I'm shocked! Shocked I say, to hear that the state that gave us deputies too cowardly to protect schoolkids has now turned their efforts to violating the rights of the wrong people as a matter of course:
This story didn't make the two local papers or any other local source I see, so we go to the AmmoLand newsletter today. A St. Cloud (Florida) man had his firearms confiscated and his rights revoked because he has the same name as someone else.
Carpenter was shocked and confused. What seems to have happened next is he dove right into the hornet's nest. An innocent man who believes in the goodness and fairness of the system would do that.
Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren't any actions against him.Of course they did. When he went to the Clerk of the Courts, he was told there was an injunction against a Jonathon Edward Carpenter - a resident of a different address. Carpenter told the agent he was not that person, had never lived at that address and had never been accused of any domestic violence. That person directed him to the Osceola County Sheriff's office to clear things up. Still thinking the state was just confused rather than malevolent, he went to the Sheriff's office. He thought he could clear things up.
This is just one of the first such instances.
It's nowhere near the last.
There's a fair and simple solution to this sort of nonsense:
Such "good faith" mistakes (which actually show nothing but contempt and malice towards the accused) should subject the clerk of any court and any sheriff responsible for enforcing same so implicated to full civil liability and penalties.
If any injury to defendant results, they should all be subject to criminal penalties as felony conspirators to the deprivation of civil rights, and that criminal prosecution should be automatic and mandatory, or else the district attorney deficient be added to the list of defendants.
In any case where resistance is offered because TPTB are in the wrong, full immunity from prosecution should be guaranteed. If anyone dies, the police responsible should face mandatory trial for murder.
When they have skin in the game, it will be a fair contest.
And when you see cops and legal apparatchiks wearing barrels and living in cardboard boxes when they screw it up like this, they might, y'know, pull their heads out of their asses long enough to check their info before they go swinging their executive branch dicks around, and end up getting them chopped off.
A moot law is no law at all, and one's original, natural rights take full precedence, and it's going to need to start costing them cops' lives to find this out. Since that's the only way they pay attention, I say "Game on".
They dealt the cards, let them play that hand, and see how long before their officers getting shot simply for getting out of the car at the wrong house is a commonplace occurrence, and they decide that lemon ain't worth the squeezin'.
"Just following orders", as a legal strategy, pretty much ran out of gas in 1946 at Nuremburg.
Red flag laws violate pretty much every tenet of common law in place since Magna Carta, and anyone killed for enforcing them deserves the full faceful of buckshot they've got coming.
Unfortunately, it's going to be the only thing to give them pause to engage their brains before enforcing such medieval Trial By Ordeal.
Or hopefully, wisely choosing not to.