Broward County Fla, D.A. FINALLY acts ~~~

[Jmac00]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla._A Broward County judge on Friday issued what is thought to be Florida's first order temporarily removing guns from a person under Florida's new gun-control laws.
Four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition were ordered removed from a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man who experts determined was a potential risk to himself or others.
The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state's new "risk protection" law, which is also sometimes called "red flag" legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed.
Although the man was also taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment under the state's Baker Act, the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under the new legislation, which permits removal of guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward's Chief Judge Jack Tuter.

the horse has left the barn, but at least they did SOMETHING.

I guess we'll see if he ever gets them back

 

[kev74]

And this is for the Broward DA...

 

[Celt]

I'm not on board with this. To remove someone's rights without due process is ripe for abuse. Who deems someone is a potential risk? When a neighbor calls and makes a false accusation just because they don't agree with your political yard sign?

 

[Grimscale]

To remove someone's rights without due process

But he had due process. There was supposedly a Court date and everything.
He just wasn't able to attend because he was already locked up in the hospital.

 

[hooked]

I'm not on board with this. To remove someone's rights without due process is ripe for abuse. Who deems someone is a potential risk? When a neighbor calls and makes a false accusation just because they don't agree with your political yard sign?

I agree , this is a slippery slope. While it maybe a necessary evil but at the same time we know the new mantra of "Guilty until proven innocent".

 

[Criticalt]

Just like the "SafeAct" arrests where a guy kills 2 people in a DUI while high on blow and pills who happens to have a 30 round mag in the trunk under 13 years of garbage. Then in the paper its headlibe reads, "Safe Act Arrest!!".

This guy was brought to the hospital for INVOLUNTARY psychiatric treatment. So, on a federal level his gun rights were already gone most likely.
However, this is being advertised as using the NEW law.

 

[Celt]

But he had due process. There was supposedly a Court date and everything.
He just wasn't able to attend because he was already locked up in the hospital.

I do sense the sarcasm.

 

[Celt]

I agree , this is a slippery slope. While it maybe a necessary evil but at the same time we know the new mantra of "Guilty until proven innocent".

I dont see this as a neccessary evil, we cannot remove people's rights without due process. We also cannot arrest people for something they might do in a free country.

We simply cannot allow something like this where a jealous EX or a bitter neighbor or even a radical liberal family member can make a phone call and have someone's rights removed. I can already imagine a scenario where a jealous ex-husband calls to have his ex-wife's guns removed only to leave her defenseless so he can go and attack her.

It is far too ripe for abuse. There has to be another way.

 

[RBean]

In my law practice in NY I have found this used to "punish" the other. Usually with false statements under oath at the family court to get a ex parte order of protection issued. With that, the guns are confiscated and the pistol license suspended. Now, under the Family Code the respondent is entitled to a hearing within 14 days. This is the "due process" with regard to the Order of Protection. The judge often finds the petition to be BS and vacates the Order. But this does no good with regards to the guns and pistol license because the cops and licensing official have their own rules which provide no "due process". Also the petitioner has committed perjury, a felony offense. But what happens to (usually her) them? Absolutely nothing while the gun owner is faced with "mission impossible" in getting his license and guns back. Any legislation for so called "gun orders" need to have severe and certain penalties for false accusations and "due process" for the respondent (gun owners).

 

[RBean]

Under the "Safe Act" if the state finds a hint of a mental problem, the guns are taken and there is no "due process". I don't know what finally happened the the man upstate who had his guns taken because a clerk in a "sleep clinic" checked the wrong box on a digital medical form.

We have a serious lack of due process for gun owners in NY because here there is no right to keep and bear arms. At least not one recognized by the state or any body in authority including judges.