More than 450 People in Florida Ordered to Give Up Guns Under New Law

Hundreds of gun owners in Florida have been ordered to give up their guns under a new law. The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, aims to temporarily remove weapons from gun owners who have been deemed by a judge to possibly be a threat to themselves or others.

Since the law took effect in mid-March we've learned the number of risk protection cases filed in Florida now total 467, as of July 24th  and according to the FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS).  DOACS oversees gun permit licensing in Florida and is notified when a petition is filed.  An agency spokesperson revealed just over a quarter of risk protection cases filed so far involve concealed license firearm holders whose license temporarily is suspended once the order is granted.

Attorney Kendra Parris is critical of the new law saying the "it violates the Constitution". She believes after four-and-a-half months, Florida’s version of the ‘red flag' law as its also known is starting to reveal some disturbing grey areas, specifically among individuals who don't have histories of violence or mental illness. These are individuals who are often exercising their First Amendment rights online. They used Constitutionally protected speech on-line and they were hit with the risk protection order because of it. (ABC News, July 30, 2018)
--

It is worth noting that when individual's who've had their firearms seized by the state hire attorneys and fight back in courts they are winning their cases and having their firearms returned.

If a person if adjudicated, by a licensed mental health professional (psychiatrist) to have mental health concerns that make him / her a threat to self or others, then perhaps this should be taken before a judge for review allowing firearms to be seized to help ensure the safety of the person with the mental health concerns. But as the red flag laws are now written, individuals with no mental health training are ordering the violation of individuals' Constitutional rights because they might pose a threat, maybe in six months or a year; or perhaps because some government employee didn't like the comments made by these individuals on social media.