https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...uns/493898002/
Quote:
Tallahassee Police are seeking a court order to have multiple guns taken away from a man with a history of mental illness and making threats to hurt others.
The TPD filing lays out four grounds on which police believe [21-year old Christopher] Newhouse’s firearms should be taken from him: he has made recent threats to harm himself or others; has committed or made threats of violence within the past 12 months; has recurring mental health issues and has recklessly brandished a firearm.
In July, Newhouse threatened to kill police officers, according to the filing, because he was upset over a traffic citation. They received second-hand reports that Newhouse said: “pigs got to die.”
In February, the Leon County Sheriff’s Office went to a home owned by a family member of Newhouse after he’d made threats to kill law enforcement. He “admitted to deputies that he had a desire to kill law enforcement officers and did not care if he lived or died,” Flury wrote in the filing.
In April 2017, a bank teller called police when Newhouse went into the First Florida Bank on Capital Circle Northeast to make a large deposit. The teller reported that he’d referenced buying a gun and robbing a bank during the transaction.
After being involuntarily committed in February, a psychologist found that Newhouse suffers from psychosis and should not possess firearms or other weapons.
A month later he was Baker Acted again for being suicidal.
March 22, 2017, the Apalachee Center filed a petition for involuntary placement. The petition said the “was a substantial likelihood that in the near future, (Newhouse) would inflict serious bodily harm on himself or another person.” The petition was denied for unknown reasons, according to the filing.
|
I see that some people are upset with the fact that the state is seeking to remove the man's guns in this case, but the law is working out as intended and with sufficient due process safeguards. While I'd have a problem with the state seeking to take someone's guns away for mere threats (mere threats without action taken to implement those threats--in which case you'd have a criminal case against someone--should not be sufficient for government to limit a constitutional right), I focus on the mental illness part here. The guy has been involuntarily committed and has a doctor on record stating that he is a danger to self and others and should not own guns.
That said, I like that the state still has to go before a court of law to seek removal of this man's weapons; the man would obviously be entitled to a defense. Still, I think the law should be amended to address the concerns I and others have with "violence" being used to initiate action as it relates to threats. If the threats are that bad to warrant concern, then arrest the guy and file criminal charges. Otherwise, we're getting into first amendment issues here.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
