Yes, I've been to those calls. I've transported people to the mental ward because there was no medical emergency and EMS doesn't transport mental patients. And while they are being evaluated, they are not in possession of a firearm. If you brought your guy in for evaluation, he would also not be in possession of a firearm. But if it's determined he does not need to be involuntarily committed, he is released. That indicates the danger to himself and society is minimal or nonexistent. Or at least it should.
On what basis do the experts then decide to remove a specific weapon while leaving all the others? If it's appropriate to restrict a person's right to bear arms, would it not also be appropriate to restrict other potential means of potential harm that are not rights? And where do you draw the line? When you cross over from being an actual danger to being a potential danger, the pool of people meeting the requirements grows quite a bit. A number of people I served with overseas were diagnosed with PTSD. They could all be argued to be potential dangers to themselves and society, even without exhibiting any signs of actual danger. A vet in Florida can potentially go in to talk to a doctor about becoming frequently frustrated and be labeled by the "expert" as a danger and have their rights stripped based on the "potential" standard.
But I thought I saw somewhere the new Florida law had to requirement of some sort of threat, not just the potential. Although I can't readily find more on the new law other than a bunch of articles about it being used. So either I am wrong, there's more to this story than is being published, or someone overstepped their authority.
