Florida Seizing Guns Under New Gun Control Laws.

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    16,999
    113
    Walker
    Florida Seizing Guns Under New Gun Control Laws.

    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.
    "We know it's the first case of its kind in Broward County and we think it's the first one in Florida, under the new law," Cirullo said. "Up until the introduction of this law last week, there was no process for us to protect the public in this kind of situation."
    Before now, officials who attempted to remove guns from a person they thought was a danger could be removed from office and fined up to $5,000, he said.
    Lighthouse Point police made the request on March 14, one week after they were called to his apartment building to conduct a welfare check on the man, who they said was behaving strangely. Authorities said it was the latest in a series of encounters law enforcement had with the man, though he has no history of arrests in Florida.
    Police were called after the man turned off the main electrical breakers to the apartment building, court records show.
    The man told officers he "was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in (his) building," the judge wrote in his order. "(He) could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor 'shape shift, he can change heights and I'm not sure where he comes from' and 'to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.'"
    He also told officers that he had to turn off the electrical breakers because "they are electrocuting me through my legs."
    Officers said they saw weapons in his home after they were called to check on his welfare. They also found evidence he had "a voluminous amount of notes containing numerous references to former President Barack Obama, that he was killed in the 1980s but came back and now murders children to place their spirits into (the man's) head, is a member of (al-Qaida), and is (the man's) enemy," the judge wrote in his order.
    The man was involuntarily committed for treatment in a separate proceeding and it is not yet known when he would be eligible for release, records show.
    The guns that were temporarily seized were a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun, according to the court order.
    The man did not attend the initial hearing, which temporarily removes his access to guns, because he is hospitalized.
    Under the requirements of the state law, Lighthouse Point police, Cirullo and the man whose guns were removed are due in court on March 28 for a final hearing to determine if the guns and ammunition should be removed for one year.
    At that hearing, police would have to present "clear and convincing" evidence - more than was needed for the temporary removal of guns and ammunition - to keep the weapons in their custody for the next year.
    If the judge grants that request, police could request an extension of the order if they are still concerned about the man having access to firearms
     

    RM Holsters

    Aware
    Rating - 100%
    27   0   0
    Sep 25, 2012
    316
    16
    Baton Rouge
    Here comes the slippery slope. I am sure they had to find just the right person to try this new law on. They have already convicted this guy in everyone's opinion of being crazy.
     

    Wiley Coyote

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 25, 2018
    9
    1
    SW Louisiana
    Then They Came For Me

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
     

    thebayoushooter

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 21, 2011
    102
    18
    Metairie
    Yea it's not gonna be me I don't do crazy stuff. Rember if tht nut job shoots up a school it's gonna be you who they come after to confiscate. If somebody is a threat to my right to own I'm all for them losing their guns. Yall sound like y'all are okay with violent psychos owning guns. I'm not.
     

    CatCam

    Ready, Shoot, Aim!
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Feb 20, 2013
    1,025
    63
    267 rounds of ammo.....some people think that is excessive. That's what I have in my desk drawer.....!!!

    BUT - I'm all for taking the guns out of the hands of people who are "unstable".....
     

    freedive10

    -Global Mod-, Caballoloco
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Sep 17, 2008
    2,163
    63
    Mandeville
    Yea it's not gonna be me I don't do crazy stuff. Rember if tht nut job shoots up a school it's gonna be you who they come after to confiscate. If somebody is a threat to my right to own I'm all for them losing their guns. Yall sound like y'all are okay with violent psychos owning guns. I'm not.

    Reminds me of Minority Report.
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    From what is described in the post, barring the uncovering of something new, I would think that they will give his guns back. Nothing described involved threats to or harmful actions towards anyone else, or any self-injurious behavior, just delusional beliefs. Leveled out on appropriate medications, he may well present lucidly in court.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    There are PLENTY of laws already on the books that give law enforcement the ability to deal with this whack job.
    The government, state or fed, does not need the power to disarm people for what they think they might do. Laws like this will eventually affect everyone who has ever:
    Seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor,
    Been to anger management
    Been prescribed any meds that have the *may cause drowsiness* sticker on the bottle.
    The new sticker could read, *you must surrender your firearms*
    Had any sort of restraining order or protective order signed against them.
    Are a veteran of the armed forces.
    Etc, etc, etc, etccccccccc.....
    I’ve covered all this before. I was a deputy coroner for about 15 years, have been in the medical field over 30 years, have been to conferences with speakers who spew the potential of having such laws passed and I can tell you this **** is coming.
     

    Nathan Hale

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2014
    336
    18
    Louisiana
    Gun owners will need to be careful about what they say and write from now on. (See how this works.)
     

    freedive10

    -Global Mod-, Caballoloco
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Sep 17, 2008
    2,163
    63
    Mandeville
    Just trying to make sure I’m understanding you. If the report is accurate, you think that guy should be able to possess a firearm?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Don’t know enough about this case to say. I don’t believe in the government determining to disarm people who have not broken a law on the mear opinion that they *might* at a later date.. You start twiddle ****ing with rights, always leads to over reach. Break a law, then government has a leg to stand on and a person can choose to fight it in the court system. Anything else and your opening Pandora’s box.
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    Gun owners will need to be careful about what they say and write from now on. (See how this works.)

    You should have already been doing that if you want people to respect gun owners. Gun owners have always been their own worst enemy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,710
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Just trying to make sure I’m understanding you. If the report is accurate, you think that guy should be able to possess a firearm?

    Where in the article was it established he was a danger to himself or others? Did he have a driver's license? If so, did they temporarily suspend it? What about other weapons in the residence such as knives? Were they also removed?

    I see he was brought to a hospital for treatment. If he was hospitalized to protect himself and others, why confiscate the weapons he no longer has access to? If they release him because he is determined to not be a danger to himself or others, why keep his weapons?

    What information did the experts use to make their determination? It sounds like they made a decision based on 3rd party testimony and before the subject was brought in for treatment. Who were the experts? Was this their first decision or had they previously decided to allow someone to keep their weapons?
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    Where in the article was it established he was a danger to himself or others? Did he have a driver's license? If so, did they temporarily suspend it? What about other weapons in the residence such as knives? Were they also removed?

    I see he was brought to a hospital for treatment. If he was hospitalized to protect himself and others, why confiscate the weapons he no longer has access to? If they release him because he is determined to not be a danger to himself or others, why keep his weapons?

    What information did the experts use to make their determination? It sounds like they made a decision based on 3rd party testimony and before the subject was brought in for treatment. Who were the experts? Was this their first decision or had they previously decided to allow someone to keep their weapons?

    Well I’m not a doctor but in a lot of cases it’s not complicated. The guy who stripped naked in the parking lot of a gas station last night and laid in the middle of the gas pumps is a prime example. I’m thinking he didn’t need to possess a firearm.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
    Top Bottom