Daytona Beach Police refuse to return fierarms

[Disputatious71]

[h=3]Gun rights group says it's suing Daytona Beach, city officials[/h]

[h=1]Second Amendment group sues Chief Chitwood, Daytona, over seized guns[/h]
[video]http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/22412588/gun-rights-group-suing-daytona-beach?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId= 8914496&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8914496[/video]

Florida Carry Inc., a Florida gun rights group, is suing the City of Daytona Beach, its mayor and police chief, claiming a violation of state gun laws. The suit claims that a man who was taken in under the Baker Act, placed under psychiatric care and then released after being found to not be a danger to himself or anyone else, had his arsenal seized by the Daytona Beach Police Department. When he went to retrieve his weapons the police refused to return them stating a state statute that prohibits anyone from giving weapons to a person of "unsound mind."

Does the police department get to judge someone's mental health and diagnose "unsound mind" ? How long should mental health apply and should government provide a free location for "safekeeping" of weapons while a person is "mentally defective" and being treated ? Is this a violation of the second amendment ?

I feel that this is a violation of the second amendment. While I can understand the police wanting to keep others safe, they do not have the right to assume someone is going to become a criminal. Imagine if an officer could detain you after entering a store because you may shoplift, or seize your car because you were about to drive into a known drug neighborhood, sounds like something out of 1984 or Minority Report !
Their should be clear and manifest rules defining who can declare someone "mentally defective" or of "unsound mind" how long the condition can be legally binding and procedures for renewal if necessary. Depending on the crime, I feel that even criminals should not lose their second amendment or voting rights for life.

​

​

 

[notquiteright]

Well to be a bit more fair about this, one of the links you include says the guy has PTSD, alcoholism and systemic personality disorder. It is suspicious to me this guy was released after 24 hours and not held for the full eval. more like the mental health care facility acted like an old fashion drunk tank than real mental health facility. He called a suicide line and threatened to kill himself if the phone line worker called the cops.

Now imagine the screams by the very same people who are up in arms now if this guy does go shoot someone- they would say- "we don't need more guns laws, we need the ones we have now enforced. Here is a guy who threw up a series of red flags and the cops/doctors let the guy walk."

We had a saying back in my day- maintain an even strain. this guy didn't.

 

[MaggieD]

Well to be a bit more fair about this, one of the links you include says the guy has PTSD, alcoholism and systemic personality disorder. It is suspicious to me this guy was released after 24 hours and not held for the full eval. more like the mental health care facility acted like an old fashion drunk tank than real mental health facility. He called a suicide line and threatened to kill himself if the phone line worker called the cops.

Now imagine the screams by the very same people who are up in arms now if this guy does go shoot someone- they would say- "we don't need more guns laws, we need the ones we have now enforced. Here is a guy who threw up a series of red flags and the cops/doctors let the guy walk."

We had a saying back in my day- maintain an even strain. this guy didn't.

Yep, imagine what we'd be saying if they gave these guns back to this guy, and he committed suicide taking six innocents along with him.

I do rather agree the decision shouldn't necessarily be made by law enforcement. But until we've got something better in place, I think a 90-day seizure after a mental health evaluation is reasonable. We really ought to address this legislatively.

We need more laws! We need more laws! Instead of trying to figure out new laws to limit the kinds of guns people can legally own, these are the kinds of laws people should be clamoring for: defining when whacky becomes too whacky to have an arsenal in one's basement.

 

[blaxshep]

Given all the red flags on this guy I support the idea that his weapons should be held until an evaluation is performed by a qualified medical doctor, he has the right to due process on this matter, then he should either have his property returned or compensated for the value of his property if his right to keep and bare is stripped by due process.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm not someone who owns or has an interest in owning a gun but I've always felt that law abiding citizens should be able to possess legal firearms as they should be able to possess any other legal consumer product. Government cannot and should not presume that some people may be incapable of handling a legal product. It's either too dangerous for all or it's okay for all.

That said, police are always in a very difficult situation when it comes to such matters - damned if they do, damned if they don't - I'm more inclined to give police a little bit of leeway in such matters if their intent is the protection of the public and not a political type statement.

This gentleman is taking advantage of the court system, with the assistance of gun advocates, to push for his rights and that's how it should be. Police don't adjudicate the law, they just apply the law as they see fit and let the courts hash it out. If the courts deem the gentleman should get the guns back, the police will then have performed their duty and cannot be held liable for any subsequent crimes this gentleman may commit with these guns.

I do think though, as a matter of principle, that when you behave in a criminal or irresponsible manner either because you don't respect society and those in it or because you have some mental deficiency that affects your ability to reason, you leave yourself open to limitations on your rights, the rights that law abiding citizens enjoy. That's a collective right of society to protect itself from you.

 

[BMCM]

Don't blame the officers for enforcing the State laws. I'm sure as is the case of most of these stories, there's more to it then is reported.

 

[jimbo]

Yep, imagine what we'd be saying if they gave these guns back to this guy, and he committed suicide taking six innocents along with him.

I do rather agree the decision shouldn't necessarily be made by law enforcement. But until we've got something better in place, I think a 90-day seizure after a mental health evaluation is reasonable. We really ought to address this legislatively.

We need more laws! We need more laws! Instead of trying to figure out new laws to limit the kinds of guns people can legally own, these are the kinds of laws people should be clamoring for: defining when whacky becomes too whacky to have an arsenal in one's basement.

Per the article, he was taken into custody, Had an exam, and released as posng no threat. It is the cops who decded that he was incompent. That would be officer Bubba, the desk jockey.

Do yoe really want to make the police the final decision makers?

 

[Black Dog]

Per the article, he was taken into custody, Had an exam, and released as posng no threat. It is the cops who decded that he was incompent. That would be officer Bubba, the desk jockey.

Do yoe really want to make the police the final decision makers?

I don't think that is what she is saying. He needs a real evaluation. If he has problems with alcohol and PTSD he needs to get a real evaluation, not just a 24 hour rubber stamp.

 

[Disputatious71]

Yep, imagine what we'd be saying if they gave these guns back to this guy, and he committed suicide taking six innocents along with him.

I do rather agree the decision shouldn't necessarily be made by law enforcement. But until we've got something better in place, I think a 90-day seizure after a mental health evaluation is reasonable. We really ought to address this legislatively.

We need more laws! We need more laws! Instead of trying to figure out new laws to limit the kinds of guns people can legally own, these are the kinds of laws people should be clamoring for: defining when whacky becomes too whacky to have an arsenal in one's basement.

Does the fact this incident happened December 23, 2012 change your opinion on if a reasonable amount of time has passed?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Per the article, he was taken into custody, Had an exam, and released as posng no threat. It is the cops who decded that he was incompent. That would be officer Bubba, the desk jockey.

Do yoe really want to make the police the final decision makers?

Clearly, officer Bubba and the police aren't the final decision makers - that's why the matter is before the courts now. Not every action or charge laid by police is upheld in courts - that's why you have courts.

 

[Disputatious71]

Post this was a reply to was removed.

 

[MaggieD]

Does the fact this incident happened December 23, 2012 change your opinion on if a reasonable amount of time has passed?

I indicated in my initial post that I was uncomfortable with the authority given to law enforcement to, in essence, make a decision that a person is mentally ill. There needs to be exacting legislation on when and for how long firearms can be confiscated. Only makes sense to me.

 

[jimbo]

Clearly, officer Bubba and the police aren't the final decision makers - that's why the matter is before the courts now. Not every action or charge laid by police is upheld in courts - that's why you have courts.

Other than the lawsuit to get the guns back, I see no pending action. The psychiatrist made the eval and released the gun owner. The case from the initial incident appears to be over and done.

You may be able to fault the eval, but that is a separate issue.

 

[jimbo]

I don't think that is what she is saying. He needs a real evaluation. If he has problems with alcohol and PTSD he needs to get a real evaluation, not just a 24 hour rubber stamp.

But again, that he needs more eval is now your decision, not the findings of the psychiatrist who was on the ground and did the eval.

 

[Tigger]

Honestly, the biggest thing this shows is why most of us who own firearms will go to whatever lengths are necessary to avoid ANY contact with the mental health system.

 

[notquiteright]

Honestly, the biggest thing this shows is why most of us who own firearms will go to whatever lengths are necessary to avoid ANY contact with the mental health system.

I lean toward those of us who own firearms shouldn't get drunk, call a suicide hotline and threaten to off ourselves if the hotline follows the law and notifies the police.

If you are implying many who own firearms could be found incompetent to own firearms- that is another issue and my opinion is probably a lot more than we would like to admit... :3oops:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Honestly, the biggest thing this shows is why most of us who own firearms will go to whatever lengths are necessary to avoid ANY contact with the mental health system.

That's not necessarily a good thing, Tigger. If you think your mental health is slipping, would it not be better to get examined so you don't do something irrational / irresponsible / regrettable? Also, it's not like those people who do not own firearms just rush to get in contact with the mental health system.

 

[Black Dog]

But again, that he needs more eval is now your decision, not the findings of the psychiatrist who was on the ground and did the eval.

If he was on a suicide prevention hotline it stands to reason it would take more than 24 hours of observation to come to a real conclusion. This has nothing to do with me making any decision. It is common sense after reading the article. I mean we just lost one hero because of PTSD a few months ago. Lets not add more to the list through apathy.

Not to mention how long was the actual session with a doctor? Did he seek help afterwards? I mean there are allot of unknowns and we are just guessing. In this case if the police are breaking the law, then give him his guns back. If he really does have problems with alcohol abuse and PTSD, then it needs to be looked into.

 

[clownboy]

Clearly, officer Bubba and the police aren't the final decision makers - that's why the matter is before the courts now. Not every action or charge laid by police is upheld in courts - that's why you have courts.

I agreee with jimbo, this wasn't a charge, an offense, but a determination made by the police officers themselves. A determination they are not qualified to make. In fact he was just released from a facility where they ARE qualified to make such a decision.

I understand the officers' move, but this is wrong of them to do.

 

[VanceMack]

According to the actual story, he was intoxicated when he made the call and when brought in to the hospital. You CANT conduct a clinical evaluation on an intoxicated patient and you cant mandate inpatient hospitalization based on anything anyone says when they are intixicated. Odds are that he was held til he was sober, when he was sober he admitted to feeling depressed but denied being actively suicidal, contracted for safety, and had a follow on plan for counseling. Since his release he was seen by a clinical provider that deemed him to be not a threat to himself or others.

This is the concern about making the blanket statement that the police should seize the weapons fo the mentally ill. At any given time for a variety of reasons people might experience an Axis 1 mood disorder, might drink too much, might say or do something when they are drunk, whatever. You can and should take immediate action when someone is an actual threat. But where does it end? If you are a threat because you drink too much or are bipolar or experiencing manic episodes or suffering from depression or panic attacks should you have your kids seized, regardless of whether or not you have put them in danger? Should you have your cars seized? Should you simply be locked away for an indeterminate period of time?

 

[Tigger]

That's not necessarily a good thing, Tigger. If you think your mental health is slipping, would it not be better to get examined so you don't do something irrational / irresponsible / regrettable? Also, it's not like those people who do not own firearms just rush to get in contact with the mental health system.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I simply said that it's the truth. In all honesty, several of the gun owners I know have refused to seek treatment for depression and other non-violent issues for fear of having their licenses suspended or revoked and/or their firearms confiscated from them. It's not that they wouldn't like to have gotten help, but the potential cost was too high for them to risk.

 

[MaggieD]

According to the actual story, he was intoxicated when he made the call and when brought in to the hospital. You CANT conduct a clinical evaluation on an intoxicated patient and you cant mandate inpatient hospitalization based on anything anyone says when they are intixicated. Odds are that he was held til he was sober, when he was sober he admitted to feeling depressed but denied being actively suicidal, contracted for safety, and had a follow on plan for counseling. Since his release he was seen by a clinical provider that deemed him to be not a threat to himself or others.

This is the concern about making the blanket statement that the police should seize the weapons fo the mentally ill. At any given time for a variety of reasons people might experience an Axis 1 mood disorder, might drink too much, might say or do something when they are drunk, whatever. You can and should take immediate action when someone is an actual threat. But where does it end? If you are a threat because you drink too much or are bipolar or experiencing manic episodes or suffering from depression or panic attacks should you have your kids seized, regardless of whether or not you have put them in danger? Should you have your cars seized? Should you simply be locked away for an indeterminate period of time?

The unspoken danger of this is that, too many times in history, governments have used pseudo-psychiatric disorders to lock people up for political dissent.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I didn't say it was a good thing. I simply said that it's the truth. In all honesty, several of the gun owners I know have refused to seek treatment for depression and other non-violent issues for fear of having their licenses suspended or revoked and/or their firearms confiscated from them. It's not that they wouldn't like to have gotten help, but the potential cost was too high for them to risk.

Depression can turn in to a violent issue. So they're willing to risk their safety (and lives) and those around them, etc. because they're afraid of having their license suspend / revoked. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[VanceMack]

The unspoken danger of this is that, too many times in history, governments have used pseudo-psychiatric disorders to lock people up for political dissent.

Well sure...once the door is open a little bit, where does it stop? An overzealous CPS worker takes kids because a bipolar sufferer had a manic episode? Do we send in the police because a mother is battling depression and might snap? I mean...since the unerlying theme is TRULY about the safety of others and not JUST advocating for the seizing of guns, then you HAVE to take this to the logical next steps. Thats not even a slippery slope...thats a sadly relatively common occurence. depressed mother kills children - Google Search

 

[blaxshep]

Well sure...once the door is open a little bit, where does it stop? An overzealous CPS worker takes kids because a bipolar sufferer had a manic episode? Do we send in the police because a mother is battling depression and might snap? I mean...since the unerlying theme is TRULY about the safety of others and not JUST advocating for the seizing of guns, then you HAVE to take this to the logical next steps. Thats not even a slippery slope...thats a sadly relatively common occurence. depressed mother kills children - Google Search

The safest place for everyone is in a prison cell.