Trial judges need specific information about physical threats before ordering firearms seized, according to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
This case is in a nut shell exactly what can go wrong with these ERPOs, which is something that Senator Rubio cannot comprehend. I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that the FL "Red Flag", law supported by and signed into law by an up to that point a pro-gun AG and Governor, requires you to surrender your arms and not be seized unless necessary. And there is a provision that they can be turned over too a third party.
This something you'd expect in Broward County but not so much in Lee.
I'm not so sure who has the loose screws here but it would seem to me that a person with a sizable collection of guns would be more cautious, but on the other hand maybe this was as David Codrea points out an "I'll show him" moment.
This is yet another egregious example of trial judges thinking they control too much of a citizen's rights WITHOUT A TRIAL.
It was good that the 2DCA decided appropriately, and correctly, that this trial judge exceeded his authority.
BUT - What actions are going to be taken to assure that this same judge, as well as others in the state are properly aware of the limits of their authority? A simple decision by an appellate court doesn't seem to be enough.
Actions like this can't be put on the back burner and just postponed until some election MIGHT take care of them.
Since our appeals courts don't seem to be the appropriate place for implementation of corrections for these failures, is this something that can be corrected by the FL Attorney General? Will it require action by the Governor?
This case is in a nut shell exactly what can go wrong with these ERPOs, which is something that Senator Rubio cannot comprehend. I'm no lawyer but it is my understanding that the FL "Red Flag", law supported by and signed into law by an up to that point a pro-gun AG and Governor, requires you to surrender your arms and not be seized unless necessary. And there is a provision that they can be turned over too a third party.
This something you'd expect in Broward County but not so much in Lee.
I'm not so sure who has the loose screws here but it would seem to me that a person with a sizable collection of guns would be more cautious, but on the other hand maybe this was as David Codrea points out an "I'll show him" moment.
Thank God the court got it right.
This is yet another egregious example of trial judges thinking they control too much of a citizen's rights WITHOUT A TRIAL.
It was good that the 2DCA decided appropriately, and correctly, that this trial judge exceeded his authority.
BUT - What actions are going to be taken to assure that this same judge, as well as others in the state are properly aware of the limits of their authority? A simple decision by an appellate court doesn't seem to be enough.
Actions like this can't be put on the back burner and just postponed until some election MIGHT take care of them.
Since our appeals courts don't seem to be the appropriate place for implementation of corrections for these failures, is this something that can be corrected by the FL Attorney General? Will it require action by the Governor?
I'd be afraid if I were CEO of being shot in the head of this decision.