Daytona Beach Police refuse to return fierarms

[Tigger]

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.

Maybe, but that is how many of us feel, and how many of us deal with the issue. Especially in states where getting that permit in the first place is not an easy thing to do.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Maybe, but that is how many of us feel, and how many of us deal with the issue. Especially in states where getting that permit in the first place is not an easy thing to do.

Would it not be better to seek mental health, lose the firearm (temporarily or even permanently) than to use it, as an example, to inflict harm on your child, spouse, friend, or even another person due to mental illness / disorder?

 

[blaxshep]

Would it not be better to seek mental health, lose the firearm (temporarily or even permanently) than to use it, as an example, to inflict harm on your child, spouse, friend, or even another person due to mental illness / disorder?

Inflicting harm on others can be very therapeutic.

 

[joko104]

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.

Agreed. Whether a person is mentally disturbed enough to be committed is not the same as if a person is mentally disturbed enough to not have firearms. That he can not be held in a mental lockup is a very, very strict legal standard. What needs to happen is a CIVIL hearing before a judge (and I think he should be able to ask for a jury if he wants) to decide if he is mentally competent in regards to firearms.

I'm with the police on this one.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Inflicting harm on others can be very therapeutic.

Indeed it can.

 

[Tigger]

Would it not be better to seek mental health, lose the firearm (temporarily or even permanently) than to use it, as an example, to inflict harm on your child, spouse, friend, or even another person due to mental illness / disorder?

I understand exactly what you are saying, and there is some merit to it. However, you have to realize that for many of us those firearms represent our Freedom, our Independence, and our ability to defend and protect ourselves and our families. They are, in many cases treasured family heirlooms handed down from generation to generation. There's a revolver in my collection that could probably be purchased right now for $300 (used) at a gunshop, that you couldn't buy from me for a million dollars. It belonged to my father.

I'm not talking about people with severe mental illnesses. I'm talking about people with milder, more commonplace issues who will simply not even consider seeing anyone for fear of what it might mean to our RTKBA. It's just that simple.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I understand exactly what you are saying, and there is some merit to it. However, you have to realize that for many of us those firearms represent our Freedom, our Independence, and our ability to defend and protect ourselves and our families. They are, in many cases treasured family heirlooms handed down from generation to generation. There's a revolver in my collection that could probably be purchased right now for $300 (used) at a gunshop, that you couldn't buy from me for a million dollars. It belonged to my father.

I'm not talking about people with severe mental illnesses. I'm talking about people with milder, more commonplace issues who will simply not even consider seeing anyone for fear of what it might mean to our RTKBA. It's just that simple.

I, too, understand what you're saying. There are heirlooms that are worth almost anything to the right person. However, you said it yourself, "[Y]ou have to realize that for many of us those firearms represent our Freedom, our Independence, and our ability to defend and protect ourselves and our families" and that might mean surrendering a firearm to seek treatment so you can protect both yourself and your family from you. And, certainly, there are instances where the person may not even be clinically depressed / bipolar / etc. but, in the instance where someone has a disorder or illness that could cause them to act in extreme manners, it would be advised to seek treatment at almost any cost. Problem is, by the time they may get to a stage where extreme behavior could manifest, they would just deny the problem even exists. The longer you go without treatment, the harder it is to treat the problem.

 

[tech30528]

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?

Yup. That's where the line is drawn. IF the the mental health care professionals released him then the police department should return the firearms. I would not expect the mental health professionals to make traffic stops or take down drug dealers. Stick to what you are TRAINED to do.

On one hand it could be argued that the 2nd does not take in to account mental health issues as far as firearm ownership goes, but states do have the right to have their own restrictions. Mental health requirements are tough because they are completely subjective based on the opinion of the person doing the eval. It is difficult to quantify mental illness as opposed to other medical conditions. IOW you can quantify liver disease as a percentage of area affected. Everybody has a little variance as far as mental issues go, indeed it is difficult to establish a baseline to begin with. One doctor may opine that his level of PTSD is high enough to warrant disarming him and releasing him while another may recommend commital and yet another may decide that he is doing a good job of handling his exposure to his experience. This is why you may have some people balk at health providers having anything to do with firearm ownership. You never know which direction the eval is going to go and it is not always going to be the same. So it leaves a considerable power in the hands of a stranger's opinion. It's not that we oppose psych requirements, it's that there is no solid line. One doc may be completely opposed to firearm ownership and fail everyone, while another may be extremely progun and exclude no one.

So if the doc cleared him, I think the PD is overstepping it's bounds. Also, Florida recently passed a law that eliminates more stringent local gun laws that surpass state standards. If the state has no requirement for mental health eval the municipality has no authority to enforce one. Firearms have significant monetary value. A law enforcement officer should not be allowed to collect personal property without unbiased and QUANTIFIABLE measurement of circumstances. To often government errs on the side of government, not personal rights. That's backward in my opinion.

 

[Disputatious71]

The safest place for everyone is in a prison cell.

Could be how some governments think!

 

[Disputatious71]

Would it not be better to seek mental health, lose the firearm (temporarily or even permanently) than to use it, as an example, to inflict harm on your child, spouse, friend, or even another person due to mental illness / disorder?

If you label someone a permanent danger should they be allowed to be unsupervised or in public at all?

 

[CanadaJohn]

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.

It's not a wrong move on the part of the police at all - they have discretion under the state statutes, as noted in the piece, and they exercised that discretion - perhaps when it gets to court, the court will feel differently - that's what law and justice is all about.

I would note that the Colorado theatre shooter was under psych care and the police were warned and took no action and now the police are being criticized along with the psychiatrist for letting him go on his rampage. No sane person would claim that psychiatry is an exact science and considering the details of this case the police probably acted wisely taking everything into account - a 24/48 hour evaluation by people who never met the man before is not something I would rely upon as definitive of his mental well being considering what led up to his detention.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If you label someone a permanent danger should they be allowed to be unsupervised or in public at all?

Permanent danger in what sense? Clinical depression can be treated with medication (that requires going to see a clinical psychologist, though).

 

[American]

Hopefully he won't get shot before he gets his weapons back.

 

[Tigger]

I, too, understand what you're saying. There are heirlooms that are worth almost anything to the right person. However, you said it yourself, "[Y]ou have to realize that for many of us those firearms represent our Freedom, our Independence, and our ability to defend and protect ourselves and our families" and that might mean surrendering a firearm to seek treatment so you can protect both yourself and your family from you. And, certainly, there are instances where the person may not even be clinically depressed / bipolar / etc. but, in the instance where someone has a disorder or illness that could cause them to act in extreme manners, it would be advised to seek treatment at almost any cost. Problem is, by the time they may get to a stage where extreme behavior could manifest, they would just deny the problem even exists. The longer you go without treatment, the harder it is to treat the problem.

Unfortunately, with the way that many of these states treat gun owners, many of us are just not willing to take the risk of going to see a therapist three or four times and losing our firearms over something minor. Therefore, until it reaches a point that there is a significant issue you're not going to get us to do it. I can say that from personal experience of both myself and other individuals I personally know. For us, having to give up the firearms might as well be an admission that we are not capable of dealing with things in life, which is something we are not going to do under almost any circumstances.

 

[VanceMack]

The safest place for everyone is in a prison cell.

Ironically, those most invested in trying to limit or seize firearms from law abiding citizens are the harshest critics of keeping murderers, rapists, and violent felons IN those jail cells.

 

[tech30528]

Unfortunately, with the way that many of these states treat gun owners, many of us are just not willing to take the risk of going to see a therapist three or four times and losing our firearms over something minor. Therefore, until it reaches a point that there is a significant issue you're not going to get us to do it. I can say that from personal experience of both myself and other individuals I personally know. For us, having to give up the firearms might as well be an admission that we are not capable of dealing with things in life, which is something we are not going to do under almost any circumstances.

This is precisely what the problem is with health care intruding in to gun rights. From my own perspective, if seeing a mental health professional would result in firearm confiscation I would not have sought marriage counseling. I am absolutely certain that doing that therapy has saved our marriage (14th anniversary yesterday, BTW, happier than ever). Had I not done it I would likely be a bitter divorced gun owner. Sure you want to tamper with that line? (not "you" personally Tigger, it was meant in the broad sense)

 

[Disputatious71]

Permanent danger in what sense? Clinical depression can be treated with medication (that requires going to see a clinical psychologist, though).

Maybe you could better explain the context you used "permanent" in in the post I quoted so we can understand what was meant.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Maybe you could better explain the context you used "permanent" in in the post I quoted so we can understand what was meant.

In the OP you quoted? Permanently, you know, lose forever?

 

[Disputatious71]

In the OP you quoted? Permanently, you know, lose forever?

The OP I quoted was your reference to someone "permanently" losing their firearm. If you did not wish it to appear their was a permanent danger to others to justify the loss, maybe you could clarify now.

 

[Ikari]

[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.

​

​

Clearly an act of treason. At best every government official involved should be fired and barred from public service.

 

[Disputatious71]

Clearly an act of treason. At best every government official involved should be fired and barred from public service.

Please explain exactly why this is treasonous to you. I disagree that the officials should be fired or removed from office, since they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the public, even though they are in fact infringing on this individuals constitutional right.

 

[Ikari]

Please explain exactly why this is treasonous to you. I disagree that the officials should be fired or removed from office, since they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the public, even though they are in fact infringing on this individuals constitutional right.

Because by infringing upon our constitutional rights they have not only committed treason (as they take oath to uphold it and violation of that oath is quite literally treason) but they do not serve the best interest of the public.

 

[Disputatious71]

Because by infringing upon our constitutional rights they have not only committed treason (as they take oath to uphold it and violation of that oath is quite literally treason) but they do not serve the best interest of the public.

It appears we disagree on what IS treason.

 

[Ikari]

It appears we disagree on what IS treason.

It seems so. For you seem to believe that violations of oath of office are not treason. In America, the People are the sovereign, and violating your oath of office is a direct and substantial assault against The People. So by definition, treason it is. But sometimes the tyrannical are willing to overlook these things if it can accomplish the goals they desire.

 

[BretJ]

The safest place for everyone is in a prison cell.

Or a reeducation cam........facility.