Florida GOP Senator on red flag laws
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Florida GOP Senator on red flag laws

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Member #
    28737
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Jax, Fla
    Posts
    2,039
    Liked
    5892 times

    Florida GOP Senator on red flag laws

    Rick Scott thinks red flag laws are great. This is from a canned response I got to a petition I signed.

    "As Governor of Florida, I worked to increase safety measures in Florida’s schools through the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. We also passed a “red flag” law in the state of Florida, commonly referred to as an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). When properly constructed, red flag laws are a common sense measure to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others, or who is mentally unstable."

    ...and when not properly constructed, enforce, or executed?
    Injunbro likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Member #
    18473
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,741
    Liked
    5535 times
    Quote Originally Posted by MWAG View Post
    Rick Scott thinks red flag laws are great. This is from a canned response I got to a petition I signed.

    "As Governor of Florida, I worked to increase safety measures in Florida’s schools through the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. We also passed a “red flag” law in the state of Florida, commonly referred to as an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). When properly constructed, red flag laws are a common sense measure to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others, or who is mentally unstable."

    ...and when not properly constructed, enforce, or executed?
    Yep just a typical "boiler plate" response.

    Does anyone actually think these Politicians read or care what anyone writes to them??

    They have their planned agendas and so be it.

    When the Stoneman law was passed I wrote one of our Reps and got pretty much the same BS. I wrote about the addition of the must be 21 for a rifle issue.
    Lets not forget that legislation was showed down out throiats in about 30 days!!
    jeepnut likes this.
    NRA Certified RSO

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Member #
    15666
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    NE Georgia
    Posts
    12,805
    Liked
    55601 times
    Quote Originally Posted by MWAG View Post
    Rick Scott thinks red flag laws are great. This is from a canned response I got to a petition I signed.

    "As Governor of Florida, I worked to increase safety measures in Florida’s schools through the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. We also passed a “red flag” law in the state of Florida, commonly referred to as an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). When properly constructed, red flag laws are a common sense measure to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others, or who is mentally unstable."

    ...and when not properly constructed, enforce, or executed?
    You get the incident I was reading about in Florida of mistaken identity and even though no resemblance physically man has had his guns confiscated and must go to court to clear himself and petition to get his guns back all at his expense. Not one shred of due process and he is guilty and must prove his innocence. Totally Unconstitutional and violates everything our Bill of Rights and Amendments represent.
    Regards,
    Rodney


    "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

    Thomas Paine

  4. Remove Advertisements
    SmithAndWessonForums.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Member #
    18473
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,741
    Liked
    5535 times
    Baker acts are already used.
    "Red Flag" laws pretty much are a way to skirt the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.

    Amendments 2,4,5 probably 6 and 8.

    Will the Red Flag Laws be misused? Of Course they will, much like the False Reports made to Children and Families which are used in all kinds of family disputes.

    In those cases (civil) it is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is preponderance of the evidence.
    Are Red Flag laws "criminal or Civil" if the suspect has not yet actually committed a crime??
    jeepnut likes this.
    NRA Certified RSO

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Member #
    22921
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    4,089
    Liked
    13752 times
    'When properly constructed, red flag laws are a common sense measure to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others, or who is mentally unstable."

    Is Rick Scott saying anything different than the NRA?
    jeepnut and SidecarFlip like this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Member #
    9772
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Erath County, Texas
    Posts
    8,757
    Liked
    34113 times
    At the risk of infuriating the membership, I'm changing my mind just a little on Red Flags. The issues I have with Red Flags are that they can bypass due process, and are susceptible to misuse. The case in Maryland last year where a SIL flagged her BIL, apparently over (pick one) inheritance or politics - I've heard both. She found an anti-gun judge who was more than willing to issue an ex parte warrant, and now the man is dead. The SIL is off scot-free. For the longest time I was absolutely against Red Flags in any way, shape, or form.

    SOMEHOW we need to catch people that are going off the rails. I don't think any of us deny we need to look at people who are making active noises on social media that they are going to commit an atrocity. I believe one guy was just arrested for making those threats very recently in FL. Per USA Today "The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said Tristan Scott Wix, 25, of Daytona Beach was arrested Friday and charged with making threats to commit a mass shooting. Sheriff's deputies began investigating after they were alerted to multiple texts Wix allegedly sent with his plans to commit a mass shooting. The office did not say to whom Wix sent the messages."

    So, somebody said something.


    Today, and for some time now - how do we go after someone who is obviously mentally ill? Clearly whacko, needs to be institutionalized? We have a process. It was in the 1890s and early 1900s we used to involuntarily commit eccentric Aunt Jane because she was too much trouble, or rich Uncle Fred because he wasn't dying fast enough and someone wanted to get their hands on his estate. They were shoved into barbaric insane asylums, lobotomized, drugged. There were so many egregious instances strict laws were passed requiring full-on trials with witnesses for both sides before anyone could be committed. They fixed the issue with proper laws about the subject.

    So I think it is also true we need to look at Red Flags in much the same light. Here is what I would insist on before supporting any sort of Red Flag - and I have no idea if this is what the NRA is thinking about or not.
    1. No "imminent danger" exclusions to due-process. Today there are Red Flag laws with due process, but that can be skipped if the threat is claimed to be "imminent". NO EXCEPTIONS, Due Process or it's unconstitutional.

    2. Serious non-negotiable penalties when people are NOT ultimately Red Flagged. This is to avoid someone getting miffed and doing the equivalent of "swatting" the person.
    a. The accuser pays 100% of the accused's legal fees
    b. The accuser pays for all lost wages by the accused
    c. The accuser pays a hefty fine if the accused lost his job due to the accusation
    d. The accuser pays a hefty fine for what has amounted to slander.

    3. if someone is making overt threats, arrest them. Making a threat is already illegal. Then go through any sort of Red Flag due process after that, process the arrest for the threat separately.

    On item 2, I would work the law so that a judge cannot say "well, you had just cause to be concerned, but even though we find he's OK anyway, no fines". If they can't convict, they must acquit, and fine the crap out of the accuser.

    I want this to be called only in the most obvious cases. The Cruz kid, Parkland, would be exactly one that should have had a Red Flag, there were signs out the wazoo he was going real bad. This kid in Volusia, making overt threats on Facebook - yep, intervene. Even if all he was doing was being a keyboard warrior, that crap gotta stop. A few arrests for being an idiot might slow down this internet one-upmanship that's going on.

    Of course, civil discussion would be appreciated! Thoughts? Alternatives???
    Last edited by sdismukes; 08-20-2019 at 08:57 AM.
    No God, No Good.... Know God, Know Good....

    Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.--- Thomas Jefferson

    911 Response time: 600+ seconds. 1911 response time: 800+ feet per second.

    US Navy, Vietnam Vet, NRA Life Member, GOA Life Member, Hook'em Horns!


  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Member #
    46651
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    310
    Liked
    979 times
    SOMEHOW we need to catch people that are going off the rails.
    We will try.

    We may succeed at times. We will fail more often. That goes for everything.

    What might come next that could be helpful is making it easier to make corrections when we fail. We're not far enough along to recognize how we'll fail. We can only guess, and throw the soda straw view on the few failures we've had so far.

    But we will try. It's in our nature.
    Member GOA, NRA & SAF

  9. #8
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    5427
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    7,804
    Liked
    22425 times
    The unintended consequences of these ill conceived laws are widespread, potentially limitless in the damage they will do to society, and sure to be completely ineffective.

    Read this, share it widely:

    http://rightswatch.org/documents/201...kingPoints.pdf
    Cheers! Marc


    Check out my Gun Rights BLOG at: http://skilledshot.wordpress.com
    accipere facile, sed sumite! - Take it easy, but take it!
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol; Personal Protection Inside and Outside the Home; Rifle; Reloading: Chief RSO
    NC DOJ Concealed Carry Instructor; Appointed Member North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network

  10. #9
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    5427
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    7,804
    Liked
    22425 times
    Unfortunately, the legal model being used in most states enacting these laws will not embrace the protections you want. These laws will never be written in the way you propose because they are not intended to be fair or observe the rights of the target fairly. Their objective is to re-balance risk in the direction of irresponsible people that don't want to have to defend themselves, but prefer to have others do it.

    The laws are completely unnecessary. Existing procedures (which assure the right of appearing in your defense) are more than adequate to stop violent attackers if they are actually used. Most people "don't want to get involved", so the processes are never started against clearly dangerous people. This lack of social responsibility is part of the pattern that is used to justify these dangerous laws.

    Considering them "somebody else's problem" (as has been demonstrated over and over again in the attacks perpetrated by known dangerous people) has just very tangibly become your problem as a lawful gun owner. This shifts the cultural responsibility for these crimes to completely innocent and lawful people just interested in defending themselves.

    One third of the ERPOs issued in Connecticut and Indiana (who have had these laws for a couple of years) are overturned the first time a judge hears the story of the target of the orders. The error rate is already draconian and unacceptable.

    These laws are routinely misused, and designed to have no effective penalty for misuse.

    The laws cannot ever work because the truly dangerous perpetrators of mass killings are all smart enough to simply stop projecting their "dangerous" nature to those close to them. They will keep it to themselves, write secret manifests, bottle up the anger, and attack without warning instead of telegraphing their true nature to anyone that could request such an order.

    These are laws that cannot ever work to stop crime, will make dangerous people more effective (playing into the charisma psychopaths project before they shift to killing mode), and routinely disarm lawful citizens without notice. This is a veritable recipe for disaster.

    All this is "necessary" in the Democrat secular socialist machine mind because people refuse to be responsible for their own safety and self defense, preferring to be afraid of "the gun" and not addressing the real problem. Just as the art of carpentry is not manifest in the carpenter's tools, the art of mayhem and misery is not manifest in the criminal attacker's tools.

    This is why these laws must be resisted, and political calls to "do something" by enacting these ill conceived laws are tragically wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by sdismukes View Post
    At the risk of infuriating the membership, I'm changing my mind just a little on Red Flags. The issues I have with Red Flags are that they can bypass due process, and are susceptible to misuse. The case in Maryland last year where a SIL flagged her BIL, apparently over (pick one) inheritance or politics - I've heard both. She found an anti-gun judge who was more than willing to issue an ex parte warrant, and now the man is dead. The SIL is off scot-free. For the longest time I was absolutely against Red Flags in any way, shape, or form.

    SOMEHOW we need to catch people that are going off the rails. I don't think any of us deny we need to look at people who are making active noises on social media that they are going to commit an atrocity. I believe one guy was just arrested for making those threats very recently in FL. Per USA Today "The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said Tristan Scott Wix, 25, of Daytona Beach was arrested Friday and charged with making threats to commit a mass shooting. Sheriff's deputies began investigating after they were alerted to multiple texts Wix allegedly sent with his plans to commit a mass shooting. The office did not say to whom Wix sent the messages."

    So, somebody said something.


    Today, and for some time now - how do we go after someone who is obviously mentally ill? Clearly whacko, needs to be institutionalized? We have a process. It was in the 1890s and early 1900s we used to involuntarily commit eccentric Aunt Jane because she was too much trouble, or rich Uncle Fred because he wasn't dying fast enough and someone wanted to get their hands on his estate. They were shoved into barbaric insane asylums, lobotomized, drugged. There were so many egregious instances strict laws were passed requiring full-on trials with witnesses for both sides before anyone could be committed. They fixed the issue with proper laws about the subject.

    So I think it is also true we need to look at Red Flags in much the same light. Here is what I would insist on before supporting any sort of Red Flag - and I have no idea if this is what the NRA is thinking about or not.
    1. No "imminent danger" exclusions to due-process. Today there are Red Flag laws with due process, but that can be skipped if the threat is claimed to be "imminent". NO EXCEPTIONS, Due Process or it's unconstitutional.

    2. Serious non-negotiable penalties when people are NOT ultimately Red Flagged. This is to avoid someone getting miffed and doing the equivalent of "swatting" the person.
    a. The accuser pays 100% of the accused's legal fees
    b. The accuser pays for all lost wages by the accused
    c. The accuser pays a hefty fine if the accused lost his job due to the accusation
    d. The accuser pays a hefty fine for what has amounted to slander.

    3. if someone is making overt threats, arrest them. Making a threat is already illegal. Then go through any sort of Red Flag due process after that, process the arrest for the threat separately.

    On item 2, I would work the law so that a judge cannot say "well, you had just cause to be concerned, but even though we find he's OK anyway, no fines". If they can't convict, they must acquit, and fine the crap out of the accuser.

    I want this to be called only in the most obvious cases. The Cruz kid, Parkland, would be exactly one that should have had a Red Flag, there were signs out the wazoo he was going real bad. This kid in Volusia, making overt threats on Facebook - yep, intervene. Even if all he was doing was being a keyboard warrior, that crap gotta stop. A few arrests for being an idiot might slow down this internet one-upmanship that's going on.

    Of course, civil discussion would be appreciated! Thoughts? Alternatives???
    Last edited by mrerick; 08-20-2019 at 10:07 AM.
    jeepnut, SidecarFlip and sdismukes like this.
    Cheers! Marc


    Check out my Gun Rights BLOG at: http://skilledshot.wordpress.com
    accipere facile, sed sumite! - Take it easy, but take it!
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol; Personal Protection Inside and Outside the Home; Rifle; Reloading: Chief RSO
    NC DOJ Concealed Carry Instructor; Appointed Member North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network

  11. #10
    Supporting Member
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    5427
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    7,804
    Liked
    22425 times
    One word of warning. On a strictly legal analysis, most of these "Red Flag" laws operate in the gray area of constitutionality.

    Eventually, they do observe due process after temporarily depriving the target of ERPOs of their rights to firearms and self defense. Sometimes, a right delayed and abused is not considered a right violated by a law.

    They may also violate unreasonable seizure but a short period of confiscation may be considered "reasonable" by some courts.

    This is why they should not necessarily be fought against on "Due Process" or "Constitutional" grounds. There is a good chance of losing that fight.

    What they are, strictly described, are "No notice gun confiscation laws".

    They are routinely being abused where they are already enacted. The last case, this past weekend, confiscated the firearms owned by a person that was the clear victim of mistaken identity. The Sheriff involved clearly understood that the person standing in front of them was not the person targeted by the ERPO, and still took his firearms - telling him he could argue to get them back in 30 days. The two people with the same name had different heights on record.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/flo...aken-identity/

    "The process" was more important than the individual's rights, now that Florida has these laws in place. This is but one unintended consequence or such laws.



    Please realize that you're dealing with a movement that is projecting a clear and present danger. This is only one step in a long term strategy that invents and erupts new tactics regularly, and has done so since the success of the 1990's "Assault Weapons Ban", an equally ineffective "do something" politician action.

    It is dangerous to compromise on anything being proposed by these zealots, especially when you understand that their ultimate goal (complete civilian disarmament and prohibition in the United States) can never be achieved. Their own analysis confirms this, claiming that in California 30 percent of confiscated firearms are home made "ghost guns" made without complying with California registration laws.

    They can never achieve the objective of stopping crime and making America safer. They will, in fact, embrace unintended consequences that will do the exact opposite, accelerating the power, presence and the territorial control of organized criminals.

    There is no reason to compromise on bad laws.
    Last edited by mrerick; 08-20-2019 at 05:27 PM.
    Cheers! Marc


    Check out my Gun Rights BLOG at: http://skilledshot.wordpress.com
    accipere facile, sed sumite! - Take it easy, but take it!
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol; Personal Protection Inside and Outside the Home; Rifle; Reloading: Chief RSO
    NC DOJ Concealed Carry Instructor; Appointed Member North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network


 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
SmithandWessonForums.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson. We are an enthusiast site and fans of Smith & Wesson Firearms. To visit the official Smith & Wesson site, click here: Smith-Wesson.com.