450 in Florida ordered to give up their guns....

[VenomJockey]

And so it begins......

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/3...o-give-up-guns-under-new-law-report-says.html

Excerpt: "Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law that took effect after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a report published Monday.

The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott just three weeks after a gunman killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas, aims to temporarily remove weapons from gun owners who have been deemed by a judge to possibly be a threat to themselves or others."

 

[tmttactical]

There are several key points you should have noticed. 1) Task force assigned to request seizures. 2) Judges approved ALL requests, none were turned down or declined. This is not a one of incident, this is a concert effort to start of gun seizure. 3) Please note they also seized the ammo and ammo loaders (Mags). So if the idea is to remove firearms to protect the public and the firearm owner, why remove the ammo too? Is this to protect or disarm?

 

[Brent S]

I wish I could see the reasons given for each seizure. I’m ok if a person shows signs of anger, instability or other warning signs. The problem I see is who gets to decide who’s unstable and how fair and impartial are they. Either way, there are too many hot heads out there that are loaded and ready. Just look at the increase of road rage incidents in recent years. If all those people were armed it would be the Wild West.

 

[brandx]

It is getting closer to a fight with the government. People are not using their brains.

 

[Gazrok]

One of the many reasons that scumbag Scott will not get elected to Congress next.

 

[brandx]

Incrementally removing the rights. Ticks me off. If someone is a danger to themselves or others then why are they even on the street? DA's.

 

[brandx]

Just wondering if you don't have an address of record, meaning you are homeless does that mean the law does not apply? I also wonder if this law can be used against police officers by certain persons petitioning the court? Wouldn't that be interesting? OK, we made this law and now 1/4th of our states police forces have lost their guns. In addition, they will be using gun sniffing dogs. They will error on the side of safety because of potential lawsuits if they don't remove guns, even if there was no direct threat or just one persons word against another.

 

[Proud Prepper]

Just wondering if you don't have an address of record, meaning you are homeless does that mean the law does not apply? I also wonder if this law can be used against police officers by certain persons petitioning the court? Wouldn't that be interesting? OK, we made this law and now 1/4th of our states police forces have lost their guns. In addition, they will be using gun sniffing dogs. They will error on the side of safety because of potential lawsuits if they don't remove guns, even if there was no direct threat or just one persons word against another.

The judges to decide these cases have already been shopped and put in place before the Law was signed. They would reject all those petitions.

 

[Proud Prepper]

This Law is unconstitutional. From what I have read, these people where not even convicted of any of the crimes used to justify this confiscation, only charged.
Limits are on the GOVERNMENT, not the rights of the people. Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and tell me where it gives government the authority to limit the rights enumerated within it. The entire Bill of Rights is intended to restrict the government, not the rights guaranteed to the people.

 

[Maverick]

Most that had the firearms taken away wasn't due to charges filed against them but rather they threaten to do themselves harm not necessarily anybody else just to themselves such as threatening suicide etc... the other folks were clinically diagnose that's been on file pre school-shooting.

 

[tmttactical]

I wish I could see the reasons given for each seizure. I’m ok if a person shows signs of anger, instability or other warning signs. The problem I see is who gets to decide who’s unstable and how fair and impartial are they. Either way, there are too many hot heads out there that are loaded and ready. Just look at the increase of road rage incidents in recent years. If all those people were armed it would be the Wild West.

Brent, I am going to have to differ with you. A number of years back, Komifornia had a freeway shooter. This person would shoot at folks for bad / unsafe or rude driving. Funny how well the people started driving and how polite they became on the road. No wild west and actually a decrease in road rage incidents, until they caught the shooter. The incident of road rage will drop with the increase of drivers carrying. Trust me, you don't want to flip the bird to somebody that could blow that bird away. JM2C

 

[TexasFreedom]

This is a very slippery slope. As Brent said, who decides this? I'd wager nearly every one of here on this forum would be considered a danger. Mainly to an overbearing gov't, but don't worry, they'll include that soon enough... and urbanprep makes a good point about this helping to keep a polite society.

 

[tmttactical]

Most that had the firearms taken away wasn't due to charges filed against them but rather they threaten to do themselves harm not necessarily anybody else just to themselves such as threatening suicide etc... the other folks were clinically diagnose that's been on file pre school-shooting.

If they area danger to themselves, how does removing the gun stop the suicide? Knives, BBQ in a closed up house, sleeping pills, etc. Again government BS. Now if they are clinically diagnosed, why are they not in an institution? Did the gun hating liberal doctor perform the diagnosis? If they are a danger to themselves or other, take them into custody, place them into a hospital and provide them with a patient advocate and evaluate their mental condition --- per medical procedure and protections. This confiscation law is just a back door attack an gun owners. There are legal methods to place a person in a mandatory 72 hour hold for evaluation. You don't a special panel and hand picked judges to lock down somebody that is a danger to themselves or others.

THIS NEW LAW IS bsflag!!!!!

 

[Maverick]

If they area danger to themselves, how does removing the gun stop the suicide? Knives, BBQ in a closed up house, sleeping pills, etc. Again government BS. Now if they are clinically diagnosed, why are they not in an institution? Did the gun hating liberal doctor perform the diagnosis? If they are a danger to themselves or other, take them into custody, place them into a hospital and provide them with a patient advocate and evaluate their mental condition --- per medical procedure and protections. This confiscation law is just a back door attack an gun owners. There are legal methods to place a person in a mandatory 72 hour hold for evaluation. You don't a special panel and hand picked judges to lock down somebody that is a danger to themselves or others.

THIS NEW LAW IS bsflag!!!!!

You know how these feel-good laws work. Like a band-aid on arterial bleeding, it don't work!

 

[Kevin L]

And so it begins......

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/3...o-give-up-guns-under-new-law-report-says.html

Excerpt: "Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law that took effect after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a report published Monday.

The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott just three weeks after a gunman killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas, aims to temporarily remove weapons from gun owners who have been deemed by a judge to possibly be a threat to themselves or others."

I'm playing devil's advocate here...and just you know, I have a large gun collection (including some 'black guns') and I support the 2nd Ammendment...but did you guys see why they took Smith's guns?

He took his Glock, and shot several rounds through the rear window of a car at a friend of his...over an altercation about a cell phone.

He had threatened people with guns over stupid reasons, and he was charged with attempted murder.

I know people here believe in the slippery slope idea, but I see the slippery slope as a logical fallacy simply because I believe in grey areas and a healthy middle ground.

This a---hole didn't need to own any guns given his violent history, and I'm glad the cops took them away.

Now as for the other 400-odd confiscations, I have no opinion since I didn't look into them.

 

[DrHenley]

I'm sure some were completely justified.

 

[Kevin L]

I'm not saying that the law can't be abused and people denied their rights over stupid reasons.

And just to show a counter-argument to my own point, consider Britain.

Very anti-gun (supposedly only 64 total gun deaths for 2016--nationwide--in a country of almost 70,000,000 people).

So, what are criminals doing?

Using corrosive acids as an offensive weapon to commit crimes!

A scumbag will run up to you and throw sulfuric acid in your face to do a car-jacking. They take your keys while you're writhing in mortal agony.

I saw the aftermath of this when I worked as a medic. A security person in Walmart grabbed a shoplifter, and the shoplifter squirted pool acid in his face from a turkey baster.

This man ended up disfigured and partially blind...over a $75.00 toaster oven.

 

[Kevin L]

Come to think of it, if I had no guns...such an idea could be used for home defense in a dire situation?

 

[Kevin L]

Brent, I am going to have to differ with you. A number of years back, Komifornia had a freeway shooter. This person would shoot at folks for bad / unsafe or rude driving. Funny how well the people started driving and how polite they became on the road. No wild west and actually a decrease in road rage incidents, until they caught the shooter. The incident of road rage will drop with the increase of drivers carrying. Trust me, you don't want to flip the bird to somebody that could blow that bird away. JM2C

You reiterate a point made by the genius Robert Heinlein:

"An armed society is a polite society."

I agree.

 

[tmttactical]

@Kevin L
I love the devils advocate role, it does help show both sides of the pancake. Now, guy threatens friend over stupid issue. Gets arrested, then condition of bail could have been turn over all firearms until case / trial completed. If he does not like that idea, sit in jail until trial over. No new laws were or are needed. There are plenty of current laws that allow the authorities to take action, no need for more firearm thefts by the government.

Now my turn to play devils advocate: --- Make believe -- you did not do it ----
You get caught cheating on Your Lady. She get real mad (can't blame her) and calls the cops and says you threatened her with one of your real nice guns from your real nice collection. Now the cops demand you turn over your entire gun collection, including ammo, mags, etc. You tell the cops she is upset and not accurate but they decide in the name of safety, hers or maybe your or both. They are taking the guns. Now what are you going to do? That is why I like the current laws, it takes some actual proof, not somebodies he said - she said --garbage. Both side of safety have merit but the new law provides too much and too many opportunities for abuse -- private and government. I hope I am the high bidder on your collection, when they auction it off. JM2C

Kevin L I did like your post. As long as both side of an issue can be discussed in a civil manner, there is still hope.

 

[Kevin L]

Thank you.

I understand the "he said-she said" point, and any law can be abused.

I, for example, have been abused by cops simply because I was on a date with an African American woman.

I think there is a difference between politicians who pass laws, and politicians who are capable leaders.

A law is a tool (An example of a tool is a knife. I can use a knife to murder someone, or to save a person's life when I cut seatbelts during an extrication after a car wreck). I'm all for giving people tools that they need to do their jobs, but it comes down to who someone is as a person when it comes to how they do their jobs.

I'm sure that police will, somewhere, abuse the law (and their authority) and deprive people of their rights inappropriately.

I also believe that they will save lives.

I don't demand perfection of my political leaders (I don't believe in perfectionism), but I do demand good faith.

If this law is applied in good faith, it may help a lot of this mass shooting craziness.

I'm not saying that I neccesarily agree with it, but I'd like to think that I'm open-minded about it.

Being open-minded is different from saying that I accept the law uncritically.

Also, I could argue that this law is a pro-gun politician throwing the anti-gun people a bone in order to calm them down so that they can preserve our gun rights by stemming the tidal wave of anti-gun sentiment that these mass shootings have created.

 

[VenomJockey]

I'm playing devil's advocate here...and just you know, I have a large gun collection (including some 'black guns') and I support the 2nd Ammendment...but did you guys see why they took Smith's guns?

He took his Glock, and shot several rounds through the rear window of a car at a friend of his...over an altercation about a cell phone.

He had threatened people with guns over stupid reasons, and he was charged with attempted murder.

I know people here believe in the slippery slope idea, but I see the slippery slope as a logical fallacy simply because I believe in grey areas and a healthy middle ground.

This a---hole didn't need to own any guns given his violent history, and I'm glad the cops took them away.

Now as for the other 400-odd confiscations, I have no opinion since I didn't look into them.

There's no doubt this guy shouldn't have a gun....but what about the other 449? I do see this as a slippery slope, especially when the decisions are being made by the DA's hand picked judges (who have granted ALL the petitions presented). Why is there no mention of psychological evaluations being conducted before these "judges" make their decisions? Is it now up to a hand-picked judge to declare someone "unfit" to own a firearm?

 

[tmttactical]

@Kevin L You make good points but remember the road to Heck is paved with good intentions. Just some food for thought. 1) When did the Law go into effect? 2) When did the seizure committee go into effect? 3) When was the first request for seizure issued? 4) When was the first request approved by a Judge? And last but certainly not least when has our law enforcement been so excellent that every one of their request were perfect and absolutely justified? Remember 100% of requests for seizure was granted.

Now you said you were stopped because you were with an Africa American Lady, how would you like that same cop to be able request your guns be taken away? Wow now that is a scary thought huh? All that cop had to do was run a few data base searches and the cop would know where you lived, that you did have guns registered to you. Now that bigot is off and rolling to give you a lot more grief than you ever thought possible. Last thought, Never, ever throw a bone to liberals, they will only demand bigger and better bones. Look at all the gun laws (bones) on the books already. JM2C

 

[Kevin L]

There's no doubt this guy shouldn't have a gun....but what about the other 449? I do see this as a slippery slope, especially when the decisions are being made by the DA's hand picked judges (who have granted ALL the petitions presented). Why is there no mention of psychological evaluations being conducted before these "judges" make their decisions? Is it now up to a hand-picked judge to declare someone "unfit" to own a firearm?

I did say that I had no opinion as to the other 400-odd people because I didn't look into their situation.

I didn't even say I supported the law. I say that I'm open-minded, which means that I want more data before I decide one way or another.

I don't believe in perfectionism, and I see the slippery slope objection as a fallacy in principle.

The slippery slope presents a complex continuum of possibilities in terms of black and white...rather like an on-off switch.

An example are people who object to birth control (like condoms) on religious grounds because it leads to abortion (in small increments) in the 9th month of pregnancy...and, if we allow abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy, then it's no big deal to kill babies after they're born.

If we can kill babies, then we can kill children and adults...and so on.

So, allowing condom use today leads to Nazi extermination camps (like Auschwitz) tomorrow.

This is an example of what I mean when I talk about the slippery slope being a fallacy.

I think the slippery slope fallacy is attractive to some people because it saves us from having to think and decide things for ourselves, and corrupt politicians like resorting to the slippery slope for this reason.

Obscuring the truth with tools like this is a mechanism that keeps corrupt people in power.

 

[tmttactical]

@Kevin L Example of slippery slope : What where the gun laws in 1776 vs. 2016? That is a proven slippery slope.

Every time a gun law has passed, a new a stricter gun law is proposed. This is a constant battle of gun rights. How do you eat a whale, one bite at a time. I do not see any need to own a bump stock, in fact I really think they are a waste of money and ammo. Very inaccurate and can actually slow your rate of fire if your don't practice with them a lot. With that given, why are they to become illegal? Home many people own one, how many even want to own one. This is just hysterical hype and crap. But it is just one more item the anti-gun folks can attack and one more item gun folks are willing to sacrifice or toss out as a bone to the anti gun dogs. Time to say no more bones, and start reclaiming out gun rights. Why is a $200 tax stamp and a 10 month waiting period required to purchase a suppressor? Again just one more step in that mysterious slippery slope. How about SBR (short barreled Rifles) same as the suppressor. Money for the state, delay for the user and changes absolutely nothing. They are not more dangerous, does not make anybody safer, just one more bone to the anti gun dogs. Another step on the mysterious slippery slope. Bullet button, anti mag releases, no pistol grips, ammo registration and waiting times, ammo purchase maximums, etc. All part of the mysterious slippery slope. We have tossed the anti gun dogs way too many bones. Now is the time to stop it and start taking back out rights. JM2C

 

[Kevin L]

Having to decide where the grey area is takes time and work.

As I've said (and I have pictures in other threads), I own many guns...including an AR-15, an M1A, a 10/22, and so on.

Even though I'm pro gun, I don't believe people should own M203 grenade launchers, claymore mines, RPGs, or hand grenades.

I don't think this makes me a hypocrite.

There are intelligent boundaries to certian things, and deciding where those boundaries are takes time and work.

I always try to consider context.

I might be more restrictive about concealed carry if people worked at an airport and had access to sterile areas, and I was concerned about guns getting smuggled on an aircraft.

I might have an issue with certian kinds of rounds getting carried around an oil refinery, and so on.

I believe in freedom and liberty, but the freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins...and I try to be very aware of this principle when it comes to how I manage my weapons.

 

[tmttactical]

Ah, we appear to be shifting away from what you can't have verses what you already have being taken away. Confiscation vs. firearm licenses.

As far as I know every single item you named can be had / purchased and owned if you have enough money to A) Buy them B) obtain the government required license. Want to be an arms dealer, buy the license and wait out the background check but if you are RICH enough you can get them legally. So all the law did was make it legal for the rich guys to own machine guns or the local approved arms dealer / manufacture (rich guys) to have them. The debate continues. Folks it is okay to join in, me and Kevin are just having some fun, looking at both side of this pancake.

 

[Kevin L]

Just because I said that I believe that the slippery slope is fallacy doesn't mean that I buy into all of the current gun laws.

I think that a $200.00 tax stamp for a suppressor is B.S.. I also think that the push against "saturday night specials" (and associated laws) is also stupid.

Cheap guns have a place, and poor people are just as deserving of self-defense as the wealthy.

So, by decrying the slippery slope doesn't mean that I approve of current legislation.

And--as I mentioned elsewhere--British criminals work around restrictive gun laws simply by carrying acid or lye, and throwing it in a person's face to incapacitate them prior to a car jacking.

 

[tmttactical]

@Kevin L I know I am having fun but I am beginning to wonder if we have scared off the other folks. Does this happen often on this forum? You are being too darn reasonable and I am starting to run out of Devil's Advocate points. So in the spirit of meanness and my dislike of losing a debate D) I am moving it back on topic.

The new law is illegal, immoral, probably fattening and against the 2nd. amendment and will be overturned. So there!

 

[Roninsensei]

I believe that the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for people who don’t realize they are being taught a fallacy. Is it really crazy to believe that our government adding limits to a right can’t eventually lead to more? I mean look at gun rights. Or speech. Are we truly free to say what we wish or did they add limits. For now they say they are reasonable but, later more because after years of indoctrination our new reasonable has moved so sure, let’s make it illegal to call someone the wrong gender. Don’t believe it’s happening then you are simply blind to A + B = C. Also it’s not a fallacy to think A+ B + C = D the difference is that some of us add the other letters to get to Z. That’s not a fallacy. That’s forward thinking and Someone who pays attention to history.