Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Flag Law Set to Pass in New Mexico

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Red Flag Law Set to Pass in New Mexico

    NM legislature is about to pass a Red Flag Law.
    https://www.policeone.com/gun-legisl...93afa-41989871

    I find it interesting that:
    Senate Bill 5 would allow law enforcement officers – acting on information provided by a relative, school administrator or employer – to seek a court order prohibiting someone from having firearms.

    The officer’s decision to file a petition would be based on whether there’s probable cause to believe the individual “poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others.”

    A court could order the temporary seizure of the person’s firearms for up to 10 days, until a hearing could be held. After a hearing, the ban could be extended one year.

    In response to sheriffs who threatened to refuse to enforce the law, the proposal also says law enforcement officers wouldn’t be immune to liability if they failed to carry out their duties under the extreme risk act or other state laws.


    The bolded is the usual burden for an involuntary commitment proceeding.

    So if someone is THAT FUCKING MENTALLY ILL, wtf just "take their guns away"?

    Seriously, get them in custody and go through the involuntary commitment proceedings, that are already well defined in state law.

    Instead, the cops show up and demand firearms from a supposed mentally ill person.

    So said person has a pistol in their room. Other roommates have a gun safe full of their own firearms. Are the cops going to take all the firearms in the house, and leave the mentally ill person who quote poses a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to self or others.”

    It seems to me that gun control advocates are making this a lot more difficult than it really is, under existing laws.

    I highlighted what happens in Idaho. Note the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence for commitment. Not "probable cause".

    The probable cause cops use to make a warrantless arrest has a fluid meaning I won't get into the details.

    So, in the NM law, the cops have to petition the court, and the judge I am guessing would have to find or agree with the probable cause presented to the court by the prosecutor and or the officers involved, much like they do when they go to a Judge and ask for an arrest warrant.

    Except this is more like a search warrant.

    Man, what a can of worms they are opening.

    At least they apparently have to go to a Judge to get it approved.



    For example:

    TITLE 66
    STATE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS
    CHAPTER 3
    HOSPITALIZATION OF MENTALLY ILL
    66-329. COMMITMENT TO DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR UPON COURT ORDER — JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. (1) Proceedings for the involuntary care and treatment of mentally ill persons by the department of health and welfare may be commenced by the filing of a written application with a court of competent jurisdiction by a friend, relative, spouse or guardian of the proposed patient, by a licensed physician, by a physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse practicing in a hospital, by a prosecuting attorney or other public official of a municipality, county or of the state of Idaho, or by the director of any facility in which such patient may be.

    (2) The application shall state the name and last known address of the proposed patient; the name and address of the spouse, guardian, next of kin, or friend of the proposed patient; whether the proposed patient can be cared for privately in the event commitment is not ordered; whether the proposed patient is, at the time of the application, a voluntary patient; whether the proposed patient has applied for release pursuant to section 66-320, Idaho Code; and a simple and precise statement of the facts showing that the proposed patient is mentally ill and either likely to injure himself or others or is gravely disabled due to mental illness.

    (3) Any such application shall be accompanied by a certificate of a designated examiner stating that he has personally examined the proposed patient within the last fourteen (14) days and is of the opinion that the proposed patient is: (i) mentally ill; (ii) likely to injure himself or others or is gravely disabled due to mental illness; and (iii) lacks capacity to make informed decisions about treatment;
    or a written statement by the applicant that the proposed patient has refused to submit to examination by a designated examiner.

    (4) Upon receipt of an application for commitment, the court shall, within forty-eight (48) hours, appoint another designated examiner to make a personal examination of the proposed patient, or if the proposed patient has not been examined, the court shall appoint two (2) designated examiners to make individual personal examinations of the proposed patient and may order the proposed patient to submit to an immediate examination. If neither designated examiner is a physician, the court shall order a physical examination of the proposed patient. At least one (1) designated examiner shall be a psychiatrist, licensed physician or licensed psychologist. The designated examiners shall report to the court their findings within the following seventy-two (72) hours as to the mental condition of the proposed patient and his need for custody, care, or treatment by a facility. The reports shall be in the form of written certificates that shall be filed with the court. The court may terminate the proceedings and dismiss the application without taking any further action in the event the reports of the designated examiners are to the effect that the proposed patient is not mentally ill or, although mentally ill, is not likely to injure himself or others or is not gravely disabled due to mental illness. If the proceedings are terminated, the proposed patient shall be released immediately.

    (5) If the designated examiner’s certificate states a belief that the proposed patient is mentally ill and either likely to injure himself or others or is gravely disabled due to mental illness, the judge of such court shall issue an order authorizing any health officer, peace officer, or director of a facility to take the proposed patient to a facility in the community in which the proposed patient is residing or to the nearest facility to await the hearing, and for good cause may authorize treatment during such period subject to the provisions of section 66-346(a)(4), Idaho Code. Under no circumstances shall the proposed patient be detained in a nonmedical unit used for the detention of individuals charged with or convicted of penal offenses.

    (6) Upon receipt of such application and designated examiners’ reports, the court shall appoint a time and place for a hearing not more than seven (7) days from the receipt of such designated examiners’ reports and thereupon give written notice of such time and place of such hearing, together with a copy of the application, designated examiner’s certificates, and notice of the proposed patient’s right to be represented by an attorney or, if indigent, to be represented by a court-appointed attorney, to the applicant, to the proposed patient, to the proposed patient’s spouse, guardian, next of kin, or friend. With the consent of the proposed patient and his attorney, the hearing may be held immediately. Upon motion of the petitioner, or upon motion of the proposed patient and attorney, and for good cause shown, the court may continue the hearing up to an additional five (5) days during which time, for good cause shown, the court may authorize treatment.

    (7) An opportunity to be represented by counsel shall be afforded to every proposed patient, and, if neither the proposed patient nor others provide counsel, the court shall appoint counsel in accordance with chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code, no later than the time the application is received by the court.

    (8) If the involuntary detention was commenced under this section, the hearing shall be held at a facility, at the home of the proposed patient, or at any other suitable place not likely to have a harmful effect on the proposed patient’s physical or mental health. Venue for the hearing shall be in the county of residence of the proposed patient or in the county where the proposed patient was found immediately prior to commencement of such proceedings.

    (9) In all proceedings under this section, any existing provision of the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential communications between the designated examiner and proposed patient shall not apply and any designated examiner who shall have examined the proposed patient shall be a competent witness to testify as to the proposed patient’s condition.

    (10) The proposed patient, the applicant, and any other persons to whom notice is required to be given shall be afforded an opportunity to appear at the hearing, to testify, and to present and cross-examine witnesses. The proposed patient shall be required to be present at the hearing unless the court determines that the mental or physical state of the proposed patient is such that his presence at the hearing would be detrimental to the proposed patient’s health or would unduly disrupt the proceedings. A record of the proceedings shall be made as for other civil hearings. The hearing shall be conducted in as informal a manner as may be consistent with orderly procedure. The court shall receive all relevant and material evidence consistent with the rules of evidence.

    (11) If, upon completion of the hearing and consideration of the record, and after consideration of reasonable alternatives including, but not limited to, holding the proceedings in abeyance for a period of up to thirty (30) days, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient:
    (a) Is mentally ill; and
    (b) Is, because of such condition, likely to injure himself or others, or is gravely disabled due to mental illness;
    the court shall order the proposed patient committed to the custody of the department director for observation, care, and treatment for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed one (1) year. The department director, through his dispositioner, shall determine within twenty-four (24) hours the least restrictive available facility or outpatient treatment, consistent with the needs of each patient committed under this section for observation, care, and treatment.


    (12) The commitment order constitutes a continuing authorization for the department of health and welfare, law enforcement, or director of a facility, upon request of the director of the outpatient facility, the physician, or the department director through his dispositioner, to transport a committed patient to designated outpatient treatment for the purpose of making reasonable efforts to obtain the committed patient’s compliance with the terms and conditions of outpatient treatment. If the director of the outpatient facility, the treating physician, or the department director through his dispositioner determines any of the following:
    (a) The patient is failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of outpatient treatment or the patient refuses outpatient treatment after reasonable efforts at compliance have been made; or
    (b) Outpatient treatment is not effective after reasonable efforts have been made;
    the department director through his dispositioner shall cause the committed patient to be transported by the department of health and welfare, law enforcement, or director of a facility to the least restrictive available facility for observation, care, and treatment on an inpatient basis. Within forty-eight (48) hours of a committed patient’s transfer from outpatient treatment to a facility for inpatient treatment, the department director through his dispositioner shall notify the court that originally ordered the commitment, the committed patient’s attorney, and the committed patient’s spouse, guardian, adult next of kin, or friend of the change in disposition and provide a detailed affidavit reciting the facts and circumstances supporting the transfer from outpatient treatment to inpatient treatment at a facility. The court shall conduct an ex parte review of the notice and affidavit within forty-eight (48) hours of filing and determine whether the change in disposition from outpatient treatment to inpatient treatment at a facility is supported by probable cause. In no event shall the calculation of forty-eight (48) hours provided for in this subsection include holidays formally recognized and observed by the state of Idaho, nor shall the calculation include weekends. If the court determines that probable cause exists, the department director through his dispositioner shall continue with care and treatment on an inpatient basis at the least restrictive available facility. Within twenty-four (24) hours of a finding of probable cause, the court shall issue an order to show cause why the patient does not meet the conditions in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection. The order shall be served on the committed patient, the committed patient’s attorney and the committed patient’s spouse, guardian, adult next of kin, or friend. The patient shall have fifteen (15) days to present evidence that the conditions in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection have not been met. In no event shall the calculation of twenty-four (24) hours provided for in this subsection include holidays formally recognized and observed by the state of Idaho, nor shall the calculation include weekends. If the court determines that a change in disposition from outpatient treatment to inpatient treatment does not meet the conditions in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection, the department director through his dispositioner will continue with outpatient treatment on the same or modified terms and conditions. Nothing provided in this section shall limit the authority of any law enforcement officer to detain a patient pursuant to the emergency authority conferred by section 66-326, Idaho Code.

    (13) Nothing in this chapter or in any rule adopted pursuant thereto shall be construed to authorize the detention or involuntary admission to a hospital or other facility of an individual who:
    (a) Has epilepsy, a developmental disability, a physical disability, an intellectual disability, is impaired by chronic alcoholism or drug abuse, or aged, unless in addition to such condition, such person is mentally ill;
    (b) Is a patient under treatment by spiritual means alone, through prayer, in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner thereof and who asserts to any authority attempting to detain him that he is under such treatment and who gives the name of a practitioner so treating him to such authority; or
    (c) Can be properly cared for privately with the help of willing and able family or friends, and provided that such person may be detained or involuntarily admitted if such person is mentally ill and presents a substantial risk of injury to himself or others if allowed to remain at liberty.

    (14) The order of commitment shall state whether the proposed patient lacks capacity to make informed decisions about treatment, the name and address of the patient’s attorney and the patient’s spouse, guardian, adult next of kin, or friend.

    (15) If the patient has no spouse or guardian and if the patient has property that may not be cared for pursuant to chapter 5, title 66, Idaho Code, or by the patient while confined at a facility, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the purpose of preserving the patient’s estate, pending further guardianship or conservatorship proceedings.

    (16) The commitment shall continue until terminated and shall be unaffected by the patient’s conditional release or change in disposition.
    History:
    [66-329, added 1951, ch. 290, sec. 13, p. 622; am. 1953, ch. 264, sec. 1, p. 455; am. 1959, ch. 207, sec. 7, p. 439; am. 1969, ch. 143, sec. 1, p. 461; am. 1972, ch. 44, sec. 3, p. 67; am. 1973, ch. 173, sec. 9, p. 363; am. 1974, ch. 165, sec. 8, p. 1405; am. 1981, ch. 114, sec. 18, p. 182; am. 1991, ch. 210, sec. 2, p. 495; am. 1998, ch. 78, sec. 1, p. 279; am. 1998, ch. 341, sec. 2, p. 1090; am. 2003, ch. 249, sec. 3, p. 645; am. 2008, ch. 331, sec. 3, p. 912; am. 2010, ch. 235, sec. 56, p. 594; am. 2013, ch. 293, sec. 3, p. 772; am. 2019, ch. 244, sec. 1, p. 739.]
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

    #2
    So we had existing laws in place for involuntary commitment the people who are a threat to themselves or others.

    Red flag laws just take Firearms away from the same people that leave them in the same household or walking around where they can still get other weapons or self-harm or harm others.

    Doesn't make much sense to me if you're really interested in protecting people from harming themselves or others due to some sort of mental health issues.
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

    Comment


      #3
      So, the Baker Act in Florida...
      https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/fl..._blogfooterold

      Interesting, so they still need a Red Flag law...

      Falling for Judo since 1980

      "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

      "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

      "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BKR View Post
        So, the Baker Act in Florida...
        https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/15/us/fl..._blogfooterold

        Interesting, so they still need a Red Flag law...
        Yeah, that's a pretty shitty situation. I don't know how they can justify Baker acting someone that young without involving that parental guardian. I like how the school district was passing the buck to the LMHC who made the Baker act call.
        Combatives training log.

        Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

        Drum thread

        Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.

        "Disliking someone is not evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance or even bias." --Dung Beatles

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Diesel_tke View Post

          Yeah, that's a pretty shitty situation. I don't know how they can justify Baker acting someone that young without involving that parental guardian. I like how the school district was passing the buck to the LMHC who made the Baker act call.
          Six years old and the decision was made before contacting a parent. That's a policy in need of change.

          Carter Hargrave's Jeet Can't Do

          http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31636

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by hungryjoe View Post

            Six years old and the decision was made before contacting a parent. That's a policy in need of change.
            I would say so.

            My point in bring FL up in this thread is that there are already laws and procedures in place, besides Red Flag Laws, to get people who are potentially a danger to themselves or others (firearms or not) on the books, and I bet in MOST if not all states have some sort of involuntary committal laws/procedures.

            So, I'm suggesting that Red Flag laws are basically a feel-good kind of law, that won't subtantivitively change anything for the better.

            The question to ask is, if the cops/family/friends think someone is a danger to self or others, why in the hell don't/didn't they use the already in place laws/procedures to get said person into temporary custody and evaluated?

            Is it the stigma of potential mental illness?

            How is application of Red Flag law any different?



            Falling for Judo since 1980

            "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

            "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

            "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

            Comment


              #7
              It passed. Most of the Sheriff's in the state are apparently going to refuse to enforce it.
              https://www.policeone.com/gun-legisl...55420-41989871
              Falling for Judo since 1980

              "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

              "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

              "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by BKR View Post
                It passed. Most of the Sheriff's in the state are apparently going to refuse to enforce it.
                https://www.policeone.com/gun-legisl...55420-41989871
                If they refuse 100%, fine. But, if they choose to enforce it when it suits them, it's going to lead to a lot of trouble.
                Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by submessenger View Post

                  If they refuse 100%, fine. But, if they choose to enforce it when it suits them, it's going to lead to a lot of trouble.
                  Well, like the head of the SO org. wrote, LEO has discretion. Of course, if they use it and get it wrong, there will be hell to pay.

                  Again, if someone is that mentally unstable, they can do an involuntary committal/hold on the person. Really, that makes more sense, given the language of the law that will go into effect.

                  They can add in taking their guns into custody for safe keeping to the involuntary committal law, if the Judge is convinced it's necessary.

                  I guess it's easier to justify taking property than taking someone into custody for a mental hold.

                  Just wait until they take someone's guns, then they get in their F350 and plow into a crowd of people, and end up suicide by cop...
                  Falling for Judo since 1980

                  "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                  "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                  "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by submessenger View Post

                    If they refuse 100%, fine. But, if they choose to enforce it when it suits them, it's going to lead to a lot of trouble.
                    So, this is what's happening in Florida right now. I listened to an interview with our local Sherriff the other day and they said that up here in the Panhandle, Lower Alabama to Rayce, they had only confiscated 5 guns total, all through the panhandle. Only one in my county. All of those were situations where they were in the home for domestic situations and confiscated the guns at the moment.

                    Now, down south there are some places like Miami where they were in the hundreds. All for all kinds of reasons. So in the conservative areas, it's not being used, in the more liberal areas, they are taking guns all over the place.
                    Combatives training log.

                    Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

                    Drum thread

                    Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.

                    "Disliking someone is not evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance or even bias." --Dung Beatles

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Diesel_tke View Post

                      So, this is what's happening in Florida right now. I listened to an interview with our local Sherriff the other day and they said that up here in the Panhandle, Lower Alabama to Rayce, they had only confiscated 5 guns total, all through the panhandle. Only one in my county. All of those were situations where they were in the home for domestic situations and confiscated the guns at the moment.

                      Now, down south there are some places like Miami where they were in the hundreds. All for all kinds of reasons. So in the conservative areas, it's not being used, in the more liberal areas, they are taking guns all over the place.
                      Right, Sheriff's are elected officials. They have discretion as to how they enforce laws.

                      Like it or not...
                      Falling for Judo since 1980

                      "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                      "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                      "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Diesel_tke View Post

                        So, this is what's happening in Florida right now. I listened to an interview with our local Sherriff the other day and they said that up here in the Panhandle, Lower Alabama to Rayce, they had only confiscated 5 guns total, all through the panhandle. Only one in my county. All of those were situations where they were in the home for domestic situations and confiscated the guns at the moment.

                        Now, down south there are some places like Miami where they were in the hundreds. All for all kinds of reasons. So in the conservative areas, it's not being used, in the more liberal areas, they are taking guns all over the place.
                        So in Florida, what is the diff between Bakering someone and just taking their guns ?

                        What is standard of proof for taking the guns? PC, Clear and Convincing, or what?

                        Falling for Judo since 1980

                        "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                        "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                        "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                        Comment


                          #13
                          So Florida has 3 different things, at least. Baker, Marchman, and Red Flag. The first two require 2 sigs (or doctor) and mandatory confinement for at least an evaluation period. Red flag is just a gun grab. But, reasonable to assume that it could be rolled up into the former, or combined with them.
                          Consider for a moment that there is no meme about brown-haired, brown-eyed step children.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by BKR View Post

                            So in Florida, what is the diff between Bakering someone and just taking their guns ?

                            What is standard of proof for taking the guns? PC, Clear and Convincing, or what?
                            A Baker act doesn't have anything to do with guns in and of itself. Baker act is when you involuntarily commit someone because they are believed to be a threat to themselves or others. You have 72 hours in which a mental health doctor is going to evaluate you and either let you go or keep you longer. I've seen people baker acted and committed for months. That's pretty extreme and requires more legal wrangling after the initial baker act.

                            The Baker act is independent of legal stuff going on. So, say you threaten to kill your wife and yourself. A cop shows up and sees that you are not mentally stable. He can baker act you. Then when the baker act is over, and the doctor thinks you are no longer a risk to yourself or others, you will be picked up and taken to jail to process the potential battery, assault, or whatever else you may have committed. NOW, with the new Red Flag law, you can confiscate the firearm from said individual at the same time. Before, you couldn't do that, but you could have the individual turn the firearm over to a friend or family member voluntarily.

                            For the Red Flag law, now a LEO can petition a judge to remove your firearm for 14 days and then the judge can extend that to a year based on the judge's discretion. And that is pretty vague.
                            Combatives training log.

                            Gezere: paraphrase from Bas Rutten, Never escalate the level of violence in fight you are losing. :D

                            Drum thread

                            Pavel Tsatsouline: kettlebell workouts give you “cardio without the dishonour of aerobics”.

                            "Disliking someone is not evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance or even bias." --Dung Beatles

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Diesel_tke View Post

                              A Baker act doesn't have anything to do with guns in and of itself. Baker act is when you involuntarily commit someone because they are believed to be a threat to themselves or others. You have 72 hours in which a mental health doctor is going to evaluate you and either let you go or keep you longer. I've seen people baker acted and committed for months. That's pretty extreme and requires more legal wrangling after the initial baker act.

                              The Baker act is independent of legal stuff going on. So, say you threaten to kill your wife and yourself. A cop shows up and sees that you are not mentally stable. He can baker act you. Then when the baker act is over, and the doctor thinks you are no longer a risk to yourself or others, you will be picked up and taken to jail to process the potential battery, assault, or whatever else you may have committed. NOW, with the new Red Flag law, you can confiscate the firearm from said individual at the same time. Before, you couldn't do that, but you could have the individual turn the firearm over to a friend or family member voluntarily.

                              For the Red Flag law, now a LEO can petition a judge to remove your firearm for 14 days and then the judge can extend that to a year based on the judge's discretion. And that is pretty vague.
                              OK, thanks for the clarification. I was hoping you would be able to shed some light on that.

                              The Baker is very similar sounding to what we do in Idaho for involuntary mental holds/commitments.

                              What is the burden of proof for the Red Flag law in Florida? The one in NM apparently is probable cause. Which is a pretty weak burden to meet.

                              I can see using PC found by a judge for the initial hearing, but once the defendant (respondent ?) shows up in court and gets his/her hearing, what is required as burden of proof in the Florida Flag Law?

                              If it's still PC, again, that's low level stuff. You are talking taking away a person's civil rights (2A) for up to a year. That puts it at the level of a preliminary hearing.

                              Falling for Judo since 1980

                              "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                              "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                              "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X