Posted: 6/19/2013 6:55:07 AM EDT
|
HB1355:
Office Phone: (850) 488-7146 Email form: http://www.flgov.com/contact-gov-scott/email-the-governor/ |
|
Explain to me exactly why this is bad? I just read the summary, and also saw that it passed the House 117-1 and the Senate 38-0, so there wasn't really even any legislative objection to it. What's the problem with it? Be specific.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/349 |
|
The way the bill reads, as I see, says that a doctor may release one who has had the pleasure and benefits of our Baker Act to either voluntary outpatient or inpatient treatment. The key here I think is voluntary. If it's voluntary, you don't have to volunteer. As it is right now, a person who has voluntarily committed themselves to a mental institution is not precluded from purchasing a firearm. Under the new law, they would be precluded.
In my youth as an EMT I came across several instances where people were taken into custody under the Baker Act. I don't recall any of those instances as being unnecessary. They were dangerous wacked out people, whether it was the demons or the PCP talking. Someone going ape shit on PCP might calm down in two or three days and be released. Some others, I suspected, would need attention for the rest of their lives. However, I can see the potential for abuse here. Doctors may strongly suggest to someone (under threat of involuntary commitment) that they commit themselves voluntarily. From what I understand, involuntary commitment is no easy thing these days. It's been much harder since the ACLU and the Libtards unlocked the mental health institutions' doors and threw away the keys. Now a days, usually only those that are in imminent danger to themselves or others and/or incapable of "surviving capably in freedom" may be involuntarily committed. Also, remember that since the ACLU shakeup, funding is way down, No one wants to pay for involuntary mental health care. I had a Libtard tell me not so long ago that all the nuts were let loose because Reagan cut funding. Not true. While Reagan did cut funding in California when he was governor, it was because the state at the time was spending millions and millions of tax dollars on empty mental health institutions because the former residents were all let loose, happily "surviving capably in freedom". The push at the time by the mental health advocates was for community based alternatives to institutionalized care. And I won't swear to this (because I might be wrong), but I think that the legislature at the time was Democratic. Also, one of the many benefits of the funding cuts and making it harder to involuntarily commit someone was that the prison population with mental health issues doubled within a year. |
|
Quoted: Explain to me exactly why this is bad? I just read the summary, and also saw that it passed the House 117-1 and the Senate 38-0, so there wasn't really even any legislative objection to it. What's the problem with it? Be specific. http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/349  I believe this bill will stop good people who honestly need help from seeking it because of the possibility of loosing thier guns. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explain to me exactly why this is bad? I just read the summary, and also saw that it passed the House 117-1 and the Senate 38-0, so there wasn't really even any legislative objection to it. What's the problem with it? Be specific. http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/349 I believe this bill will stop good people who honestly need help from seeking it because of the possibility of loosing thier guns.
While that's possible, understand that this is not about people who only voluntarily seek help. This appear to be about a very specific subset of individuals, to wit: "persons who have had an involuntary examination under the Baker Act and who have then voluntarily admitted themselves for outpatient or inpatient treatment." (emphasis mine) This amounts to the choice of "you can go or I can send you," which really is no choice, but prior to this Bill, that choice would make a difference in how you were treated under the law. If they sent you, that was a bar to firearm ownership, but if you went voluntarily, that was not. This ensures that both subsets are treated equally under the law, and "eliminates a loophole." |
| as someone who has dealt with more than one person should with people who have been BA'd , Trust me many should not have guns anytime soon.. I am talking fully depressed people, suicidals, addicts coming off their highs and missing something after.. all who I would not want to be able to get a gun, I had one who tried to kill herself and kids in a local broward community about a year ago, sit catatonic for 30 minutes while the cops interviewed or tried to interview her, with the snap of a finger she was on top of the detective grabbing for his pistol. If i was not present I think she may have succeeded.. I can see where this can be abused but trust me boy's, there are some really loons out walking our streets..( all this in a local ER, they get roughly 1-5 baker acts a day) |
|
I just got an email from the NRA and Marion Hammer asking to call Gov. Scott's office and tell him to vote for the bill. |     </td]>
|
| I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. |
|
Quoted:
I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. Sure it can, if by anyone you mean "people who have been Baker Acted" and by any time you mean "after they've been Baker Acted and a qualified psychiatrist determines they're a danger to themselves or others and need further help and a judge signs off on it." |
|
Quoted:
I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. 2nd Amendment or not, I always oppose a nut job with a gun. In my opinion, there are just some people who should just not do some things, and nut jubs are one of those people and having a gun is one of those things. And this doesn't just cover civilians. I'm a Libertarian at heart but I don't think that gives license to someone to do anything they want to anyone they want to at anytime they want. There are boundries; rape, murder, pillage, etc. We are, afterall, civilized. Don't tread on me. As a young lad, my mom told me, "Don't start no trouble with anyone, but if they pick a fight and hit you, pick up a two by four and whack 'em in the head". God I loved my mom. Another thing that I go by is that most people are good and only some people are bad. While I'm not overly enthusiastic about everyone in the medical community, I hope that most, if not altruist, are decent and honest human beings. And competent. Competency is high on the list. Never one to take too many chances, I still mark with a sharpie which kidney, for the urologist, that needs surgery. So, hopefully, whenever someone needs a little extra special attention by way of the Baker Act, they get the proper attention that they need and if they need further care after the intial 72 hours, they will get that too by voluntarily admitting themselves for outpatient or inpatient treatment. But therein lies the rub. What if they don't want to voluntarily commit themselves? Involuntary commitment is not such an easy task. It's a hassle and it's costly. Voluntary committment is an easy way out for the medical community and the state. Many, I'm sure, who need to be comitted, will refuse and I don't see a passle of folks getting involuntarily committed who need to be committed and I do see the potential for a whole lot of folks who do need to be committed refusing voluntary commitment and being set free, crazy though they are. Just look around. There are crazy people everywhere. They may not be as prevalent as love bugs in full bloom, but they are there. 2nd Amendment rights can be restored though I believe it's not an easy process. There have been cases of abuse. There are states now that prey on gun rights and will do anything to preclude gun ownershsip. We must be ever vigilant. But maybe we can all agree or should agree that nut jobs shouldn't have guns. On a side note here, now that we have Obamacare, there are some things that I will never ever tell a doctor or anyone else that works in the medical communiy, ever. Also, when on the phone sometimes, with whomever, I say things. I say things purposely construed to be subversive just for the sake or for the amusement (mainly mine) of the NSA whom I've suspected of listening to us all for a very long time. "Bomb? What bomb? I'm no terrorist. I herd sheep." I give them my name, address, phone number, and social. I invite them boys to comeover to my house and knock on my front door and then politely wait outside until I answer and greet them. Outside that is. I will meet them outside and shoot the shit with them but under no circumstances will I ever give them permission to come into my house without a warrant. But then again, they don't need permission if they have a warrant. And they'd better have donuts too. Oh, and by the way, I don't pull my phone BS shenanigans out in public. Too many Libtards are amongst us. They live! At the very least, with passage of this law it willl give the Libtards one less piece of ammunition in the fight for gun control, even though they don't believe in ammunition or guns or fighting or pop tarts or fingers or t-shirts or pencils or freedom. Edit: Added an "or" in there |
|
Quoted:
I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. This. You could be considered unstable and a threat because you don't trust the govt, which some people would call paranoia. Look at all the folks called paranoid because they think they're being watched by big brother, and then we all find out we all have been being monitored by the NSA. I've seen people Baker acted for this. I call it the Sarah Connor scenario. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. This. You could be considered unstable and a threat because you don't trust the govt, which some people would call paranoia. Look at all the folks called paranoid because they think they're being watched by big brother, and then we all find out we all have been being monitored by the NSA. I've seen people Baker acted for this. I call it the Sarah Connor scenario. The truth is out there. It's not always palatable or believable. How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't believe it", when the truth is staring at them smack dab in the face? There are things happening that are just hard to believe. They are unfathomable. Yet there they are. Then, there are other things that we are told to be true that are not. Chocolate cows give chocolate milk. The American government does not spy on its citizens. The goverment does not need HB1355 to lock you up and throw away the key. We have the NDAA for that. At any time, the Unholy Justice League can declare an American citizen a "bad guy" and hold them indefinitely without trial. Though your stay may include three squares and a cot, it hardly makes up for your lack of freedom. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always oppose any effort to deny Second Amendment rights because of mental health reasons. Sounds good on the surface, but you just never know who will be adjudicating your mental state. This is a back door gun control effort, and can be applied to any one, at any time. This. You could be considered unstable and a threat because you don't trust the govt, which some people would call paranoia. Look at all the folks called paranoid because they think they're being watched by big brother, and then we all find out we all have been being monitored by the NSA. I've seen people Baker acted for this. I call it the Sarah Connor scenario. And with the implementation of Obamacare it might be a whole lot easier for politicians to influence doctors. Not like we haven't seen that with the IRS. |
|
I'm against this sort of thing for some of the reasons previously stated, among others and I don't like adding to the list of those that get to determine the extent of an individual's rights.
Our country and this state has existed for quite a while without pandering to the antis. And I still remember Marion Hammer and selling us out on open carry. He'll sign it though because it is "feel good" legislation. Coming soon........"pre- crime" laws? |
|
Quoted:
Considering mental health is the root cause of nearly all spree killings, what do any of you propose we do about it? I honestly think they need to look at big pharma (Pfizer, etc) and the violent video game industry selling to kids, but big pharma has both sides of the aisle in their pockets and the video game industry is mighty as well. Having taken children's psychology courses these violent video games definitely have a profound effect on children's development and a predisposition/fascination towards violence. Parents are ultimately to blame for lack of supervision and guidance, but if you blame them most want to ignorantly argue otherwise. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Considering mental health is the root cause of nearly all spree killings, what do any of you propose we do about it? I honestly think they need to look at big pharma (Pfizer, etc) and the violent video game industry selling to kids, but big pharma has both sides of the aisle in their pockets and the video game industry is mighty as well. Having taken children's psychology courses these violent video games definitely have a profound effect on children's development and a predisposition/fascination towards violence. Parents are ultimately to blame for lack of supervision and guidance, but if you blame them most want to ignorantly argue otherwise. Okay that may be a way to solve FUTURE mental health individuals from coming up. What about the crazies we have NOW? |
|
Quoted:
Considering mental health is the root cause of nearly all spree killings, what do any of you propose we do about it? I don't have an answer, but it doesn't mean I will support the current bill since there isn't an alternative. Even if the current bill passes, how is it even enforceable. How will the cops know if someone owns a gun without a registry? This bill passing may even open the door to creating a registry, in the name of safety. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Considering mental health is the root cause of nearly all spree killings, what do any of you propose we do about it? I don't have an answer, but it doesn't mean I will support the current bill since there isn't an alternative. Even if the current bill passes, how is it even enforceable. How will the cops know if someone owns a gun without a registry? This bill passing may even open the door to creating a registry, in the name of safety. Bingo. This sort of legislation paves the way for demonstrating the "necessity" of creating a registry as well as killing face to face sales between private individuals. It's feel good nonsense which means its a shoo-in for enactment along with that to which it will eventually lead. |
|
A few concerns about this:
A Baker Act on the streets/community can be written by a Licensed Mental Health Counselor or Licensed Social Worker, a Psychiatrist, or other medical Dr. These professions are populated with anti-gun types who have worked or know coworkers in Child Protective Services, Children and Families, etc. Granted it takes 8 years from the day a person starts their education and experience til they can get licensed, people are not machines and we have opinions and biases. Its not like a bias toward guns and the 2d Amendment is frowned upon either, just the opposite. I'm not sure, but does the initial Baker Act and the actual 72 hour commitment (getting person off the street) generate some NICS action *gray area versus due process*? If it does, then this Bill is just another way of corralling people into a gun ban before being released from voluntary commitment. On the side of signing the Bill: Many mentally ill and mainly personality disordered people can REALLY pull it together in the (in 72 hours) court hearing and then get set free by the judge/public defender. These folks are some of the most crafty, intelligent, and dangerous IMO. But, their initial Baker Act may generate some NICS info, but without due process. Its very possible these folks would be back on the street within 72 hours with due process and no NICS report. Apparently(?) the inital Baker Act does not involve NICS, which is good since Baker Acts could be written by anti-gun leaning professionals without due process/court. Apparently the 72 hour commitment hearing creates the NICS info, which would be good, vs the anti-gun social worker on the street who has Baker Act power and NICS report. |
|
It is not the end!
It is just the start of things to come. Having lived in NY, CA and in Colorado may I suggest we never get too smug and comfortable with what some consider our gun friendly laws here in Florida.. This is how it starts, unfortunately this is not where it ends! Be vigilant, active and aware of everything going on in and around your community. These people can be very sneaky and very determined. |