Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-18-2020, 06:06 PM
PPS1980's Avatar
PPS1980 PPS1980 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Too ashamed to say
Posts: 966
Likes: 1,041
Liked 1,791 Times in 618 Posts
Default Florida Appeals Court gets it right....

Right to Get Guns Back Once Temporary Anti-Stalking Injunction Is Dismissed – Reason.com

Wolfe v. Newton, decided on 12/12/20 by the Florida Court of Appeal (Judge Matthew Lucas, joined by Judges Craig Villanti and Robert Morris), basically said that if there is no legal basis for seizing weapons in Florida than the Court that issued the original order has NO latitude and must order them returned without the need for a hearing.
__________________
Who watches the watchers?
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 12-19-2020, 10:28 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,707
Likes: 19,260
Liked 11,729 Times in 5,348 Posts
Default

I must agree with their decision, no where in the 2A does it give exceptions to this right. Now this will surely bring up the concept of reasonable restrictions on rights, which ultimately leads to the dilution of and elimination of rights. The Bill of Rights is a tricky thing, it can cut both ways and is unique to the U.S.
__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-19-2020, 10:54 AM
Johnnu2 Johnnu2 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NYS
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Liked 989 Times in 362 Posts
Default

When these discussions come up, I always think about the cowboy movies I've seen where, even then, certain 'restrictions' were imposed. Wasn't it Tombstone where we weren't allowed to bring our handguns into town...? Sorta like NYC...... :-)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #4  
Old 12-19-2020, 07:28 PM
Jack Flash's Avatar
Jack Flash Jack Flash is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,289
Likes: 33,744
Liked 10,944 Times in 3,944 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnu2 View Post
When these discussions come up, I always think about the cowboy movies I've seen where, even then, certain 'restrictions' were imposed. Wasn't it Tombstone where we weren't allowed to bring our handguns into town...? Sorta like NYC...... :-)
I wouldn't cite cowboy movies as a source of information on Constitutional Law.
__________________
They lack our altruism.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 12-19-2020, 07:46 PM
Johnnu2 Johnnu2 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NYS
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Liked 989 Times in 362 Posts
Default

Why not.......... ?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 12-20-2020, 06:20 AM
fredj338's Avatar
fredj338 fredj338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kalif. usa
Posts: 6,836
Likes: 2,665
Liked 3,927 Times in 2,366 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash View Post
I wouldn't cite cowboy movies as a source of information on Constitutional Law.
No but the point is the 2A has always had restrictions in various municipalitues. NYC Sullivan act is just one & its still in place 100y later.
Btw, Tombstone was just one of many towns back in that day that banned firearms in town. Not saying that is right but it is fact.
__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Last edited by fredj338; 12-20-2020 at 06:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-20-2020, 07:57 AM
Ziggy2525's Avatar
Ziggy2525 Ziggy2525 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 624
Liked 3,247 Times in 1,007 Posts
Default

Until the 14th Amendment (1868) the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, not the states. They still haven’t been fully incorporated at the state level.

It wasn’t until 2008 that SCOTUS ruled the 2A was an individual right and 2010 that the SCOTUS ruled the 2A applied to state and local governments. Restrictions that happened in the Old West don’t really apply. 2A things that happen after 2008 do.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Last edited by Ziggy2525; 12-20-2020 at 08:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 12-20-2020, 02:50 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,494
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

I just read the article. The petition for a protection order was knowingly frivolous and malicious, and the petitioner should have been hammered with terms accordingly. In addition to the fact that the trial court should not have entered it (even though the respondent was not too smart creating that impression), the trial judge should have been disciplined for the misconduct in not returning the firearms immediately.

I do this stuff for a living ...both the court and SO would have been advised as above.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 12-20-2020, 03:00 PM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
The petition for a protection order was knowingly frivolous and malicious, and the petitioner should have been hammered with terms accordingly...
Have you ever seen that actually happen?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-20-2020, 09:00 PM
fatcat3's Avatar
fatcat3 fatcat3 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 252
Likes: 1,019
Liked 442 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash View Post
I wouldn't cite cowboy movies as a source of information on Constitutional Law.
Why? We let Hollywood convince us that we need a double stack 9, 3 mags, bug, 4 knives, flashlight, plus, plus, plus, just to go to the mailbox or we are all going to end of fighting an hoard of zombies?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-21-2020, 10:52 AM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,494
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M29since14 View Post
Have you ever seen that actually happen?
*
When I was in the criminal division, I rarely saw the civil docket.* I did see terms a couple of times in family law cases, but don't recall it in a case such as this. I just read an opinion somewhat similar to this - an order that should not have been entered, but other than appellate costs, I don't recall if terms were ordered.

* I only rare go to court as a civil nerd - most of my work is spent nerding away at my desk, and the only real court time I have done in the last 6 years is covering some juvenile offender matters, something I do because of my background in criminal and the fact that our juvenile department is a client entity. I only rarely wear anything that would pass for court clothes, especially now.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2020, 11:27 AM
PPS1980's Avatar
PPS1980 PPS1980 is offline
Member
Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right.... Florida Appeals Court gets it right....  
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Too ashamed to say
Posts: 966
Likes: 1,041
Liked 1,791 Times in 618 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
I just read the article. The petition for a protection order was knowingly frivolous and malicious, and the petitioner should have been hammered with terms accordingly. In addition to the fact that the trial court should not have entered it (even though the respondent was not too smart creating that impression), the trial judge should have been disciplined for the misconduct in not returning the firearms immediately.

I do this stuff for a living ...both the court and SO would have been advised as above.
I do not disagree with you on either point. The main takeaway for me is that the appeals court has set a precedent that if the underlying legal rationale for the order is found to be frivolous or is vacated than the Court has zero right to investigate for possible additional reasons to refuse to return the property to its rightful owner, even firearms.
__________________
Who watches the watchers?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. appeals court upholds right to carry gun in public ISCS Yoda 2nd Amendment Forum 8 08-03-2020 05:07 PM
2A Case out of DC Circuit Court of Appeals GaryS 2nd Amendment Forum 38 10-07-2017 08:56 PM
Nomination for 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals jag312 2nd Amendment Forum 4 02-27-2010 09:26 PM
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Mandatory registration is okay Pasifikawv 2nd Amendment Forum 21 09-02-2009 01:16 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)