Florida legislature, guns and the mentally affected/afflicted/defective.

On the the legislature now is CS/CS/HB 1355 – Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons (Make sure you read the last version of the text). On first read, it tackles the issue of keeping people with mental problems from acquiring guns and the chance to recover their rights if they get better. Both medical and legal conditions must be met to adjudicate somebody medically incompetent & the person has to be notified.

Criteria: An examining physician found that the person is an imminent danger to himself or herself or others.

As a layman, I don’t see much trouble with this bill. I do feel it might be easier to get in the naughty list than getting out of its influence.

Thoughts, opinions?

14 Replies to “Florida legislature, guns and the mentally affected/afflicted/defective.”

  1. Depends on the physician of course, you get a left leaning, gun hating guy/gal and you just might be a bit of a danger to yourself… then no guns for you. While I agree something needs to be done, I am not sure how to fix or make it so something works with out there being out right abuse…

    dunno




    0



    0
    1. Pretty much highlights why psych-based bans put me on edge. To most liberals, ANY gun owner is automatically a danger to himself and others… as is anyone who wants to own a gun, or who might possibly eventually own a gun.

      You’ve seen the CSGV guys commenting about “I saw someone carrying a gun today. I thought about tackling him to the ground and calling the police, because he’s obviously a terrorist.”




      0



      0
      1. +1, I don’t think ANY rights should be removed without the word of a judge and a PUBLIC hearing.

        I’d be fine if Doc has an avenue to alert the authorities, and it all gets done in public record so A) We all know its above boards
        B) If you see that your doctor made a bullshit call, you can change doctors, and tell your friends.




        0



        0
        1. I’ll go one farther. I don’t think any rights should be removed absent 12 men/women and a conviction. I’m well aware that there are people out there too crazy to own a gun, too crazy to walk the streets. But they’re uncommon enough that I’m perfectly willing to accept them “slipping through the cracks” in order to protect the rights and liberties of society as a whole. Same principle as “innocent until proven guilty,” where it’s better to let a guilty man go free than imprison an innocent one.




          0



          0
          1. I’ll go one farther. I don’t think any rights should be removed absent 12 men/women and a conviction.

            I am gonna get in another bag of cats here. Felony conviction of non-violent crimes & a history of no violence shouldn’t be a death sentence for somebody’s rights. After serving and proper restitution to victims, a person should regain ALL the rights.




            0



            0
  2. Ok maybe I should have read before I comment, but still it mentions volunteer many times, so maybe this is OK, but it’s one that will be debated after it’s in. And we all know once something in IN it’s hard to get out.




    0



    0
    1. Again and careful because this is not the final bill. Doctors so far are not getting immunity from prosecution and/or civil lawsuits if they pull a crappy stunt like that. It would suck chocolate salty spheres to be the test case, but hell would come down hard on an anti gun doctor and the whole shrink industry would suffer like crazy.
      Not a perfect bill by any means……….




      0



      0
  3. Should there be a similar time limit for submitting a notice of restoration of rights for someone who is declared sane enough to have his/her firearm rights restored? What happens if the clerk decides that submitting an update yearly or never is acceptable practice?

    One of the problems with NICS back ground check data is some states and local jurisdictions do not submit data in a timely and accurate manner. Look at the arguments that whining IL democrat gun banners are using. “We f@%$*ed up our firearm records, so concealed carry should not go into effect until we fix the records in about 50 or so years.”




    0



    0
  4. There are many “Mental Health Professionals” that believe that the desire to own a gun shows that you are mentally ill, and should not have one. I agree with David Codrea. If you are not mentally copetent to own a gun, what are you doing out on the street




    0



    0
  5. There should never be any sort of law like this that doesn’t include some appeals process. Besides suing the doctor.

    And it needs to be fast, not sign up for court and wait for two years to appeal.




    0



    0
  6. I do worry about unintended consequences and potential over-reach by a zealous doctor or prosecutor.
    Thankfully there is a legal means to reclaim your rights. I would like to see a bit where the state has to pay for both trials: put the onus on the state to carry the burden of legal action to remove a person’s rights.




    0



    0
  7. One quick thought: If you consider that even the whackiest of nutjobs (and I mean the totally murderous insane) has the same rights as you to have guns, he also have the right to stand next you you at the range and play with his guns. 🙂




    0



    0
    1. Every public range I’ve read up on(yeah fine, that’s just Dragonman’s) would kick him out for that. Every private range I’ve ever been to would also kick him out for that. If he actually becomes dangerous, someone’s going to be shot.

      Hey I’ve got a great idea. Let’s start acting like a hazard to people in a place where literally EVERYONE IS HEAVILY ARMED.




      0



      0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .