Florida has started Confication..Good!

[Drift]

People, like all other biological systems fall under a bell curve. And so-probably the lowest quinile ( far left 20% of bell curve ) are probably iffy/worrisome when it comes to firearm saftey. They might be dangerous. Those lowest 20% are a potential hazard to us all. Come to think of it, the lowest 20% should not be allowed to vote either..afterall, a vote is just as dangerous as a bullet. Probably not allow them to speak their minds either; ill advised words can lead to ill advised actons. Probably a bad idea to let them reproduce....dont want to reproduce those undesirable traits.....
And Government through out histoury has such a great track record figguring out things like who is dangerous,whos opinions mattter, who's votes are desirable and who should reproduce , we just gotta believe them this time too!

[stanc]

IIRC, the general consensus in previous threads was that government should do just what Florida is doing: Remove guns from individuals deemed a danger to themselves and/or society.

[PAsasquatch]

What article/action is this posting in relation to? If we are talking about the guy who got his guns taken after telling law enforcement that his neighbor can "shape-shift" into Osama Bin Laden then I will be greatly disappointed.

[montana]

What article/action is this posting in relation to? If we are talking about the guy who got his guns taken after telling law enforcement that his neighbor can "shape-shift" into Osama Bin Laden then I will be greatly disappointed.

So Bruce Jenner and others who think they can shape shift into a women should be included??? This is a dangerous road to go down without due process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hmoKPz-eQ0
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/07/30...site_scout

[41bear]

I presume this is what we are talking about:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-...ook-effect

While I applaud the intent to keep weapons out of the hands of sick (mental illness) people to base it on speech only is a dangerous road to go down and as the lawyer pointed out it's unconstitutional. Looks like a knee jerker to me and as usual not well thought out.

[stanc]

So Bruce Jenner and others who think they can shape shift into a women should be included??? This is a dangerous road to go down without due process.

a. My understanding is that there is a required legal process.

b. Having cosmetic surgery does not make one a shape shifter.

[video=youtube;n6K7C3eQb4I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6K7C3eQb4I[/video]

[LRRPF52]

I had such high expectations for this thread.....

[montana]

https://www.usacarry.com/first-confiscat...w-gun-law/

[stanc]

I presume this is what we are talking about:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-...took-effec

The OP didn't bother to say, but yes, that appears to be the subject of the discussion.
(And your link doesn't work. Please add the letter "t" at the end, so "effec" is "effect")

While I applaud the intent to keep weapons out of the hands of sick (mental illness) people to base it on speech only is a dangerous road to go down and as the lawyer pointed out it's unconstitutional. Looks like a knee jerker to me and as usual not well thought out.

I doubt that it is possible to craft a law intended to prevent mass shootings which won't adversely affect someone's rights.

[stanc]

https://www.usacarry.com/first-confiscat...w-gun-law/

Interesting read, although the frakking pop-up ads are annoying. Most of the article sounds like the author is critical of the new law, but then he says this in concluding:

"I see this direction more like an emphasis on mental health issues, hardening our schools and protecting our children, and taking some action in an attempt to be proactive, rather than being passive and accepting the status quo of violence in schools."

[JASmith]

I applaud Florida for stepping forward to address the challenge of removing weapons from the reach of people adjudged to be menaces toward themselves or others.

Nonetheless, need someone with a legal background to weigh in on the question of whether public speech can be the sole criteria for taking action under this law.

If speech alone is the criteria, the law should be challenged under the First Amendment since one is being punshed for merely exercising his or her 1A rights.

[stanc]

While I applaud the intent to keep weapons out of the hands of sick (mental illness) people to base it on speech only is a dangerous road to go down and as the lawyer pointed out it's unconstitutional.

Someone once noted that lawyers are professional liars. Lawyers make a practice of telling only the part of the story that they want you to hear. This is a prime example.

The lawyer says her client was only exercising his 1A rights when he praised mass shooters. But, if you delve a bit deeper, it becomes clear there was more to the matter:

UCF student Chris Velasquez told police he was just one life-altering event -- like getting fired or going through a breakup -- from gathering the "courage" to open fire on an Orlando school, according to court records.

His dad owned a revolver. He had experience in a shooting range. He resented being the target of bullies in school. And, police said, he made violent comments online — and craved the “adrenaline rush” of carrying out a mass shooting.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/brea...story.html

[montana]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government...-controls/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...laint.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dm7yVTbJo4

https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-...ts-germany
:In February 1943, the Nazis arrested the Scholls and Probst and brought them to trial. All three were found guilty and were guillotined that same day. Soon afterward, others in the group were also tried, convicted, and beheaded.


Innocent or guilty, we are suppose to be given due process before judgement is passed. We are not suppose to be guilty until proven innocent. Being put on the no flight list is a good example of UN-constitutional punishment. Hindsight is always 20 20, but being determined a threat or mentally unstable with Constitutional rights being stripped away needs to be taken very serious and not taken lightly. I can see this snowballing in all aspects of our lives if not challenged.

[stanc]

Innocent or guilty, we are suppose to be given due process before judgement is passed.

Have any of the people in these cases not been given due process?

[montana]

Have any of the people in these cases not been given due process?

From what I know, none have had any rights taken away. My point is, "when rights are taken away without due process" then abuse or preferential treatment can occur based on political sympathy, belief, or popularity, rather than set standards for due process.

[stanc]

From what I know, none have had any rights taken away. My point is, "when rights are taken away without due process" then abuse or preferential treatment can occur based on political sympathy, belief, or popularity, rather than set standards for due process.

I think everyone here would probably agree with that. The question is, if the individuals to whom the Florida law was applied received due process, why even make the point?

[41bear]

The OP didn't bother to say, but yes, that appears to be the subject of the discussion.
(And your link doesn't work. Please add the letter "t" at the end, so "effec" is "effect")


I doubt that it is possible to craft a law intended to prevent mass shootings which won't adversely affect someone's rights.

Done. Messed up on my "copy and paste"

That's true, of course, but to target a teen who has no weapons to begin with shows both a lack of common sense, a sloppy written law, and an over zealous police force.

As for as "more to the matter" all of which still shows that my above statement is on point and, while we're at it Lawyers devious only until we need them.

[stanc]

That's true, of course, but to target a teen who has no weapons to begin with shows both a lack of common sense, a sloppy written law, and an over zealous police force.

Disagree.
First, Velasquez is not a teen. He's 21.
Second, he lives with his parents, so he may have had immediate access to his father's gun.
Third, he could legally have bought an AR15 or other firearm to fulfill his desire to shoot up a school.

There may be exceptions (there usually are), but it looks to me like the cops are attempting to enforce the new law appropriately. https://www.local10.com/news/florida/dee...r-15-rifle

...while we're at it Lawyers devious only until we need them.

Nah. Even then they're still devious and deceitful. They're just doing it for our benefit.

[grayfox]

From what I know, none have had any rights taken away. My point is, "when rights are taken away without due process" then abuse or preferential treatment can occur based on political sympathy, belief, or popularity, rather than set standards for due process.

Actually, to have arms taken away without the person's ability to appear in court beforehand is IMO a taking without due process. Now, the parallel would be you can be held under suspicion without being charged but only for 48 hrs, this is where habeas corpus comes in. So analogously, to take away a 2A right for longer than 48 hrs would seem to be the same style of wrong. The person should have the ability to contest it in court within the 48 hrs. The burden then is on the state to prove there is a chargeable offense. If no lawful cause exists then the arm should be returned.

I don't view being placed on a no-fly list as the same degree, again IMO, because travel upon a privately-held common carrier is not a constitutional right. (Doesn't excuse the sometimes wrongful denial based upon faulty info.)

So, it might be allowable if the confiscation is for a max of 48 hrs and lodging of a legitimate charge against the individual.
I would have to say I am a bit troubled by the law as it is being written/enforced...

Not a lawyer... and not an expert...

[stanc]

Actually, to have arms taken away without the person's ability to appear in court beforehand is IMO a taking without due process.

due process of law
n. a fundamental principle of fairness in all legal matters, both civil and criminal, especially in the courts. All legal procedures set by statute and court practice, including notice of rights, must be followed for each individual so that no prejudicial or unequal treatment will result. While somewhat indefinite, the term can be gauged by its aim to safeguard both private and public rights against unfairness. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

I don't view being placed on a no-fly list as the same degree, again IMO, because travel upon a privately-held common carrier is not a constitutional right.

According to who?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I would have to say I am a bit troubled by the law as it is being written/enforced...

Have you read the Florida law, or just the posted articles about it?