re: #1 Randall Gross

*Sigh*. Can’t let a fever among the RWNJ community to make me hesitate to point something like this out.

First I would say given the stakes and language of the law the state has a duty to properly check the medical report. So that’s a double, not single fail.

I agree a person that meets the “imminent threat to themselves or another” aka Baker Act aka “could be involuntarily admitted” should lose their guns until deemed no longer a threat. At the same time we want solid due process. That means notice and opportunity about rights of appeal etc. All missing here if the allegations are substantiated.

The state does not get to escalate the policy above the language or fail to follow procedures in the pursuit of public safety / gun control.

The right of the state to confiscate the guns triggers really serious oversight and due process in my view. A powerful right to confiscate all arms possessed must be matched by powerful transparency and due process. The law may not include vague standards nor fail to require a level of medical expertise in the judgement of the patient.

This is not like a drivers license. This has direct impact on a persons constitutional rights, and not just the 2nd either. Maybe least of all the 2nd.