1911Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
What is absurd is that the kid didn't even own a gun. :confused:

He made a flippant remark on Reddit and got himself involuntarily hospitalized.

Nevertheless, the family had it's guns at it's home confiscated.

https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/ucf-student-idolized-mass-shooters/
A judge has ruled that a UCF student can own guns after he referred to the Parkland and Las Vegas shooters as “heroes” on Reddit.

A University of Central Florida student who was temporarily banned from owning weapons or ammunition after praising mass shooters online is now free to purchase a gun, a judge ruled.

In early March, Orlando police used Florida’s new gun legislation to temporarily ban 21-year-old Christian Nicholas Velasquez from owning any weapons or ammunition, reports The Orlando Sentinel.
and

Kendra Parris, Velasquez’s attorney, says her client was being punished for legally protected speech, arguing he had not done anything to suggest that he would act on his comments.

Parris says her client does not own a weapon and does not have a criminal background, claiming he would have voluntarily relinquished his gun rights if he was given the option. She also says an extension of the temporary ban would affect Velasquez’s ability to obtain certain jobs and could expose him to criminal liabilities.
Is this the slippery slope we have all spoken about?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,327 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
One can not act out ...or goof off on social media....not anymore.

It is the new normal.....caused by snowflake liberals.

Best to just remove yourself from it....but kids will be hard-pressed to do that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
The Parkland shooter has received a lot of fan mail in jail, maybe all of those people should have their rights infringed.

How about everyone who has said they admire Stalin or Hitler? Baker Act them, too?

Yup, trust our government and this is what you get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,701 Posts
Well it could get ugly if they reported it to the NCIS system. Then the Feds can arrest them if they get their guns back.

The schools and the liberal thought police go crazy with anything even remotely related to guns. No pictures, no drawings, no talking or even making finger gestures about guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,693 Posts
A judge has ruled that a UCF student can own guns after he referred to the Parkland and Las Vegas shooters as “heroes” on Reddit
Am i the only one who finds this deeply disturbing? Who would refer to either as 'heroes'?
If they did I'd say they should be committed and lose their guns. What kind of bag o nuts says something like this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,780 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Am i the only one who finds this deeply disturbing? Who would refer to either as 'heroes'?
If they did I'd say they should be committed and lose their guns. What kind of bag o nuts says something like this?
What he said isn't a threat. Nor is it criminal talk. Period.

The first amendment specifically allows you to criticize or endorse anyone and say relatively outrageous things without some punitive action executed by the government.

The threshold is whether he made a threat to harm or kill anyone, or himself.

Clearly he did not.

There are lots of people that admire some of the darkest figures in history.

Heck, I find it astounding the number of people that treat Che Guevara as some god-like revolutionary hero. Yet, if you are ever overheard speaking highly of Guevara in an Cuban restaurant in Miami's little Havana district, you will likely get lynched. ;) The bottom line is someone's hero is someone else's devil.

The point being is that some people admire Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, or even Obama. To each his own, and whether you make a statement admiring any of them should not subject you to a custodial arrest and a forced psychological evaluation (which is an invasion of privacy), and loss of constitutionally protected rights.

The bottom line is if you haven't threaten to carry out some sort of violent act online, or posted a criminal act (like buying and selling contraband and other prohibited behavior), you really haven't committed any crime.

Certainly, admiring some infamous person isn't going to win you a merit badge for a good citizen; people say things to shock the conscious and we have a clear delineation of what can be said and what can't be said. At worse, a reputation may follow you for years once you realize how stupid you were.

The authorities clearly cross the line and personally, I think the kid and his family have a cause of action to sue the county and the law enforcement officers that subjected him to the Baker Act, legal costs, and to invasion of privacy. I feel so strongly that I hope they sue and get the new law ruled unconstitutional.

We have already plenty of case law prior to the passage of the latest laws that should have put the previous school shooter in jail for his criminal threats. It's just that the authorities ignore the evidence they had and now they are over-compensating. They didn't need to pass any new laws.

That is the problem with this new law. Lots of harmless people will get caught up in the bureaucratic cog works. That is the slippery slope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
We are

Polymer Man, we are. Several of the allegations of fact made in the petition filed by the City of Orlando were flatly false.

It's damn near impossible to sue for an improper Baker Act, since they're initiated by police (qualified immunity). But we have several causes of action.

What is happening is beyond frightening. Several attorneys in the state are now working on filing constitutional challenges (and I have one in the works on a new case).
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top