Over 450 People Lose Their Guns Under Florida’s New Red Flag Law So Far

Pinellas County Sheriff Gualtieri Red Flag Law

courtesy tbo.com

“It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.” – Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri in More than 450 people in Florida ordered to give up guns under new law, report says [via foxnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar GapharmD says:

    So why no statistics on how many Firearms recovered from each order? Or how many were overturned? Just standard good old gun control nothing to see here!!!

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “So why no statistics on how many Firearms recovered from each order?”

      From the article –

      “Roughly 200 firearms have been confiscated in the state since the law was enacted, Sgt. Jason Schmittendorf, of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, told WFTS-TV. “Around 30,000 rounds of ammunition” were also taken, he said.”

      1. avatar GaPharmD says:

        Maybe you missed “FROM EACH ORDER”?

        Giving us the total firearms taken doesn’t tell us anything about how effective the orders have been.

        How many people “lost” the guns before seizure was attempted? How many people didn’t own a gun? How many order were overturned or guns returned after hearings?

        Maybe that will help ya a little.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Have they legalized medicinal marijuana in Ga yet?

          You could use a few bong hits to mellow out… 😉

        2. avatar Baldwin says:

          Geoff “Mess with the Bull, get the Horns” PR…Because the facts don’t matter???

        3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Sounds like a half-dozen or more bong hits would do you right as well… 😉

        4. avatar GaPharmD says:

          Sorry, didn’t realize you were a stoner. That explains your lack of critical thinking skills and your failed attempt at humor and deflection. Hope you haven’t been lying on your firearm forms……that would make you a felon.

        5. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

          You must be a blast at parties.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Hey, help me a little, now. I’m seeing that 450 people had 200 guns seized, somehow does not seem right. What qualifies for such an order, since I’m assuming there has been no crime, just panicky screeching? How do you get your guns back? Is an appeal to SCOTUS underway?

    2. avatar CC says:

      the stats are there: 450 orders, 200 or so firearms. probably a lot don’t have firearms. You don’t need to presently have a firearm to be served such an order.

  2. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Next is a Star Chamber court system.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Reading the source it really sounds like these ‘5 man teams’ are the ones actually filing out the RPOs.

      How is that NOT something that will be abused? LEO doesn’t like someone, finds ‘something’, fills out form, guns taken. Take that little people.

      Yeah, not risk of abuse at all.

  3. avatar Bill says:

    Would be nice if I didn’t have to navigate to another site to get the information about the story.

    TTAG becoming EBAUMS World?

    So the risk protection order is law, every petition filed has been granted by the judge…..

    Why has nobody been shot yet? I’d hate to be on that 5 person team.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Time for class action lawsuit , include the traitor Gov Scott in the suit. Is anyone else besides a democommie running against scott the snowflake ?

    2. avatar Dev says:

      Dude, this is the Quote of the Day article. It’s about a quote from a news article they link. Happens every day, first new post of the day even.

      1. avatar Anner says:

        Give him some time. The interwebs can be a difficult place to navigate.

      2. avatar Bill says:

        Didn’t say that anywhere, but then again my browser filters out all the junk and ever since the changeover there has been so many adds that it looks like an old phone based version.
        Regardless, I’ve noticed a great reduction in the quality of articles here.

  4. avatar ollie says:

    All you coconuts and wife abusers out there need to tone it down and lead bland unemotional lives if you want to avoid disarmament. No yelling and screaming in public, no weird behavior, no political discussions, no bruising, keep a smooth quiet low profile.

    1. avatar John Q Public says:

      What?!?

    2. avatar New Continental Army says:

      So don’t be a democrat? Noted.

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      Even misdemeanor domestic violence has been equivalent to a felony conviction and total loss of rights since 1997. These red flag laws are just someone saying that they think you’re acting odd and might hurt yourself or others without the need for evidence.

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

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

        That’s one helluva “conviction” rate.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If it is “without the need for evidence”, what is the court’s involvement, and what causes approval/disapproval?

      3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Or one of the LEOs on the 5-man team doesn’t like you, ‘finds something’, files the RPO, and bam, gun taken.

      4. avatar Micahel says:

        In Seattle WA a Veteran Was pointed out as Open carry is legal, in places are allowed.
        All it takes is paranoia by the SJW Snowflakes who are brainwashed by the PC Libtard Democrats. Taking over our Judicial and Govt, since the unqualified Jannet Napalatano was the DHS under Obuma, to see something and say something, rant, falsely see something illegal then have a police investigation is due process first, but know that is irrelevant,and all is needed by an anti-gun witness is a complaint filed and with smartphone cameras out there we are all under the microscope who carry in self-defense open or CCW.

  5. avatar jwtaylor says:

    The example they have included, which is the first person to have their firearm removed under this law, is an interesting one.
    He is a man that has already admitted to shooting a car that was driving by his home. He is apparently cooperating with law enforcement and not contesting his upcoming conviction. His inclusion in the story is interesting because the newly-passed confiscation law would not be necessary to deprive him of his firearms. He has admitted to violent behaviour with a firearm. The presiding judge of his case could have confiscated his firearm. The new law wasn’t necessary for that at all.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      Interesting also that the police both state that they didn’t used to be able to take people’s guns before this law, and that they did do so, anyway.
      “I think this is what the general public has been looking for — for law enforcement to be able to intervene in these kinds of situations — for a long time,” the chief said.
      He said he wished he had such legislation a couple of years ago when another city resident was involuntarily committed for psychiatric help after a domestic incident and police took his guns for safekeeping.”
      So the chief wished he had this legislation(to take the guns) a couple of years ago(when he took the man’s guns anyway, with no need for this legislation)…
      Can anyone come up with ANY WAY that this makes any sense? I mean, other then the chief just saying: “Because I want more laws, and more power… ALWAYS!”?
      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-seized-lighthouse-point-20180316-story.html

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I read in a comment to the linked story and would hope someone could verify, but, it seems there’s a singular judge responsible for ALL these confiscation orders. I’m skeptical, but it seems it may be worth investigating. Perhaps an activist leftist?

  7. avatar John Q Public says:

    What better way to break down The U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights…Than to make it a game of “Divide and Conquer…”

  8. avatar John Q Public says:

    So what recourse does a US citizen have in the event they’ve be declared an Enemy of The State….Since they already eliminated Due Process with a Special/Secret court…Are the Arresting police officers, The police station, the Township/city/State, going to be held accountable, and culpable…? Where’s the compensatory dispensation…?

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      Recourse? Probably no short term recourse at all. You’ll have to sue to get your property back. If I were a victim,and had my property taken, I’d claim it as a tax credit on my state taxes. Then the state would have to figure it out.

      The unavoidable outcome, as people become more aware, will be more ‘mutual protection societies’ with private compounds. Essentially no-go zones for the benefit of the liberty minded. The soft version is to know your neighbors and live near people who think like you.

      Pilot programs, set up by middle eastern invaders, are already running in Sweden and England.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      An order is issued ex parte and served. Guns are taken. the subject of the order is entitled to a full blown evidentiary hearing within 2 weeks (I think under Fla.’s law, some states are 3 weeks) as to the propriety of the seizure. The subject is entitled to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present his own witnesses and evidence. If Florida’s law follows the usual pattern, the seizure must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the subject is a threat of harm to himself or others. The order remains in effect for one year, but can be renewed . If the order is set aside or expires, guns are returned.

  9. avatar John Boch says:

    Somehow the folks at Illinois Carry failed to mention hundreds of gun owners losing their gun rights without a due process hearing in their rush to negotiate a “better bill” for Illinois. Argh. Of course, they claim the NRA was neutral on this bill, when in fact the NRA’s position both nationally and in Illinois has been in opposition. Then again, Illinois Carry’s Valinda Rowe said “the Second Amendment Community” negotiated this new bill. Maybe so if you discount the NRA and GSL from the “Second Amendment Community”.

    I really hope those Florida cases aren’t a results of baseless allegations. And I really hope the Illinois law will not be abused when it takes effect on Jan 1, 2019. Although if it’s like traditional OPs, it will no doubt be frequently abused.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Well I let them know my thoughts on FB Mr.Boch. And dropped them from my feed. I swear I could hear sputtering like Porky Pig after they ‘splained it to me. Quisling bastards…

    2. avatar I left IL says:

      “There are some good peeps at Illinois Carry among those 150 members. Including a few with incredible dedication.” – John Boch

      You are either going to have to make up your mind about laws that circumvent Due Process or your understanding of sarcasm is flawed. These bills are ALWAYS abused.
      There’s the “law” as written and then there is reality. In reality snitch bills are used to circumvent Due Process usually for petty things. There is reality of what happens in a court room and what the “law” says is supposed to happen. Even though this snitch bill will not effect me NOW where I live, someday it might.

      You confuse me because your second paragraph says it all and yet you call this supposed pro second amendment group “good peeps”.

      I disagree but have fun after 1/1/19 in Illinois. They should call it the “piss your girlfriend off and lose your guns on the spot law”. A 5150 hold actually requires you to be acting crazy. These bills do not. Trust me as a former resident of Illinois. One of my kids got into trouble when he was in 3rd grade, the local PD showed up at my house, saw I had a FOID card and then tried to convince me to give them my guns because my 8 year old was acting out. Never mind that they were locked in a gun safe, the Police wanted my guns. My guns would have gone right into their personal collection. I threatened to call my attorney and they left. That was my Due Process.

      Now take Due Process away and get into an argument with your crazy girlfriend. The PD shows up and your crazy girlfriend says you threatened to shoot them and then yourself. You didn’t but now there is a LAW where they can take your guns ON THE SPOT. Forget about your side of it, which is you stayed out late and got drunk with some old friends. You NEVER threatened anyone, you were out having a good time.

      Say one last goodbye to your guns because you have lost Due Process. Then you pull a anti 2A judge, say goodbye to your FOID card and your RTKBA.

      You have Valinda Rowe and Illinois Carry to Thank for that.

  10. avatar m. says:

    Gub-mint d-suckers to the rescue, ensuring their constituents & relatives will be safe while car-jacking, home-invading, mugging, etc. Don’t want those d-rat vo-tuhs to get shot.

  11. avatar Steve says:

    Rick Scott was anxious to get these laws passed in addition to making lawfully purchased accessories illegal without compensation and he really really wants your vote because he’s a “conservative” Republican.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I hate to say it, but that is one Senate seat I wouldn’t mind losing to a Dem. An actual Dem, I mean, both men running are clearly Dems in fact. Scott needs to be gone.

  12. avatar stateisevil says:

    Thanks NRA/GOP/Trump!

    1. avatar mark1955 says:

      ALERT!!! https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/trump-3-d-guns-751249

      Trump and NRA getting ready to CAVE on 3D printed Guns!

      Trump say’s on 3D printed Firearms, “I have consulted with the NRA and It doesn’t seem to make much sense”

      1. avatar MIO says:

        Of course he is. Y’all are still falling for “he’s on our side”. LOL WOW
        NO he’s not and neither are many of the “gun” organizations

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        If the NRA is against it, that would be because they want gun companies to make the profits by selling their guns to the public. They wouldn’t want the public to be able to make their own guns at home for less money.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Have you ever priced the parts to make a 1911 at home? The complete kits are over $1100, and you still have to build it. (Not that that is a bad thing, but time is money, after all.) You can buy one for hundreds less. I’ve been gathering the parts to build an AR 10 for some time (it is actually supposed to be my son, but he crapped out). I can buy one for about the same price as all of the parts (and being in CAlifornia, the lower still has to be registered).

        2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          I’m against any infringement, but based on the “print at home” guns I’ve seen who would want one?

        3. avatar CC says:

          If the NRA is against it, that would be because they want gun companies to make the profits by selling their guns to the public.

          That statement is idiotic. NRA does things counter the gun companies all the time. NRA represents gun owners, not gun companies (who have have their won lobby group.)

          But thanks for repeating the Everytown line now in a dozen posts, it makes you laughable.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        Actually, Trump said: “I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public.”

        I’m unaware of any plastic guns being sold to the public. And gun sales to the public, or manufacturing of firearms for resale, without the relevant licenses are already illegal.

  13. avatar DerryM says:

    These types of laws create penalties for what is essentially “thought crime”. As jwtaylor points out, the person specifically mentioned in the Fox News report has already confessed to a crime of action and is already self-admittedly guilty of a genuine crime. So, that leaves 449 other Floridians at risk of having their firearms confiscated for “possible thought crimes” (although it is possible some of them may be suspects in genuine crimes…we don’t have any information on each of them).

    The point is, these types of laws creating “thought crime” are historically part of the prerequisite for the advent of tyranny. The Left intends to make it distasteful to have to wait until a person actually acts violently before anything can be done about said person. This is a perversion of individual Liberty. Even though at face value it seems reasonable (or can be portrayed as “reasonable”), it perverts and denies the fundamental right to think about whatever you want and be free of guilt until you act out.

    Yeah, some people think about very bad things, but no one has Liberty without the freedom to think about whatever comes to mind. Freedom of thought is a keystone to freedom of action and self-determination. Without this essential freedom one cannot judge morality, explore the potential consequences of possible actions, or make rational choices. Personal Liberty cannot exist without the freedom to “think” about whatever one needs to think about in order to choose rationally what actions to place into the world.

    We know, however, that for some people the capacity to choose properly what actions to place into the world is seriously damaged and broken. That is a cold, hard fact. Those people are in a tiny minority. We cannot/should not surrender the right to think freely used by the greater vast majority of people everyday to make rational decisions about what they will do to compensate for the tiny few who cannot make rational decisions and act-out badly no matter how horrendous the outcome of their actions may be.

    True freedom and personal Liberty can be messy and produce results we all find unacceptable. The Left’s answer is to restrict and deny Liberty to every individual. That is the precursor to the loss of all freedom, and can never be acceptable.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      Well said, and well thought out. All correct. One of the few posts that I can say that about. But most of the time I just keep my trap shut. This one is just too on target to not speak up about.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “The Left intends to make it distasteful to have to wait until a person actually acts violently before anything can be done about said person. This is a perversion of individual Liberty.”

      Exactly. And this underscores the obvious importance of insuring that we have a Supreme Court that is made up of constitutional conservatives. With an ever evolving administrative state and it’s accompanying expanding and intrusive police forces, our only hope of surviving our slow slide into a totalitarian/fascist state is the Supreme Court. Time is short.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    I hadn’t realized our rights were subject to good decision making by cops.
    Have to remember that one.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      If the cops can detain you for a mental health check (5150 in California, detention lasts 72 hours, or longer depending on state). then they have the right to seize your guns. They didn’t need a red flag law to do it. And if that temporary hold ends up with an involuntary commitment, you’ve lost your gun rights for life. These orders can only last a year.

  15. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So Sheriff Bob there thinks its important to do it right when depriving people of their stuff, their self-defense, and a constitutionally-enumerated protection (from the g.) That puts him a step ahead of Sheriff Lyin. (Ex-Sheriff, now? Well, that’s something.)

    Sheriff Bob seems unaware of the notion of “due process” from the common law, the US foundational charter, or a couple centuries of US interpretation. That would take care of doing “it” right-er, I think.

    Here’s a thought: how about a warrant, a specific claim, an identified crime, and, I don’t know, some sort of process that gets all the facts out. That might help ensure they get it right.

    If they’re in a hurry, because someone is a threat, how about whatever expedited process triggers a review to the real crime / real penalty standard … the G have to make their case at the next court in session or it reverts. With costs and penalties to accuser and enforcer if it does – court costs n option of a caim for property loss or damage. Punative damages n recovery, the aggrieved has to sue. Let’s give the reactionaries due process, even if they won’t…

    1. avatar mark1955 says:

      FRAUD Trump on “Red Flag” laws, “Take the Guns first, worry about Due Process later”!

      Hey Trump, if I closed my eyes it would almost be exactly as if Hillary was President!

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “how about a warrant, a specific claim, an identified crime, and, I don’t know, some sort of process that gets all the facts out.”

      Also, how about the defendant’s right to confront his accuser, the right to call witnesses in his defense, and the right to counsel (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 6)? Without those things, any claim of “due process” is a farce.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        That all happens within a few weeks of the original seizure, and proof by clear and convincing evidence is required. That hearing is a full blown evidentiary hearing subject to all the usual due process requirements.

        Ask anyone who has had a TRO for domestic violence issued against them what happens to their guns. It is no different, and every state has the same basic laws. Your protest to the restraining order takes place after the fact.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          @Mark N, most of the people complaining about a lack of due process have no idea what due process means. But they sure like to spout the phrase.

  16. avatar st381183 says:

    Future crime prevented? Red flag laws working but because the future crime was prevented we really can’t say how effective these seizure are or were or will be….so much fun until police officers are red flagged by jealous exes or angry arrestees. Only time will tell.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The law is political theater and it gives the government power to go after political types they do not like.

      There are other laws they can use for mentally ill people and they can go through due process.

  17. avatar PeterK says:

    Huh. So run those numbers again? If you take the absurdly conservative estimate that one gun was taken per person, less than half of people actually had a gun taken? Most of them just lost ammunition? That seems… real odd. Why would people who don’t have guns be ordered to give them up?

  18. avatar Matty 9 says:

    how they gonna take my guns since none are registered?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      They go to gun shops were you had a background check and ask for the sale records.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        They ask your significant other, and if there is bad blood, that other will be HAPPY to tell the police about your collection.

      2. avatar CC says:

        Nope that is not how they do it. Just read up on what they are doing instead of making it up as you continually do CZ.
        over half the recipients of these orders do NOT even own guns.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          how they gonna take my guns since none are registered?

          When the government wants to do that, they will do what I said they would. I’m explaining how they will go about it in that particular case.

          Pay attention to context.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          That statement is idiotic. NRA does things counter the gun companies all the time. NRA represents gun owners, not gun companies (who have have their won lobby group.)

          But thanks for repeating the Everytown line now in a dozen posts, it makes you laughable.

          I heard that the NRA makes most of its money from the gun companies not from the members.

          https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180731/nra-statement-on-3-d-printers-and-plastic-firearms

          “Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.”

  19. avatar CZJay says:

    I wonder how many of those were politically motivated.

    It’s a great way to disarm people who don’t trust/like their current government and corporate media. Claim they are crazy because they are Alt Right and they watch Alex Jones. That should be enough these days. If that isn’t enough, say they think the FBI is a corrupt agency that wanted Hillary to be president and the LVMPD are hiding what truly happened at the Mandalay Bay.

    Imagine all those “sovereign citizens” cop watchers that will get disarmed when police report them as crazy. You must be crazy to follow cops around recording their behaviors. Same thing applies to those open carry activists.

    1. avatar Ark says:

      It’s all political.

    2. avatar CC says:

      Your post is silly. If you want conspiracy theories that would be the left, all the data show they are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. As far as people in the FBI being after trump and wanting Hillary to win, that is not “Alex Jones but front page NYTimes and Washington Post.

      Most of the people affected by this will be leftists. north of 85% of US domestic murder occurs in counties that are predominantly Democrat.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Sounds like you haven’t been alive for that long.

        A long time ago — when George W. Bush was president — the media created the term “conspiracy theorists” to demean people who had questions about 9/11, FEMA, DHS, ICE, TSA and the wars. They repeatedly said people on the internet are not real journalists they are just bloggers because they don’t have any formal schooling and they don’t work for a legitimate news agency. Now the same people are making up their own conspiracy theories and pretending they never made fun of those “black helicopter” people.

        Back in the day you would be labeled a crazy kook if you questioned electronic voting machines, weapons of mass destruction, fake news, etc. They would say, “you must be one of those people that believe black helicopters are coming for you.”

    3. avatar Gladius et Scutum says:

      Where on earth is that cop’s accent from? While the cop is certainly being something of an annoying ass, he is clearly totally relaxed and does not appear to feel like he is under any threat whatsoever from the open-carry dude. Medford, OR is the ‘crazy right-wing hillbilly’ part of the state.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        He is a foreigner now living in the U.S. I forget where that accent is from.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    When the rest of us come for the State’s guns, ’cause you’re all broke (D) gun-grabber communist, MFrs, you all better give them up quietly.

  21. avatar Kenneth says:

    Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of due process. If the Judge has approved every single police request, likely there is no chance given for the one having his rights removed to speak. That is NOT due process!
    “Notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental to due process of law.” Joint Anti-fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath(1951) (J. Douglas)

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not true. That opportunity comes afterwards in a full blown evidentiary hearing that must be held within a statutorily established period of time (typically two or three weeks) or the TRO expires.

  22. avatar Ark says:

    Am I to believe Florida would have had 450 mass shootings in this time span, were the law not passed?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Yes. That is exactly what you are to believe. Aren’t you glad the government is keeping you safe?

  23. avatar Nanashi says:

    The NRA with red flag laws are like the Democrats with the Iraq War: They voted for it before they voted against it.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ll admit the possibility that FL’s “red flag law” is working properly when I read about people getting their guns back promptly, and in the same condition as when they were taken.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  25. avatar skiff says:

    The initial court hearing is done ex parte. Its done without the accused present. Scary stuff.

  26. avatar Mikial says:

    “Over 450 People Lose Their Guns Under Florida’s New Red Flag Law So Far.”

    And it will not make the least bit of difference in reducing violent crime. None.

  27. avatar joefoam says:

    The kicker is that every order was approved by a judge. None were denied? Apparently the bar is set pretty low.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email