APOD Firearms

Florida "Red Flag" question

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

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!
  • FrankT

    6.8 SPCII Hog Slayer
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    17,360
    Points
    113
    Location
    Crestview/Hwy 90E/Shoal River
    FBI stats say more people are killed with knives than rifles so are we going to remove their knives, maybe hammers too? or possible screw drivers with those nasty pointy things on the end? where do we stop infringing?
     
    Last edited:

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,877
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    FBI stats say more people are killed with knives than guns so are we going to remove their knives, maybe hammers too? or possible screw drivers with those nasty pointy things on the end? where do we stop infringing?
    Please give a link to back that statement up.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,877
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL

    Attachments

    • Screenshot_2019-08-16 Murder - number of victims by weapons used Statista.png
      Screenshot_2019-08-16 Murder - number of victims by weapons used Statista.png
      33.6 KB · Views: 178

    HayesGreener

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 5, 2014
    Messages
    244
    Points
    43
    Location
    Milton, Florida
    Wow.

    I edited your post with some bold to highlight some of it. That does NOT mean at All that I agree with any of it.

    You say don't erode rights BUT... nope. You lost me right there. They are RIGHTS. They aren't "convenient-until-criminals-make-them-INconvenient".

    You mention that most of those "looneys" ended up in custody and evaluated by professionals. So, let me get this straight: they were still breathing when they left, and professionals got to examine them. Sounds like a couple of wins.

    You mention that there isn't a way to update NICS with the incident. That's a double-edge sword. If the system was realtime updated, then sure, put a one-week hold (or whatever the delay verbiage is) while this warrant and resulting 3-day evaluation can pan out. However, permanently labeling someone because a false warrant was issued, or because it was a misunderstanding, or a political hunt, etc? No.

    Fix the NICS system: yes. Infringe on Rights: NO. Err on the side of caution, not the side of convenience.

    Asking "wouldn't we have wanted" is a manipulative tactic. Of course, good people "want" to prevent all crime, but ADULTS Know that is impossible while preserving Liberty. The freedom to choose and act will always have the unwanted side-effect of degenerates and evil-doers.

    Finally, yes, you most certainly CAN (and Should) ignore the gun piece. Why is the GUN the focus? Because it's scary. Because it's effective? Because it costs more time to deal with? If that's your belief, then label these laws for what they are: GUN Control. They aren't mental health support. They aren't to prevent harm. They arent to fix the NICS. They are GUN Control. Own that label, then. Defend it. See how far you get. Then, once those debates are over, you might actually have a real solution for the actual problems, not a convenient "solution" that leads to the downfall of a Nation.

    I respect your passion on the subject, however where the Florida statute is concerned please take into account that the law requires "clear and convincing evidence" before a judge can issue the order. That is a high bar and judges will not be issuing these orders on someone's whim or innuendo based just upon trash talk or misunderstandings.
     

    lil'skeet

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2015
    Messages
    1,645
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    It will be abused , just like any other law.
    Or, it will be added on to, and added to, and added on to just like EVERY GUN LAW.
    Or, someone else will take office and interprate it as they see fit.
    Or, just like any other gun law, ONCE IT'S CHANGED IN THE FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL, YOU NEVER GET IT BACK. IT ONLY GETS WORSE.....
    Please anyone chime in and prove me wrong.
    Even thinking about disarming law abiding citizens is 100% the wrong thing to do.
    IT WILL LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR!!
    I think law abiding citizens are getting pushed to their limits, and this will be it.
    If there are examples of places that ban guns, make gun ownership nearly impossible, limit magazine capacity, restrict triggers, etc and have proof that they are safer places to live with less crime, then prove it and I'm in. UNTIL THEN MY WEAPONS ARE TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. IF SOME CRAZY FUCKIN PIECE OF SHIT WANTS TO HARM EITHER & HAS A 30 ROUNG MAGAZINE THEN I WANT A 75 ROUND DRUM. I HAVE EARNED THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY AS I SEE FIT. DON'T MAKE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS THE CRIMINALS..... THAT WILL BE A HUGE MISTAKE.
    THE REASON FOR BEING A GOOD, RESPONSIBLE PERSON IS TRYING TO BE FUCKED WITH. TAKE THAT AWAY AND THERE IS.NO REASON TO BE THAT GOOD RESPONSIBLE PERSON. GET IT!!!!!! UNDERSTAND!!!!
    Spend that time and money on finding out why these people are doing this. Look into the drugs... prescription drugs they are on. Find out who is prescribing it and hunt them down.
    OUR COUNTRY HAS A HUGE DRUG PROBLEM, NOT A GUN PROBLEM. AND THE DOCTORS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND SITTING BACK, GETTING RICH, AND ENJOYING THE SHOW.
    Someone please prove me wrong!
     
    Last edited:

    Realtor

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages
    821
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola FL
    He/She said, ________ (fill in the blank) I just don't trust someone can make a judgment (to come take my weapons) about me. I see them saying "Go get the weapons, we can figure it out from there..... after mucho moola spent trying to get your weapons back, you may get them, but your broke in the process.... then its on your record.... Nope, I wish I could say I trust in this, but , well, I don't....
     

    FLT

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    May 15, 2017
    Messages
    3,832
    Points
    113
    Location
    Havana
    It’s frightening enough that I’d never have all my firearms in one place again . This is a game changing event and I think it’s prudent to adjust ones game to the new rules.
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,410
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    I respect your passion on the subject, however where the Florida statute is concerned please take into account that the law requires "clear and convincing evidence" before a judge can issue the order. That is a high bar and judges will not be issuing these orders on someone's whim or innuendo based just upon trash talk or misunderstandings.

    CNN presents "clear and convincing evidence" to every libtard who loves that channel.

    It's all fuzzy feel-good LAWYER verbiage to allow the Grand Canyon's worth of room-for-interpretation.

    Not good enough when you are talking about taking away 2nd Amendment Rights. Those are there to keep a tyrannical government at bay. The added benefit is defending against criminals, etc, but the 2nd Amendment repels tyranny. That's something that MUST be preserved for every future generation.

    So, to those who are willing to piss that away because of convenience or laziness, I say "GTFO."

    And to address the elephant in the room: you implied by a previous post that you are, or at least were, a law enforcement officer. If so, your support for these Red Flag laws means you'd have no problem enforcing one of these warrants?
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Just for information, from lowest to highest Evidentiary Standards we have:

    A. Some credible Evidence.
    B. Substantial Evidence.
    C. Preponderance of Evidence.(51%, level used for determining Immunity under FL Syand your ground Law)
    D. Clear and Convincing Evidence. (Primarily Civil but higher Standard with a greater level of believability than Civil standard,, and some Criminal cases)
    E. Beyound a Reasonable Doubt. (Criminal, Aggravated Circumstances)

    To be clear, its a lower evidentiary level to gain Immunity under Fl Castel Doctrine and a higher level needed to confiscate your firearms under FL Red Flag.

    I don't support Red Flag Laws. A person is a criminal, mentally dangerous to themselves/others or they are not. As has been proven time and time again people determined to commit evil deeds will do so in spite of laws full of deterrents, we have prisons full of them.
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,410
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    IMG_2855.JPG

    IMG_2857.PNG

    I wonder how many freedom-hopefuls in Hong Kong would support "Red flag laws"?

    There are people in other countries in this world RIGHT NOW who are carrying Our flag and singing Our national anthem and "wishing" they had a portion of the Freedoms we enjoy here.

    There are US Citizens in other countries in this world RIGHT NOW wearing Our flag on their uniforms while they put their lives on the line to preserve and protect the freedoms we enjoy here.

    What kind of coward legislates those freedoms away in the name of convenience?

    Why the hell should the rest of us tolerate and be nice to those cowards?
     

    Attachments

    • IMG_2855.JPG
      IMG_2855.JPG
      77.3 KB · Views: 151
    • IMG_2857.PNG
      IMG_2857.PNG
      148.1 KB · Views: 159

    lil'skeet

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2015
    Messages
    1,645
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    It’s frightening enough that I’d never have all my firearms in one place again . This is a game changing event and I think it’s prudent to adjust ones game to the new rules.

    Ha! Ha! Like a dog running around town burying shit for later!
    Hmmmm. 80% lowers look like a fun hobby.
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,714
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    I really dispise the LE CUTOUT double standard. It's a: I got mine, screw you mentality. Lobbying for those Coutouts is blantant, LE professional organizations come out against Legislation when a restriction would apply to them. After the Cutout is included, they show up in Mass applauding the restrictions applied on Law Abiding Citizens.

    This foolishness implies that EVERY single LE Member is more worthy of special exemption than EVERY single Citizen and that is improbable.

    "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

    No general disrespect to ĹE, just the political talking heads in suits or uniform.

    My point exactly. What's good for us is good for them; we're all US Citizens.

    If you are going to be trained/authorized to operate a vehicle at high rates of speed, carry/use firearms and other dangerous devices as part of the job, and have the authority to detain/arrest based on probable cause/personal opinion, you should be held to a higher standard. Sorry, but you can't stand behind the thin blue line and claim you're just one of us who has a job to do at the same time. It doesn't work. Constitutional Oath.
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,714
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    He/She said, ________ (fill in the blank) I just don't trust someone can make a judgment (to come take my weapons) about me. I see them saying "Go get the weapons, we can figure it out from there..... after mucho moola spent trying to get your weapons back, you may get them, but your broke in the process.... then its on your record.... Nope, I wish I could say I trust in this, but , well, I don't....

    Yeah, the fact that our Attorney General just told the FOP that the standard for the public interacting with LE should be, comply first, then if warranted, complain.
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,116
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    you can bet , that anyone seeking to use the red-flag law to harass those whose beliefs differ on this subject, will seek out the most liberal leaning democrat judge they can find...to present their "facts", and will demonize any judges publicly that do not take their path

    this law will be weaponized, without doubt. that is clear from the last 12 years of watching the progressive socialist democrat "feelings" evolve..
     

    HayesGreener

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 5, 2014
    Messages
    244
    Points
    43
    Location
    Milton, Florida
    CNN presents "clear and convincing evidence" to every libtard who loves that channel.

    It's all fuzzy feel-good LAWYER verbiage to allow the Grand Canyon's worth of room-for-interpretation.

    Not good enough when you are talking about taking away 2nd Amendment Rights. Those are there to keep a tyrannical government at bay. The added benefit is defending against criminals, etc, but the 2nd Amendment repels tyranny. That's something that MUST be preserved for every future generation.

    So, to those who are willing to piss that away because of convenience or laziness, I say "GTFO."

    And to address the elephant in the room: you implied by a previous post that you are, or at least were, a law enforcement officer. If so, your support for these Red Flag laws means you'd have no problem enforcing one of these warrants?

    It is good to have these discussions to air all points of view. And be sure your elected officials understand your objections. Otherwise they will enact legislation without your input. But trust me, they will enact legislation whether we like it or not.

    Again I refer to the Florida statute. In Florida only a Law Enforcement officer or agency can apply for a Risk Protection Order. It is not a warrant. A warrant to search would have to be applied for separately. This is not something law enforcement will take lightly. In answer to your question, I am retired after 42 years in law enforcement, but yes, if my agency applied for the Risk Protection Order I would enforce it. We have been doing so for 30 years in the case of Injunctions for Protection against domestic violence and stalking, and ex parte commitment orders. If you disagree with red flag laws, that's fine. But from the perspective of Florida's law, understand what the statute requires and the process so that we can argue effectively from a position of knowledge. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.401.html
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,410
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    You survived 42-years as a LEO. Congratulations, and thank you for your service.

    With that kind of experience, why are these new laws so "necessary" if LEOs have been doing this for 30-years already? What is the justification for the expanded FIREARM restrictions?

    I appreciate your link to the statute, and I've already read it. You and I disagree on how "strict" the verbiage will be applied.

    What constitutes a "significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future"?
    The words in bold are the only added step for an ex parte enforcement. The no-notice, surprise enforcement.

    What is significant danger? Is it the inflammatory remark to a Walmart firearms counter employee a few days after some criminal shot people? Is that same remark still "significant" three weeks later? What about pointing a finger at someone and yelling because they just crashed a shopping cart into the door of your new vehicle? Are CWL holders now held to a more restrictive standard of what they can legally say without triggering someone's fear? What is "the near future"? Two hours? Two days? Two months? What if you don't know exactly what kind of gun the respondent has? Do you ask a family member and just trust them? Do you scour some kind of registry for that info? Is having a CWL good enough to justify that portion of this RPO petition? Where is the line? Who determines it and based on what standards? Why isn't THAT in the almighty statute? Because. The lawyers write it with the intent to give room-for-interpretation to the LEO and the judge.

    Normally, I might be fine with that, but NOT when it involves such unchecked powers to rip away rights.

    Yeah, I respect your service to your community, and by extension, to the Country, but you and I apparently don't agree on how dangerous these extended legal abilities really are in the big picture.
     

    FLT

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    May 15, 2017
    Messages
    3,832
    Points
    113
    Location
    Havana
    Well, the government allows soldiers to be armed only when they are deployed in a combat situation . I think the same standards should apply to LEOs . They can be issued a gun while they are working their normal shift and turn in the issued gun at the end of shift. When they retire or quit being a Leo then they don’t need access to firearms any longer. Anybody want to bet how many of them will be ok with that? Zero would be my bet. LOL, watch the flame throwers light up !
     

    SAWMAN

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages
    13,937
    Points
    113
    Location
    Cantonment,Fla.
    As stated somewhere here before . . . why do the cops carry an M4 carbine ??
    To protect the public ?? NOPE !! They have no duty to protect the general public.
    They carry the M4's,MP5's,SBR's,SBS's,etc,etc. TO PROTECT THEMSELVES .
    Why does it seem to be so fuckin' hard for some people to understand that I could want the same thing to protect myself and my family ?? --- SAWMAN
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Even though only LE/Agency may apply for Red Flag restrictions, the originating source of information and motive for supplying it is a major issue. One persons natural and healthy venting is anothers veiled threat. Unrelated and compartmentalized issues say, firearms enthusiasm, prepping, political views, internet usage and a heated argument can be put in the same LE/Agency pot though there is zero intent to do so by the individual.

    Its not just Thought Police, its Thought Judgement which can build its own conclusion of "Intent" without a shread of Actus Reus towards a imaginary theoretical event, when no Laws have been violated.
     

    Latest posts

    Members online

    Top Bottom