Confiscation in Florida?

[C-dub]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/mo ... -says.html

This may not be the correct sub-forum, but here it goes.

Every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has so far been granted by the judge, according to the report.

I'm all for people that shouldn't have guns not having guns, but this disturbs me. How can every one that got filed be worthy of taking away someone's right. I know it doesn't indicate whether or not they were returned after further investigation or after some period of time or anything. Not even those famed secretive FISA warrants, which were reportedly mostly rubber stamped, had every one approved.

Anyone else hear about or see this?

Nothing in this article describes why anyone had theirs confiscated other than because they didn't surrendered them voluntarily.

[C-dub]

I went poking around looking for other articles to support this and found this little disturbing gem.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html

“We put the safety of our residents first,” said Lighthouse Point Mayor Glenn Troast. “This is not about the Second Amendment and it’s not about the NRA. We need commonsense gun laws and this is a commonsense gun law that gives police officers new tools they need to help us protect our community.”

They put their residents' safety first. Possibly/probably above someone's 2A civil right.

[jonmo1]

I also find it odd that every single one out of 450+ were approved. That makes it appear that the judge isn’t really even looking at them, his mind is decided beforehand. He’s thinking “Finally, a law that lets us take them away”.

[srothstein]

Just for technical accuracy, it was only the 64 applications in Pinellas county where every one was approved. That is still disturbing, but not as bad as the article implies.

There is an even bigger discrepancy in the article, though, that should make the law get re-examined. There were 450 people who were ordered to give up their guns. Only 200 guns were confiscated. These two numbers do not make sense to me. Well, there is one way it makes sense and this is why I call the law into question. It makes sense only if more than 250 people were ordered to give up guns that they never had to begin with. If the affidaits for these people alleged they had guns and they did not in fact have any, there is a big problem with the affidavits and the court hearings. How can a judge believe anything in the affidavit if there is no basic investigation to see if the subject actually has a gun or not? Why were they applying for these orders on people who do not have guns? Why were orders given that make no sense because they order someone to surrender something he dioes not own?

Or is the news article telling us that 250 people just refused to give up their guns and no one is doing anything about it, even making the case to the public that it isn't working right? Are there really 250 people in Florida who are so dangerous that they should not be allowed to possess guns but they have them and are refusing to turn them in?

Yeah, I have a few problems with this law.

[thatguyoverthere]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/mo ... -says.html

This may not be the correct sub-forum, but here it goes.

Every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has so far been granted by the judge, according to the report.

I'm all for people that shouldn't have guns not having guns, but this disturbs me. How can every one that got filed be worthy of taking away someone's right. I know it doesn't indicate whether or not they were returned after further investigation or after some period of time or anything. Not even those famed secretive FISA warrants, which were reportedly mostly rubber stamped, had every one approved.

Anyone else hear about or see this?

Nothing in this article describes why anyone had theirs confiscated other than because they didn't surrendered them voluntarily.

Doesn't surprise me at all. This is exactly what I expected.

No judge wants to be the first to DENY a confiscation order, and then that gun-owner be the one-in-a-million (one-in-a-billion?) who does go out and do something stupid. Yes, it's much easier and much safer to just rubber stamp the order and move on.

[Jusme]

I don't know all of the intracacies of the law, but it sounds like, once the guns are confiscated, the owner, has no recourse, and is permanently prohibited, from ever purchasing guns again. I can understand a temporary, hold on the guns, until the person's mental stability, or instability, is fully determined. Judges are not doctors, and under this type of system, anyone who may get into a verbal disagreement with LEO, or has a vindictive ex, could permanently lose their 2A rights. Whatever happened to a trial by a jury of your peers?