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.
Do you have a problem accepting the fact a Republican governor signed the gun-grabbing law into effect, or is there some other reason you are trying to deflect into talking about someone else?
Put the blame for parkland right where it lies.
At the feet of that good feels program that never allowed that murderous scumbag to have a criminal history
RINO governor. Skeletor is a RINO. Lots of RINOs in Florida GOP.
The argument that if this had been done under the Obama administration and a (D) governor the right would have had fits is absolutely true.
I'm glad to see that the NRA is only going after the age restrictions. If 18 is an adult and if one can use a firearm for the government, there is NO legit argument for the government to restrict them otherwise.
As noted earlier, the authorities could take someone's gun through due process already so that part seems redundant. What this seems to me is a redundant law where the government says they are "protecting you from people with mental illnesses" when in reality it simply was an excuse to remove the rights of certain adults.
But as we know, in reality the only difference in one party over the other is one wanting to allow you to pee where you want.
Do you have a problem accepting the fact a Republican governor signed the gun-grabbing law into effect, or is there some other reason you are trying to deflect into talking about someone else?
1) The NRA will certainly let their members know about the Governor signing the bill regardless of them being an (R) or (D). I think we can agree on that point. Most pols are self serving and will do what they can to stay alive politically even if it means bucking general party platform pieces. Especially true in swing states where you can't always just ramrod party-line views and hope to stay in office.
2) IMO Their comments are NOT off-topic because it talks about how someone like the Parkland shooter might not make the radar of the new bill and thus NOT have their guns taken, because they're kept off the radar by another initiative that went into place.
1) The NRA will certainly let their members know about the Governor signing the bill regardless of them being an (R) or (D). I think we can agree on that point. Most pols are self serving and will do what they can to stay alive politically even if it means bucking general party platform pieces. Especially true in swing states where you can't always just ramrod party-line views and hope to stay in office.
Governor Scott is running for Senate, so NRA will support him the best they can, so they wont be talking about this too long.
The argument that if this had been done under the Obama administration and a (D) governor the right would have had fits is absolutely true.
I'm glad to see that the NRA is only going after the age restrictions. If 18 is an adult and if one can use a firearm for the government, there is NO legit argument for the government to restrict them otherwise.
As noted earlier, the authorities could take someone's gun through due process already so that part seems redundant. What this seems to me is a redundant law where the government says they are "protecting you from people with mental illnesses" when in reality it simply was an excuse to remove the rights of certain adults.
But as we know, in reality the only difference in one party over the other is one wanting to allow you to pee where you want.
They could have Baker acted the Parkland scumbag a long time ago. However that would go against the grain of that promise program guidelines. It was brought to light exactly how many times the police had been called out to his residence for his actions, stemming from torturing animals to being violent with his then adopted mother and people within his neighborhood.
Yet nothing was done, he was protected by a good feels policy that was built on the premise that they would no longer make kids into criminals because boohoo it's tough to get into college or join the military.
Baker Act can be used by law enforcement at their discretion. If police in Florida, be it a town/local city department, a county sheriff, or a FHP officer is dispatched or responds to a call or witnesses something, and a person is erratic to menacing to showing any signs of instability, they could have that person committed against their will, firearms seized and under surveillance of mental health professionals for 72 hours. If! If the involuntarily committed person is suspected of having a mental defect in the presence of a mental health professional their right to keep and bear arms are revoked through due process and are adjudicated a mental defect.
This new "risk protections" program of SB7026 just made it so judges can play fast and loose and seize firearms for anything stemming from, a neighbor witnessing you handling a firearm on your property, be it through a window while cleaning it (know 1 person that happened to they're suing the state and their busy body neighbor) or while transporting it from your vehicle into your house. You could even have a jilted ex lover abuse the risk protections program and claim, not even give definitive proof, just claim that you have threatened them with harm and that is enough to seize firearms.
The onus is on you to prove you are not mentally defective or menacing or threatening nor a risk to yourself/others/society.
Before the onus was upon the state with the Baker Act to prove/disprove you were a threat.
Florida's laws already addressed and defined stalking and other behaviors as being disqualifying behaviors/crimes for keeping and bearing arms along with the Baker Act. This new law made it so anyone fearful of firearms, can subjectively label you a risk at their discretion with no real evidence that you are. This state already had tough laws on the books, that if anyone spent 10 minutes on online sunshine state laws, reading all of the laws that deal with crimes and honest concerns, would know about. Those laws aren't enough apparently. So play fast and loose to further the anti gun agenda and abuse an individuals rights subjectively to fit an agenda at the discretion of an anti gun lemming, busy body peeking through windows, to a jilted ex lover seeking to use the law to inflict pain upon another.
Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law that took effect after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a report published Monday.
"Around 30,000 rounds of ammunition" were also taken, he said.
"The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott just three weeks after a gunman killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas, aims to temporarily remove weapons from gun owners who have been deemed by a judge to possibly be a threat to themselves or others.
I am a repub and I have NO problem with the new law. Makes sense to me.
Do you want potentially dangerous people to have guns?
I thought most libs don't want ANYBODY to have guns.
"Oh, dear! I have an arrest record! How will I EVER get my hands on a firearm???"
What were your charges?
Are you like those anti gun reporters who tried to buy a firearm and were denied for disqualifying charges?
If serious enough FDLE/NICS will tell a retailer to deny, if questionable, they will tell a retailer to hold upon further reveiw. If in 3 days they say deny, you can't purchase. It is also at the discretion of the retailer, and I do not know of a single retailer who will proceed with a transfer if after 3 days no update. They can refund the money and deny you as they see fit.
Don't say gun show. I have yet to attend a single gun show in Florida that a seller did not perform a background check on the sale of a firearm. You can try a face to face private sale, many people require a bill of sale and a concealed carry permit for they don't have a clue as to who they are selling to. Want to buy a firearm from me? We can meet up at a pawn shop or gun store and do a transfer. You've already confessed to an arrest record so I wouldn't even entertain the idea of selling to you. Looks like you are SOL
"The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott just three weeks after a gunman killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas, aims to temporarily remove weapons from gun owners who have been deemed by a judge to possibly be a threat to themselves or others.
I am a repub and I have NO problem with the new law. Makes sense to me.
Do you want potentially dangerous people to have guns?
I thought most libs don't want ANYBODY to have guns.
You say it makes sense. Move into a commie AO and be seen handling a firearm that's grounds for being a possible threat. Or have a nasty break up/divorce and deal with a vindictive jilted ex. See how much it makes sense when you've been unjustly accused of being a potential threat.
Baker Act is the law that makes sense. This one furthers an anti gun agenda.
It's similar to NY where a neighbor gets a cash prize for ratting you out to state police if they suspect you of having what constitutes as an "assault weapon"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
