It Begins: Florida Police Now Confiscating Guns From People With No Due Process

gunsguns

Broward, FL — In what’s being called the first gun confiscation of its kind in Florida, police have taken four guns and a couple hundred rounds of ammunition from a 56-year-old Lighthouse Point man. The man was not tried, had not committed a crime, and the guns were solely removed because “experts” deemed him a threat.

The guns and ammunition have been temporarily removed from the man under the state’s new “risk protection” law, which is also sometimes called “red flag” legislation, Lighthouse Point City Attorney Michael Cirullo confirmed, according to the Sun-Sentinal.

“We know it’s the first case of its kind in Broward County and we think it’s the first one in Florida, under the new law,” Cirullo said. “Up until the introduction of this law last week, there was no process for us to protect the public in this kind of situation.”

In Florida, prior to passing the new gun control law, people deemed psychologically unfit could be involuntarily hospitalized under what is called the Baker Act. During this involuntary admission to a hospital, the person is evaluated to determine if they are a risk to themselves or others.

Only after they had been psychologically evaluated and deemed a threat could the government then move in to temporarily disarm them. Now, however, this tiny bit of due process is no longer necessary and “experts” can simply deem someone a threat and take their guns.

Although the 56-year-old man was subsequently Baker Act-ed, his guns were taken before this happened.

To illustrate the insidious nature of Florida’s new bill and its rights-violating implications, prior to the new legislation, if police would have done what they did to this 56-year-old man—taken his guns with no due process—they would be fired and fined up to $5,000.

It is important to note that this man was certainly acting strangely and, according to the Sun-Sentinal, he told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in (his) building,” the judge wrote in his order. “(He) could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.’”

He also turned off all of his power to the apartment he lived in. By all means, he was acting very strangely. However, he still deserved due process.

It will now be up to the man to prove that he is healthy enough to ever be able to get his guns back again.

To be clear, no one here is advocating for people determined to be mentally unfit to be able to possess firearms. However, they need to be determined to be mentally unfit before they lose their rights.

This law was a reaction to the shooting in Parkland, however, it is important to point out that there were already laws on the books that should’ve stopped Nikolas Cruz from ever getting a gun. Citing Cruz as the reason for advocating the removal of due process, the anti-gun activists are claiming he should’ve had his guns taken which would have prevented the tragedy. Sadly, however, they are ignoring the fact that he was accused of multiple felonies—and should’ve never been able to purchase a gun in the first place—but law enforcement failed to act on any of it.

In Florida, if a person making death threats intends for the victim to fear for her safety, specifically fearful of death or bodily harm, it is considered a credible threat under the law, which changes the crime from stalking, a first-degree misdemeanor, to aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree. Cruz was reported at least 4 times for this very crime before he bought his AR-15 and police did nothing.

Florida’s law also mirrors another due process-removing law that was recently used in Washington state to remove a man’s guns.

As TFTP reported earlier this month, there is a law on the books known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order or ERPO, which went into effect in June of 2017. This law is used when a person is considered an “extreme” threat as reported by police and family members. An ERPO must be approved by a judge and only after this person is proven to be a danger to themselves or others can police move in to confiscate their weapons.

“We now have to go to someone’s house and knock on the door and say, ‘We’re from the government. Can we have your guns?’” Seattle police Sgt. Eric Pisconski told KIRO Radio’s Dave Ross. “That can get very dangerous.”

While touted as a necessary tool for police, an ERPO and Florida’s new law both remove due process as the person who is accused of being mentally unstable does not have to be present and gets no chance of facing their accuser.

To those who may be in favor of such laws, consider the following: There is no way to stop an estranged spouse from call police repeatedly and telling them their ex is threatening to cause harm to others. While the man in Florida had his guns taken for being psychologically unfit, the man in Seattle simply open-carried a pistol and looked out of windows and his guns were taken because his neighbors thought it was strange.

Anyone, any time, now has the ability to claim someone else is a threat and have police take their guns. One does not need to delve into the multiple ‘what if’ scenarios to see what sort of ominous implications arise from such a practice. What’s more, police now have the power to deem you a threat at any time and legally disarm you—due process be damned.

This is the exact scenario that Donald Trump advocated for in February. Last month, notorious gun-grabber Senator Dianne Feinstein, sat next to Donald Trump and likely salivated over his remarks as he called for the removal of due process and to “take the guns first.” Now, police are doing just that.

To those that support the removal of due process under the ostensible notion that it would make you safer, you would do well to remember history before you or someone you know finds yourself subject to these very laws.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/florida-man-guns-taken-due-process/

White House Now Considering Confiscating Guns from “People Considered Dangerous”

Trump also reiterated his support for training members of school staffs to carry concealed weapons:

“A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened,”

But, as Bloomberg reportsThe White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered “dangerous” as part of its response to last week’s massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said.

Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders,firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk.

As The New York Times reportsit is difficult to measure the effectiveness of red flag laws, in part because it is impossible to count mass shootings, or other tragedies, that were avoided.

That said, the authorities in states with the laws, including Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington, say they have seen patterns: upticks in the use of such laws after mass shootings in other places.

The measures were also used in situations far different from the mass shooting scenarios they were originally conceived to prevent. Most often, guns were removed from people not seen as threats to large groups or public gatherings, but as risks to themselves or to their families, or suffering from debilitating illnesses such as Alzheimer’s or alcoholism.

Bloomberg confirms that The White House is studying an Indiana version of the law, and is considering other measures as well, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. Four other states also have such laws.

At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

“Good,” Trump responded.

Which raises yet another troubling question for the many law-abiding citizens of America – who defines “dangerous”?

What happens if – just as The IRS did – Tea-Party followers were deemed dangerous by the government?

What if someone who retweeted (accidentally as a ‘useful idiot’) an anarchy-inducing Russian bot’s propaganda? Would they be dangerous, too?

Or if someone openly threatened – or called for – the death of the president?

“It’s fair to say that everyone, law enforcement included, is learning how this law might work — in the process of using it,” said Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the Sacramento campus of the University of California, Davis.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dangerous-white-house-confiscations-gun/

White House Considering Confiscating Guns From “Dangerous People”

The White House is considering the idea of using restraining orders to take firearms away from people considered dangerous as part of its response to last week’s massacre at a Florida high school, two people familiar with the matter said.

Under extreme risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining orders, firearms can be confiscated from people found to be at risk. 

Pam Bondi speaks with Donald Trump on Feb. 22.

The White House is studying an Indiana version of the law, and is considering other measures as well, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss policy deliberations. Four other states also have such laws.

At the White House on Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi described to President Donald Trump similar efforts underway in her state to allow law enforcement to seize firearms from someone who is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

“Good,” Trump responded.

At a Florida town hall on CNN earlier in the week, Marco Rubio, one of Florida’s two senators, said he supported restraining orders.

While the concept has bipartisan support, some gun-rights groups have embraced it because it does not impose new regulations on firearms themselves. It is one of a range of proposals, including mental health initiatives, that are under consideration by the White House.

Posing a Risk

California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington have laws that allow the authorities to temporarily strip people believed to be a danger to themselves or others with their weapons. Anyone subject to such an order would not be allowed to buy or obtain more guns while the order was in effect.

The Trump administration is looking at encouraging states to enact the legislation, possibly by tying grant money as a reward for those states to adopt the idea, one of the people said.

Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said at a press briefing on Thursday that the White House was looking at red-flag laws.
 
“I think some states have had these red-flag laws, for example, that remove firearms after you go to a judge for potentially dangerous individuals. That’s something that’s being done right now in a variety of states, right? They have due process rights for these individuals. It seems to be working in certain areas. That’s something that we’re looking at and other places we’re looking at,” Shah added.

The proposal came as the White House has been casting about for a response to widespread demands for action, including new gun laws, in the wake of the shooting last week in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

Earlier on Friday, the president was applauded at the Conservative Political Action Conference when he reiterated support for training members of school staffs to carry concealed weapons. He said armed faculty members could have stopped the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“A teacher would have shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened,” Trump said.

Trump said he spoke Friday morning to Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell about a response to the school shooting. “People are looking to really energize,” he said.

Trump repeated on Friday that he would support stricter firearms regulations, including a proposal to strengthen the federal background check system and raising the minimum age for buying a semi-automatic weapon to 21, something the powerful National Rifle Association has said it opposes.

    Source Article from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-24/white-house-said-to-consider-protection-orders-to-curb-shootings

    Cops Praised for Confiscating Guns, Busted Robbing Innocent Citizens of Cash and Guns

    innocent citizensinnocent citizens

    Several of the police officers who were once praised for protecting citizens by “getting guns off of the streets” in Baltimore are now facing federal charges after it was revealed they were stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and firearms from innocent citizens.

    Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force was once considered an elite group of officers who raided homes across the city, in search of illegal firearms. Now, Sgt. Thomas Allers has become the ninth officer to face charges in relation to his work with the group.

    Allers was the supervisor of the task force, and he is charged with stealing more than $100,000 during a three-year period. He is expected to plead guilty to one count of racketeering, according to a report from the Baltimore Sun.

    While Allers is facing charges of racketeering conspiracy and robbery, the other seven members of the task force are facing charges of robbery, filing false paperwork and overtime fraud. Allers would be the fifth officer to plead guilty, and as the report noted, none of the officers who have pleaded guilty have been sentenced andat least two are cooperating with authorities against their former colleagues.”

    Allers is accused of participating in nine robberies between 2014 and 2016. Although he is not a police officer and has not been charged, Allers’ adult son was mentioned in the indictment as having helped his father and two other detectives steal $66,000 during a raid.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration began investigating the task force after Detective Momodu Gondo was caught on a wiretap discussing drug trafficking with a drug dealer who was being investigated. Gondo has since pleaded guilty and is now “cooperating with authorities,” and disclosing details to the FBI about the members involved in the illegal activities. It was tips from Gondo and other officers that led the FBI to investigate Allers.

    The stories of the damage caused by Baltimore’s Gun Trace Task Force are chilling. In one case reported by WBAL-TV, Allers stole more than $10,000 in cash from a house during a raid. The man who owned the money was preparing to repay a drug debt, and when he could not deliver after police stole his money, he was shot and killed.

    Another report from the Baltimore Sun described a classic raid in which the officers went from pursuing a suspect to stealing any cash or drugs they could find:

    “In a typical example, an alleged robbery in August 2016, federal prosecutors say Clewell, Jenkins and Hersl conducted surveillance of a suspect leaving a storage facility. The three officers pursued the suspect and arrested him, then brought him back to the storage facility. 

     

    Prosecutors accuse Hersl and Jenkins of taking at least $7,000 from the man’s vehicle, but do not mention Clewell in the alleged theft. Prosecutors say Clewell left the scene to prepare a search warrant, and accuse Jenkins of stealing two kilograms of cocaine while he was gone.”

    As The Free Thought Project reported, the Baltimore Police Department has come under fire in recent months after Body Camera footage was made public that showed an officer planting drugs on an innocent man while his fellow officers watched, and a group of officers working together to manufacture evidence.

    The Baltimore state’s attorney announced on Monday that out of the 277 cases the Gun Trace Task Force officers were involved in, 125 of the cases have been dropped and 71 are still under review. Sgt. Thomas Allers is expected to plead guilty when he appears in court on Wednesday.

    Given these revelations about such a large group of corrupt and thieving cops within the Baltimore police department the idea that Sean Suiter who was shot with his own gun the day before he was set to testify against corrupt cops within his own department becomes that much more ominous.

    Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-praised-confiscating-guns-busted-robbing-innocent-citizens-cash-guns/

    Medical TYRANNY in paradise: Hawaii to go door to door, confiscating LEGAL firearms from all medical marijuana users

    Image: Medical TYRANNY in paradise: Hawaii to go door to door, confiscating LEGAL firearms from all medical marijuana users

    (Natural News)
    Over the past several years, liberals have constantly assured the American people that even though they support the idea of stricter gun laws, they are not out to take away anyone’s legally owned firearms. But liberals lie every chance that they get, so it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that many of them are now starting to walk back on their promise.

    Recently, the Honolulu Police Department in Hawaii has sent a series of letters to residents who use medical marijuana, informing them that they are disqualified from owning firearms, even if they were obtained legally and in compliance with state and federal law. If the medical marijuana users refuse to turn over their firearms, then presumably, they will face state-sanctioned violence until the guns are removed.

    “This letter is to inform you that under the provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Section 134-7(a) you are disqualified from firearms ownership, possession, or controlling firearms. Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” the letter reads. It goes on to say that residents who use medical marijuana “have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) or otherwise transfer ownership.”

    The letter then informs medical marijuana users that they must obtain a clearance letter from a medical doctor if they wish to purchase any firearms or ammunition in the future. (Related: Gun control is incredibly popular among people who live under tyranny and oppression – don’t they get it?)

    The first question that we have to ask ourselves it his: Where are all the liberals speaking out against this? Right now, every single leftist within Washington D.C. and the mainstream media who has ever uttered the words “we are not out to take away anyone’s guns” should be out on the frontlines condemning Hawaii for this lawless and blatantly unconstitutional act. But they’re not because – surprise! – they were never serious about rejecting the idea of gun confiscation in the first place.

    Last month, The Boston Globe published a piece titled “Hand Over Your Weapons,” which argued that in order to minimize the number of mass shootings that occur in the United States, lawmakers may have to start considering gun confiscation from law abiding citizens.

    After arguing that the gun control proposals currently on the table may not go far enough, The Boston Globe piece stated: “In other words, the proposals aren’t just difficult to enact in the current political climate; their practical effects would also be quite limited. On occasion, though, Democrats will make oblique reference to a more sweeping policy change: seizing a huge number of weapons from law-abiding citizens.”

    So in other words, liberals are committed to the idea that “we can’t just go around knocking on doors and deporting illegal aliens,” but at the same time, going door-to-door and confiscating firearms is completely appropriate and entirely possible. They don’t even make any sense, they are obviously unhinged, and yet they think that they have the authority to tell the American people what’s best for themselves and their families. That is an incredibly dangerous combination.

    Whether it happens in Hawaii or elsewhere, if the liberal Democrats really are serious about confiscating firearms from those who have legally obtained them, then they will be met with an incredible amount of resistance; in fact, gun confiscation could even potentially lead to civil war. The American people are committed to defending their Second Amendment rights, and no matter what laws are passed or what ideas are proposed, they will not lay down their arms without a fight.

    Sources include: 

    SHTFPlan.com

    BostonGlobe.com

    <!–

    –>

    Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-12-05-medical-tyranny-in-paradise-hawaii-to-go-door-to-door-confiscating-legal-firearms-from-all-medical-marijuana-users.html

    ‘Surrender Your Firearms’ – Gov’t Now Confiscating Guns from Medical Cannabis Users

    hawaiihawaii

    Residents in Honolulu, Hawaii, were recently informed that if they use cannabis for medicinal purposes, they will be given 30 days to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms and ammunition before the Honolulu Police Department begins confiscation.

    A series of letters were mailed out from Police Chief Susan Ballard on Nov. 13, as confirmed by a report from Leafly, which noted that the letters appear to represent “the first time a law enforcement agency has proactively sought out state-registered medical marijuana patients and ordered them to surrender their guns.”  

    GunsGuns
    Image via Russ Belville, The Marijuana Agenda

    The letter from Chief Ballard starts off by claiming that its purpose is to inform the residents of a revised statute. “You are disqualified from firearms ownership, possession or controlling firearms. Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” Ballard wrote. 

    The letter references H.R.S. 134-7.3, which dictates “Seizure of Firearms Upon Disqualification.” Ballard claimed that residents have until Dec. 13 to “voluntary surrender” their firearms, in order to be in compliance with the law. 

    “If you currently own or have firearms, you have 30 days upon the receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department or otherwise transfer ownership.

    The letter claimed that “a medical doctor’s clearance letter is required for any future firearms applications or returns of firearms from HPD evidence.”

    This order serves as another reminder of the clash between state law and federal law. While medical cannabis is legal in Hawaii and the state’s first dispensary opened in August, it is still illegal under federal law. In fact, according to the United States government, the cannabis plant is one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, and has no medicinal value whatsoever—despite a wealth of evidence that proves otherwise.

    Even though cannabis has been legalized for either medical or recreational use in 29 states and Washington D.C., the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent a letter to all firearms licensees in 2011, claiming that even if individuals have state-issued medical cannabis cards, it is still illegal for them to own firearms because cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under federal law:

    “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms and ammunition.”

    As The Free Thought Project has documented, not only has pure cannabis never been found to make its user more violent, but research continues to prove its medicinal benefits. These studies include evidence that cannabis can stop HIV from becoming AIDS, that the majority of cannabis users give up prescription opiate medications, and that cannabis has a “significant” effect on killing cancer cells.

    There is also a level of hypocrisy when taking into account the fact that many of the prescription drugs individuals are prescribed for illnesses and symptoms that could have been healed naturally with cannabis, contain dangerous and life-threatening side effects.

    In fact, several of the recent mass shootings such as the Las Vegas shooting, which killed 58 people; and the Orlando shooting, which killed 49 people; were carried out by suspects who were under the influence of psychotropic drugs, which can cause aggressive or violent behavior.

    Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-begin-confiscating-guns-medical-cannabis-users/