge to have the banner removed from his name.

Bright side is they have good BP guns and bows you can hunt with.

Worlds gone insane.


J

You’re right , world has gone insane . But it’s certainly not as simple as “someone calls the cops”. Least not in this context .

The way the law is written, it allows confiscation at the discretion of a cop. Sec 4 is a good example of it. Also, all it would take is for some guys or some gals partner to cry wolf because they're upset with you and bam, you have to go through all the crap. It is clearly circumventing due process while claiming it's not. As stated before, this is guilty until proven innocent which is not the way it should be.

You do realize that this is all being done, BEFORE a crime actually happened right?

no not that simple but follow me here. If I am a medic on a scene and I say that the pt "threatened to harm themselves" in anyway shape form or fashion paraphrasing; then that person HAS to be taken to ER for mental eval either in my ambulance or by LEO, any right to refuse transport is gone. NOW I do not know any medic who would ever pull such a stunt - we dont want to transport crazy if we can help it! BUT a Pd off family member? ex GFriend, divorced spouse???? if they call the cops and state that you said "x" threatened them or yourself; your in a world of hurt. They can even have IVC papers pulled on ya.

world has gone nuts - I agree there is still a process but it is a SHADY process!!!

J

Yeah and you may have NEVER been sent before a judge?!

seriously bad stuff

How can they grab what you don't have anymore? I think this 3D printed firearms might interest some of those folks......

I’m not saying this is good or I agree . Nor am I saying that this isn’t without some very inherently bad issues . What I am saying is that this requires bringing a little salt to the table . There’s quite a few circumstances where a firearm can be seized without a conviction . Secondly, HIPPA still applies . So telling your doctor something doesn’t throw federal law out the window , necessarily . Speaking of federal law , it’s already on the books that someone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent can’t own or purchase a firearm .

Not according to the statute . The seizure must be court ordered . Read down it a little ways .

Ex Parte and emergency protective orders are nothing new and used most often in domestic violence cases. Most states (around 2/3rds) authorize or require law enforcement to remove firearms in such cases, but only after the protective orders have been granted by a court. They're temporary orders until a full hearing can be scheduled.

So what's new with this law. I think California, Washington, Connecticut and Vermont have also passed similar legislation.

Correction: "In about one-third of states, police officers are also authorized or required to remove guns when they arrive at the scene of a domestic violence incident." "A protection order may include many different provisions, including: Requiring the abuser to surrender any guns he or she possesses (about 2/3rds of states) and/or prohibiting the abuser from purchasing a firearm."

Source: https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-viol...ing-orders.html

That has nothing to do with this. Those people can't own firearms because they were deemed unfit through due process. The Florida law is taking your right away because their crystal ball says that you might at some point commit a crime.

Read the statute that was posted on the last page . Link is right there . It explicitly states it must be court ordered unless I’m missing something . I’ve read it a couple times now.

Aaron, Yes it goes before a Judge whom by the way so far has granted all request. That's not my point, The cop can take a temporary PO to the Judge, without notifying you is one example. All it takes is one person saying you threatened them or yourself and you are caught up in the system, loosing your 2nd right until you prove you are innocent. You are getting busted for a crime that you haven't committed but according to the whims of LE and a Judge who fears culpability, you might commit in the future.

Most states are that way now?

In your state, if you have a protection arder against you, you can't have guns. Are you saying the route to get a protection order is different under this law?

No
No
I believe so.

That's what Ex Parte means, and its done all the time with restraining orders and protection orders.


Source: https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-viol...ing-orders.html

I don't think anyone here is saying this new statute, and similar ones in other states, is a good thing. It's simply that these emergency protection orders are not new and the courts are being used as they have been with other types of cases.

I believe your wrong about your first two answers.

Here, and i looked up Ohio, you can't possess a gun if an order is out against you. I haven't checked all states, but i believe my "most" fits.

Ohio's form...

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/JCS/domesticViolence/protection_forms/stalkingForms/10.03F.pdf

Note: I'm not a lawyer. I just pretend to be one when I'm surfing the internet and not being productive in my real job.

I'm not either Mainer, that's why i look things up and as on this thread, ask.

How do they know you have a gun?

Family member who took the order out tells them?

So their word is gold and yours is mud?

Judge decides that.

Probably by asking if you have a gun. If you lie and then get caught later it's another felony and some states mandatory 1 year in the Hotel Graybar. This and other laws that allow confiscation before conviction make the gun owner part of the compromised class. As time marches on there will be more classifications of gun owners added to the compromised class by their fellow gun owner ers either by actively campaigning to add them to the compromised class (such as the NRA in the video above) or by apathy.

If you consider a dozen states that have red flag laws "most" then ok lol. Also, I'm not familiar with that form although I noticed it is from 2014. I was going by this and a few more like it.
Link
So hippie, how do you feel about the NRA's continued support of gun control? Did the video open your eyes some maybe?

mainer, I understand about ex parte and know that it is common practice especially for domestic abuse and stalking. Are you saying that it's also common practice everywhere to also take all weapons from the person being served a RO or PO?

if They wanna take away crazy mike who walks down the street sayin the alphabet backwards in his head over and over guns away I’m cool with that. If you have some sort of mental or psychological evaluation that deems you not suitable to own a firearm then you shouldn’t own a firearm. Everyone that’s ever been apart of a mass killing is bat shat crazy and if they wanna make it as hard as possible for those people to get in possession of a firearm then that’s great. What if they just took away the gun that was about to be used to kill one your family members or children for that matter, how would you feel about it then. I’m sure some people are going to loose some firearms that probably shouldn’t deserve to loose them but they’re aren’t just going to start taking guns from people due to random phone calls. It’s all about how you present yourself in your psychiatric evaluation. Be cool, keep your guns, crazy bye bye pistola

Yep..What kind of money can a Resident/ Non resident Lawyer in Florida make on these kinds of cases..I would think that lawyers are jumping up and down with glee. A new stream of income...

The issue is similar to hate speech laws and the 1st amendment. In that case, the people who get to decide what speech is hate speech are EXACTLY the people (politicians) who we DO NOT WANT to have define anything. Same same for "crazy" and the Second Amendment.
I firmly believe that if you are too crazy or dangerous to own a firearm, you belong in a mental hospital or prison. Instead of erring on the side of 'well, a few innocent gun owners may get their crap confiscated', err on the side that a few crazies may have guns. That is a risk, I know, but freedom has risks.

So, on your link it says Federal law applies. Federal law says according to your link...You can't possess a gun if an order is out on you. Unless a state has a law over riding federal law, my most is probably ALL.

(incase you don't6 see it, where it says Federal law in red, click on the red)

Nope, the NRA is still our best hope. What he said already is on the books as i explained above. It was just lip service to the anti's that don't know any better.

Yep..Ain't nobody getting any gun back without a lawyer..

Well if crazy Mike is too dangerous to have firearms, he shouldn't be out on the streets. The problem is taking away peoples 2nd right, for a crime you didn't commit, until "they" decide whether or not you should have them. And who are "they". Isn't threatening bodily harm a crime in most states, why take your property and your 2nd?

I think your confused about fed law and the red flag law. When you fill out the paperwork to purchase a gun it says you can't if you have been adjudicated as a nut or if you have domestic issues. Red flag takes your stuff beforehand, and the burden of proof is on you to get your stuff back. We don't have red flag here in Ohio and the form, on down says MAY be unlawful for you to have firearms. The fed law has certain stipulations before confiscation, red flag does not, other than a PO'd neighbor said you were acting funny and poof, your guns are gone.

So I guess you think that they are only ever going after the people that you say are, "bat shat crazy"? You think that's great? I think you should maybe go to the corner for a little self reflection and a chance to think things through. Then again, you may be right. This may be the ONE TIME that the government doesn't over step it's bounds. It amazes me on how many people on this site, with what we all know and the battles we have all fought be it firearms, trapping regs, wacked out tree huggers and all other government overreach that there are still sheeple on here that think the government can handle ANYTHING without being corrupted by there own power. Very sad.

Could be, i read it and didn't see what you did but i may have missed it.

I did read where it says you must be notified about the hearing, so there goes your "take them before you go to court" arguement.
I don't like the idea of this either, but some things being said just ain't true.

I'd like to see how many blamed the feds when that shooting happened, saying they missed their chance when the kids was reported and they didn't check-up on it. I remember alot here said that.

I think your confused about fed law and the red flag law. When you fill out the paperwork to purchase a gun it says you can't if you have been adjudicated as a nut or if you have domestic issues. Red flag takes your stuff beforehand, and the burden of proof is on you to get your stuff back. We don't have red flag here in Ohio and the form, on down says MAY be unlawful for you to have firearms. The fed law has certain stipulations before confiscation, red flag does not, other than a PO'd neighbor said you were acting funny and poof, your guns are gone. [/quote]

Could be, i read it and didn't see what you did but i may have missed it.

I did read where it says you must be notified about the hearing, so there goes your "take them before you go to court" arguement.
I don't like the idea of this either, but some things being said just ain't true.

I'd like to see how many blamed the feds when that shooting happened, saying they missed their chance when the kids was reported and they didn't check-up on it. I remember alot here said that.[/quote]
Again, that is Fed law that you read and quoted, NOT red flag law. C'mon hippie lol.

This one Art posted.

If that's the case, we're screwed! What he said is NOT already on the books except for a dz ish states that have red flag laws. The NRA is only suing Florida because of them uping the age limit to 21. They are more than ok with the rest, and definitely ok with banning bump stocks cause that was their idea in the first place. Why would a pro gun org come out and say anything at all pro gun control?

Oh, now I got ya.

Here's what i get from reading this............

They opened up the "domestic" P.O. to anyone you may be threatening. Same rules apply, because of this in the law.

"Rules of evidence apply to the same extent as in a domestic violence injunction proceeding"

So, are they not one in the same?

Example.......
The kid who shot up their school down there. No family member reported him, so they could'nt get an order agains't him, where now they could. WITH THE SAME PROCEEDINGS AS IF IT WAS DOMESTIC?.

I'm still against it. This is a RIGHT that the government is taking away. Now, I am all for getting guns out of the hands of crazy people and I am not condoning anyone preforming any innocent, unjustified killing in any sense. However, I am against giving the government even more power over this RIGHT. I agree something should be done. I have no ideas but by the same token, I know a bad idea when I see one. Giving the government even more power over this right is a mistake and a slippery slope indeed.

Not sure it's giving gov't more Finster. Maybe giving people more?

Like the example above, teachers, neighbors and other students reported this guy but the cops were powerless. Same with the guy in MD. that shot-up the newspaper place. They couldn't do anything because his threats didn't break the law.

Not sure what the answer is, but even on here after those shootings, people were saying how the gov't dropped the ball on these guys.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-newspaper-shooting-20180628-story.html
I guess, just don't threaten to kill people.

WHAT THE CRIME I ALREADY HAPPENING! the government is wiping out social security. they need to disarm people so we cant fight back.

This tells me a lot. Do you know that some of the red flag states allow pretty much anyone to petition the court to get your guns taken away. It's not more power to the people it's more power to the Gov't. Are you ok with suspensions of your Constitutional rights? The 2nd by taking your guns on someones word, the 4th because they can search your home for guns, the 1st because you may have been kidding when you said something, and don't forget about due process. That hearing you were talking about, isn't a hearing for you, you can't defend yourself in it. It's to let you know they're coming to take your stuff. All this was decided without you being present. This is in no way shape or form tantamount to probable cause!

You have serious comprehension problems. Of course i understand it allows more people to search out an order, what have my last posts said?

The gov't still has to follow the same laws as a domestic, just now the teachers and such will be heard.

Man I ain't arguing with you Aron, I know you don't support it - I seen where they have to go in front a judge but that is the LEO not the subject in question. LEO just need to go say hey we got this dude who is a danger to themselves or others and get the OK to take their guns.

I feel the person should be brought in there and state their side of the case not just LEO side the case. I work with LEO every day and they dont like screwing with folks like this BUT they also got to cover their liability butts and not get in a sling! you know how media loves to crucify them these days! same with the judge.

J

That's something i couldn't figure out Jakedog, not understanding legal mumbo-jumbo that well.

It says the defendant has to be notified of the hearing. He can't go defend himself?

Good grief, you don't get it and I'm done trying to explain it to ya lol. Maybe someone else can put it in better light for you to see that your position as well as the NRA's is leading us down the slippery'ist slippery slope that ever was.

Good

"It's a slippery slope." First accurate thing you've posted.

This is a lesson I learned long ago.. Never ever pay a Taxidermist 100% up front... just pay the usual down payment and wait till the mounts done for the rest... I know in this situation that probably couldn't have happened... Most taxidermist need the push of a payday to get things done or it very well helps many times... Same with gunsmiths and allot of other businesses. The incentive is gone when they already have all the money they are going to make on the deal... JMO ... Dave

Ummmmm….. What? dgarrett…….. I think you broke the internet...…. THANKS ALOT!

I think there is a jewel in the taxidermy message somewhere, just trying to relate it to the republican/NRA gun grab in Florida.

Lol

I think it's in the first line Finn, "This is a lesson I learned long ago".....

Daddy.gov doesn't relinquish power once they have it... That's what I gleaned anyway.

Mike

Yep..Why is there no resistance from the people of Florida that have been ordered to give up their firearms? You would think one of the 450 would say "No"

I think somewhere around 90 lawsuits have been filed as of yesterday.

Armor up and Just Say No.......

I thought the link said the first guy did say no and the took them from him any way he was a veteran, that's sad to treat a veteran that way. I keep want to know the cause of taken the guns away. Was it mental illness or just because they were a hunter and the left thinks that mean you have a mental illness.

I think there are more than 450 hunters in Fla....

The asane have taken over the insylum...

Say what, I don’t give 2 (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) about anything political or government stuff really, I don’t watch tv, political news stuff, or whatever. You use the word we a lot like your out there havin a filibuster with a bunch a people fightin laws. I could care less one bit if they want to make it more difficult for mentally deranged people to possess firearms. Don’t be weird and fkn crazy and there’s nothing you have to worry about. You think all weird and messed up and crazy people should be able to go a store and walk out with a gun in a few hours, no! But you think it’s ok for them to already own them? It’s a common sense thing to me, there’s not one thing in that law that relates to me one bit, it’s not about the guns it’s about who they are targeting.

Well, if a few neighbors that may not like you, get together and start telling the police you're crazy, (liberals streaming into Texas ya know and they don't like fur) or the government "extends" their definitions of what "dangerous threat" now means and it effects you, we will see what song you start to sing. If you don't think ANY government will overreach this law you are being pretty naïve.

It don’t work like that, doctors and judges and incident reports are all I have to worry about. Not he said she said

Not true and the list of people that can file petition on you is growing per state. They take your guns first, then the burden of proof is on you.

Didn't Connecticut pass this in 99 how has things been there.

Right, anyone can say or do anything they want but all I have to worry about is what the doctor says during a psychological examination. Without proof of being deemed mentally unstable they can’t touch anything. They cannot come and take your weapons because someone called and said this guy is weird, you have to have existing conditions, prior mental instability or whatever. It’s not a he said he’s weird go get his guns thing.

Txcoonman, read the law. Certain people or LE can say your a danger to yourself or others and they take your guns FIRST. It doesn't matter if you have a history of mental or violent behavior. Then you must prove your not a whackado, all the while, without your guns.

Show him where it says that.

This is Oregon's law. Oregon red flag law

Ok, maybe i read it wrong or maybe you are. I'm not sure.

It say.......within 24hrs they hold a hearing and you can go. If Judge declares you unfit you can request another hearing but you will lose your guns.

But, to me, your at the first hearing and can win it, so how do you call that taking your guns before a hearing?

And it also says only family members or someone living with you, or cops. SO no, your wrong about your neighbor filing agains't you.

I see how the wording could mean what you say.
Just that i've never ever heard of them holding a hearing against a person that they couldn't attend and defend themselves.

24 hours is t much time to prepare for a hearing. The folks wanting your guns can take all the time they need. If you think laws like this will reduce violent crimegive me a call. I'll sell you a bridge to put a toll booth on

I'm not defending the law, never have. Just like to know facts, not my hair is on fire B.S.

I'm going to regret getting back into this thread...I should be cleaning my traps for Pete's sake!


Not "everywhere" but common enough that confiscating firearms FIRST before a full hearing is either authorized or required in some protective order cases. From my earlier post:


So something in these new red flag laws, and specifically in the Florida statute, must be different than than the run-of-the-mill EPO (emergency protection order) statutes that already exist in some form in every state. That was my original question. I just haven't taken he time to figure that out yet.

I suspect the difference is simply the suspicion of doing harm to oneself or others that is enough to bring a protection order request before a judge. I don't know. Someone enlighten me

I guess 24 hrs os enough time to hide them. Tell the judge yoi dont have any

The way I read it your not at the hearing, your accuser is. ??

Don't know, vaguely worded.

Hecck, i've taken people to hearing for minor things like bad checks and they get to defend themselves.

I spent 30 days in a VA hospital when I came back from Nam. It was because of the bad nightmares I was having. They had me on all kinds of meds.
I own over 100 guns and have never had anyone try to take them away from me. I think if a person is a danger to himself and others, and a judge decides there is CAUSE than that person should have to prove he is OK to own a fire arm!!!!!!

So, out of 21 million people 450 have had their right to firearms restricted temporally while awaiting their day before a judge.

Not much of a Gun Grab.

They're just getting started, bet you would be singing a different tune if you were one of the 450. And apparently your ok with the law, seems so anyway.

Like I’ve stated in every post I’ve made on this thread, they cannot come and take your guns, you have to go to court, present yourself to the judge, judge and doctors make the call on what to do from then, don’t be a fkn weirdo and crazy in court and keep your guns. It’s a hassle yes but they can’t just show up and take your guns

Well they better get with it for it to be a Gun Grab....1% of the population is 210,000 so they only have 209,550 to go for it to be 1%.

Not sure of 1% would qualify as a Gun Grab either. Even if you say that only 1/3 of the people are gun owners that still leaves 69,550 for it to be 1% of gun owners.

There are circumstances that would justify temporary seizure of a persons firearms while they wait to see a judge to get them back....for the safety of others/themselves.



New law takes effect in attempt to curb mass shootings seems like a more accurate title.

ymmv.

So as long as you weren't one of the 450,,its ok then?What if that's the time you actually need it to protect your family.

Look; the verdict is in, the NRA supports the gun grabbing done by Florida Republicans in this case and so it shall be- time for the ducklings to fall into line. Shift fire to the NRA sueing to stop the Florida republican law that stripped 18-20 year old adults of the right to purchase a firearm.