Florida Shooters Network

How does the red flag law needed here? He was arrested for aggravated assault. They can raise his bail to keep him in jail. They can take away his guns if he's convicted.

They filed a "mental health" type case. So if he's not convicted, they can make sure he's "in the system" as a nut-job.

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:08 am They filed a "mental health" type case. So if he's not convicted, they can make sure he's "in the system" as a nut-job.

... which it sounds like he is!

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:17 pm The State also filed a "red flag" case against him. This is one example of why the law is a good idea.

What? No it's not. If he is a danger to himself or others there is already a mechanism for that- baker act. If he is not a danger to himself or others, why are you removing his firearms? The law is a solution looking for a problem with no practical application or ability to mitigate any risk to the public.

wjbarricklow wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:10 am How does the red flag law needed here? He was arrested for aggravated assault. They can raise his bail to keep him in jail. They can take away his guns if he's convicted.

Excessive bail is prohibited by the Constitution. You have to remember, while he has been accused of criminal stupidity, he has not been tried or convicted of anything, and it is the court's duty to assume him innocent of all charges until the evidence is presented and fact can be found.

However, I can't image if the prosecution asked for, as a condition of bail, that the accused not possess or use firearms for the duration of the proceedings that the Judge or defense would squabble very much. Instead, the district attorney can file this separate action and put up on billboards how great this new government overstep is in preventing crime...