Guns

Florida Court Rejects Firearms Restriction in Temporary Anti-Stalking Injunction

|

From Dean v. Bevis, decided today by the Florida Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Judge Morris Silberman, joined by Judges Diego Casanueva & Robert Morris:

This appeal arose from a temporary injunction for protection against stalking entered in favor of Jaclyn Diane Bevis and against W. Alecs Dean. The injunction prohibited Dean from possessing any firearms or ammunition and ordered Dean to surrender them to law enforcement….

On March 30, 2020, Bevis filed a sworn petition for injunction for protection against stalking and made the following allegations. When Bevis was working as a news reporter, Dean would provide her with information, but over time he became obsessed with her. When Dean learned that she was romantically involved with someone else, he lost connection with reality. He sent daily texts to her and demanded that she communicate with him. He began to contact her significant other. Among other things, he started a website in her name and threatened to blackmail her and to put disparaging information on the website. "While his threats of me have not typically been physical in nature, he did once tell me he was 'looking to kill off another character in his autobiography.'" She did not allege when he made that statement to her. She feared for her safety on the basis of "his statements, his mental state, and his access to firearms."

On the same day that Bevis filed her petition, the trial court issued a temporary injunction for protection against stalking. The court found that "[t]he statements made under oath by Petitioner make it appear that Section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, applies to the parties, and that stalking exists." Among the provisions checked on the temporary injunction are "Respondent shall not use or possess a firearm or ammunition," and "Respondent shall surrender any firearms and ammunition in Respondent's possession to the Lee County Sheriff's Department." The injunction notified the parties that a hearing would be held on April 7, 2020, to determine whether the trial court should issue a final judgment of injunction for protection against stalking.

Officers served the injunction on Dean on March 31, 2020, and Dean contends that the officers seized his firearms and ammunition. On April 6, 2020, Dean filed a motion for immediate release of property and asserted that the trial court was without authority to order the seizure of his firearms and ammunition based only on a temporary injunction for stalking. He requested an immediate return of his firearms and ammunition until the trial court held a hearing and a final order was entered on the injunction petition. After a hearing on Dean's motion for immediate release of property, the trial court denied Dean's motion, and the final hearing was set on Bevis's injunction petition. Dean then filed this interlocutory appeal.

Dean contends that his right to keep and bear[] arms as provided for in the Florida Constitution was violated when the trial court entered the temporary injunction which ordered that he "shall not use or possess a firearm or ammunition" and that he "shall surrender all firearms and ammunition" that he possessed. The Florida Constitution provides, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Thus, "the plain language of article I, section 8, of the Florida Constitution explicitly authorizes the Legislature to regulate the manner of exercising the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense." Norman v. State (Fla. 2017). The right to bear arms is not absolute but rather "is subject to the right of the people through their legislature to enact valid police regulations to promote the health, morals, safety and general welfare of the people." Norman.

The Florida Legislature "created a cause of action for an injunction for protection against stalking." Stalking occurs when a person "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person." "'Harass' means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose." …

[Under] section 790.233, … if a final injunction for stalking is in effect, a person may not possess firearms or ammunition, and a violation of this provision is a crime…. [But no statute provides] express statutory authority for a court to prohibit a person from possessing firearms or ammunition upon the issuance of a temporary injunction for protection against stalking. Therefore, the trial court did not have the express authority to prohibit the possession of firearms and ammunition based upon the temporary injunction.

The trial court determined that the "catchall" provision of section 784.0485(5)(a) provided the statutory authority for the trial court to order the surrender of Dean's firearms and ammunition upon the issuance of the temporary injunction. That catchall provision states, "If it appears to the court that stalking exists, the court may grant a temporary injunction ex parte, pending a full hearing, and may grant such relief as the court deems proper, including an injunction restraining the respondent from committing any act of stalking." …

"Where the legislature includes wording in one section of a statute and not in another, it is presumed to have been intentionally excluded." Here, the legislature expressly included persons who have a final injunction in effect for domestic violence or stalking as persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms. See § 790.233(1). And in section 784.0485(6)(e), the legislature provided that a final injunction for stalking must "provide that it is a violation of s. 790.233 and a misdemeanor of the first degree for the respondent to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition." The legislature did not make this provision for temporary injunctions ….

This court recently addressed an ex parte temporary injunction for protection against stalking that was dissolved and the trial court's failure to grant the respondent's motion for return of his firearms in Wolfe v. Newton (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). The trial court would not order return of the property without an evidentiary hearing…. [T]his court precluded the trial court from conducting an evidentiary hearing as a condition to the return of Wolfe's firearms that had been seized via the ex parte order. In the opinion, this court noted its concern for the lack of express statutory authority for the ex parte seizure of firearms in that case….

Similarly, in this case it is impossible to tell from the temporary injunction why the trial court deemed it proper to require Dean to surrender his firearms and ammunition. We reach only the narrow issue of whether the allegations in this case were sufficient to support such a decision. We conclude that any authority that the catchall provision may provide did not permit the prohibition of Dean's possession of firearms and ammunition under the alleged facts of this case.

We contrast section 784.0485(5)(a) with the "red flag" law that Bevis relied upon in the trial court. Bevis asserted that the red flag law allows confiscation of a firearm when a person has not committed a crime. The red flag law, found in section 790.401, is "The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act" that provides for risk protection orders…. But to obtain an ex parte temporary order under the red flag law, there must be detailed allegations based on personal knowledge to show the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others in the near future based on the possession of a firearm. Here, section 784.0485 does not require detailed allegations showing that Dean posed a significant danger of causing personal injury in the near future based on his possession of a firearm. And Bevis's petition did not make such allegations…. She did not allege any express threat of physical violence against her, and she did not allege any express or implied threat of the use of a firearm or any other weapon against her.

Bevis's allegations do not show that Dean posed a significant danger to Bevis or anyone else for personal injury based on his possession of a firearm. Under the limited allegations contained in her petition, the trial court erred by relying on the provision that it "may grant such relief as the court deems proper," to include in the temporary stalking injunction provisions that infringed upon Dean's constitutional right to keep and bear arms as provided for in the Florida Constitution….

 

NEXT: "The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Before the Supreme Court reinstated the Second Amendment, a temporary order of commitment for psychiatric examination resulted in a permanent loss of the right to have a gun. The First Circuit changed its mind on that issue after _Heller_.

    1. It didn’t “change its mind”, any more than southern courts “changed their minds” after Loving v. Virginia or Strom Thurmond “changed his mind” after desegregation.

      1. It didn’t “change its mind”, any more than southern courts “changed their minds” after Loving v. Virginia or Strom Thurmond “changed his mind” after desegregation.

        1. I don’t think Strom Thurmond did change his mind after desegregation.

          1. He did change political parties.

  2. Do any of these orders, ever ever work, except to generate lawyer fees? She needs to arm herself. The lawyer profession is utterly useless at protecting crime victims. From the description, he has an obsession. It cannot be ended by talking.

    1. “She needs to arm herself.”

      Right. And also provide herself complete immunity to ambush, even while sleeping.

      Situation A: If the stalker has a gun is found by police while sitting in his car outside his victim’s apartment they can’t do anything about it because the 2nd Amendment is absolute and trumps anyone’s expectation of safety. They have to wait until he shoots her before they can do anything.

      Situation B: If the stalker has a gun is found by police while sitting in his car outside the victim’s apartment they lock him up immediately for violating the court order.

      Your argument is Situation B is no better than Situation A. In other words, nonsense.

      1. Sure putting a lot of words in the guy’s mouth that arfe utterly nonsensical themselves aren’t you? All you managed to do is provide me a reason to block another troll.
        You.

      2. Is prior restraint, a real legal tenet, or does it not encompass enumerated rights?

        1. Are English not your first language for speaking or writing?

      3. See Cunningham for what happens in real life. Police was shown the court order, with the restrainee on the premises. They refuse to arrest him. He kills his ex wife. Estate sues the polixe. SC: no liability. Discretion.

        Your scheme has a dead victim, and a bunch of orphaned children.

        The toxic lawyer profession must be crushed to save crime victims.

  3. I’ve said it before, and I’ll reiterate. If a person is that much of a threat that he can’t be trusted with firearms, he shouldn’t be on the streets at all.

    1. And should not have access to a proven killer like a Buick. Running over your intended victim is less risk to you than shooting and easier to claim as an accident.

      1. Your mileage may vary.

  4. You’re glad that a judge allowed a stalker to keep his considerable arsenal. What if you were the one being stalked?

    1. Aren’t you sort of assuming he’s guilty? The whole point here is that it’s a preliminary order, premised on everything the lady claimed being true.

      But with no process to determine IF any of it was actually true.

      Further, the court noted that, even assuming all the allegations were true, none of the allegations actually indicated personal danger. “She did not allege any express threat of physical violence against her, and she did not allege any express or implied threat of the use of a firearm or any other weapon against her.

      Bevis’s allegations do not show that Dean posed a significant danger to Bevis or anyone else for personal injury based on his possession of a firearm. ”

      So, you want an explicit constitutional right violated, not just on the basis of a preliminary injunction with no fact finding or adversarial process, but where the allegations made don’t actually show it necessary?

      1. “Aren’t you sort of assuming he’s guilty? The whole point here is that it’s a preliminary order, premised on everything the lady claimed being true.

        But with no process to determine IF any of it was actually true.”

        You mean, no process except for the one this fellow went to court to avoid? The hearing was scheduled for April 7. It’s right in the text of the story.

        1. Considering The TRO was issued and they seized his guns before the April 7th hearing was even scheduled, I don’t see why that’s relevant to having a requirement to surrender his guns in a TRO issued from a non-adversarial process.

          1. Reading and understanding how a calendar works is too taxing for Jimmy’s limited cognitive abilities.

            1. It must be so taxing for you.

      2. When someone stalking you says that they want to kill off a character in their autobiography, you wouldn’t take that as a threat? Oh, I guess he didn’t explicitly say that he was going to kill off that “character” with a gun, so that isn’t specific enough. And didn’t explicitly identify her as the “character” to be killed off, so she shouldn’t feel personally threatened.

        1. so she shouldn’t feel personally threatened

          Which other of one’s constitutional rights to you think are subject to what someone else “feels”?

          1. A claim of self-defense depends on whether the person felt threatened, doesn’t it? There is also a standard of whether their feeling was reasonable, but their use of force to defend themself was based on their having felt like they were in danger. Why can’t that be applied here?

          2. “Which other of one’s constitutional rights to you think are subject to what someone else ‘feels’?”

            The right to to life, apparently. Since “I was afraid for my life” is a firearms-enthusiast-approved reason to use a firearm on somebody.

        2. Ah, no, actually I wouldn’t. I’d assume they were talking about rewriting it to exclude mention of somebody. Not being a character in a book, myself.

          1. Maybe you aren’t understanding, but I thought it was obvious. A “character” in an autobiography is going to be a real person. And she said that he told her that he was looking to “kill off” another such “character”. That is someone thinking that they are being funny while making a threat, if you ask me, not looking to “exclude mention” of them.

            1. Not being clinically paranoid, I’d take the reference to an autobiography to indicate we were discussing editing, not murder.

              1. Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

                1. I still think the clinically paranoid thesis is the more likely.

  5. I expect gun enthusiasts to be out on this as usual. All for sensible gun laws which apply to criminals—but only after the crime. Never for any gun law that has any prospect of preventing gun crime before it happens—or even just making gun crime less deadly.

    Gun gun enthusiasts are principled, and the principles are always the same:

    1. Your blood is the price of my freedom.

    2. My freedom is absolute, and trumps any freedom anyone else might hope to enjoy.

    3. No adjustments at the margins.

    4. Arm everyone.

    1. “All for sensible gun laws which apply to criminals—but only after the crime.”

      Yes, exactly. People who haven’t committed crimes are “innocent”. You don’t get to treat innocent people like they’ve already committed a crime, just because there’s some tiny chance they might.

      You don’t like that principle? No advocate for totalitarianism ever did.

      1. The Supreme Court disagreed with you, and allows police to treat people who haven’t yet committed a crime to be treated like they may be about to commit a crime. Ask Mr. Terry to explain it to you. His story was that he and his buds was just hangin’ out in front of the store, all innocent-like, when this cop shows up out of nowhere and puts hands on him. Armed, oh yes, of course, come to think of it. But in no wise was we casin’ the joint. Conviction affirmed.

        1. Well, the USSC is FOS here. Just because the top of the slope is the most slippery doesn’t mean it’s just better to push defendants down it.

          1. You might want to review the facts of Terry v Ohio to clarify what you think is FOS.

    2. The question, Stephen, is how far down that slippery slope are you willing to travel? The ultimate end is that no one should ever have any guns on the outside chance that one person MAY use one. Which, in fairness, is what the “sensible” gun laws folks are really angling toward.

      No one on the pro 2A side trusts any of you, because your side’s argument has been utterly dishonest from the word go.

      1. We don’t want your trust, I Callahan. But we will have your compliance.

        I just hope the gun nuts don’t push so far that the predictable snapback interferes with the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

        1. Sorry, but you don’t get to define what is a “reasonable” firearm. Not in a republic, anyway.

          And by the way, your near constant mention of some people being “better” than others shows me that there are few if any people that you outrank in any meaningful sense.

          1. The American people, through their elected representatives, will establish the point concerning a “reasonable” firearm. May the better ideas win.

            1. No, no, no. The whole reason for having a Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part, is to place certain things beyond majoritarianism. Neither you nor any elected body gets to decide what is a “reasonable” exercise of my right to keep and bear arms than you do what is a “reasonable” exercise of my freedom of speech or religion.

              I used to think that you were a leftwing extremist fool. Now I know it, beyond any doubt.

              1. The whole reason for having a Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part, is to place certain things beyond majoritarianism.

                Since the Constitution can be amended, virtually nothing is beyond majoritarianism. It just places a higher bar on how large the majority needs to be.

                Also, when it comes to interpreting what the few written words of the Bill of Rights mean in practice, that was always going to get messy. The people we call “Founders” were not a set group with unified thinking on every issue. Far from it. They had a fair amount of disagreement on many things, and which people should be counted among them is itself going to be up for debate.

                Federalists passed the Sedition Act of 1798 less than 10 years after the new Constitution went into effect and the Bill of Rights ratified. They paid the price for so blatantly violating the principles of freedom of speech and the press when they lost to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party in 1800.

                Punishing political speech using a vague “clear and present danger” test was upheld by the Supreme Court for decades starting in the early 20th Century, during the First Red Scare and through WWII and into the Cold War. It wasn’t until the Vietnam era that they finally tightened the conditions for government speech restrictions to that which was intended to and be likely to incite “imminent lawless action”.

                This is the folly of looking for the ‘original meaning’ of the Constitution. It never meant just one thing to everyone living at the time. Everyone that voted to ratify the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and later amendments had their own ideas of what those words would mean once implemented. Gun rights supporters are putting their own views into their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just like anyone else would, picking and choosing which words from history to use to back up what they want to be true. You can be like Justice Scalia and think that the militia part of the 2nd Amendment is just preamble that doesn’t have any effect, and that the “right to bear arms” means that neither the states nor the federal government can ban semi-automatic rifles, 30+ round magazines, or whatever else. But you really have no way of knowing what the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment would really think about these things if they had the same knowledge that we do.

                1. “Since the Constitution can be amended, virtually nothing is beyond majoritarianism. It just places a higher bar on how large the majority needs to be.”

                  More a matter of persistent and well distributed, than large, actually. A fairly marginal majority could pull off a constitutional amendment if it stayed the majority for years, and was present in most of the states.

                  The constitutional amendment process is intended to block things from being changed on the basis of local or temporary majorities.

                  1. Well, if you don’t have ANY kind of majority, you can still be loud about how your interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms is the only possible one, and that it means that everybody gets to have whatever weapon(s) they want, and if they cannot afford one, one will be provided to them from the public treasury.

              2. Neither you nor any elected body gets to decide what is a “reasonable” exercise of my right to keep and bear arms than you do what is a “reasonable” exercise of my freedom of speech or religion.

                To address this directly, no right is absolute. That should not be controversial. Both elected bodies and judges and juries do get to decide whether your exercise of your right to keep and bear arms is “reasonable” when it comes to putting other people in danger. That is because they have a right to safety. You don’t get to exercise your right to bear arms by shooting your guns into the air for the fun of it. And depending on where you live, you might not even be permitted to fire at targets you set up yourself in your back yard, because that wouldn’t be safe either. Laws for what kinds of backstops you have to have behind targets exist for a reason. Other people have private property rights, so you don’t get to carry your gun onto other people’s private property if they don’t want you to. (Though, some states have tried to pass laws otherwise, I think. Trying to tell businesses that they can’t refuse entry to people carrying guns.)

                Those are just the obvious restrictions that no one should object to. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

              3. ” Neither you nor any elected body gets to decide what is a “reasonable” exercise of my right to keep and bear arms than you do what is a “reasonable” exercise of my freedom of speech or religion.”

                Well, your right to keep and bear arms is considerably broader than your right to use them, and as long as you keep confusing the two, you put the rest of your rights in danger, along with everyone else’s.

        2. You’re just fantasizing that you’ll get either, Artie.

          1. No kidding!

            Just since Artie has been whining and carping here, all 50 states now have some form of legal Concealed Carry, 21 states have passed “Constitutional Carry”.

            Heller and McDonald have both been decided correctly and favorably. No major Federal gun control laws have been passed for over 20+ years. NICS checks remain at record highs for the past year with an estimated 1.2 million first time gun owners.

            There’s a lot the Gun Control Fanatics will have to try and undo, before they can even start to get their control freak wet dreams put in place.

            1. “NICS checks remain at record highs for the past year with an estimated 1.2 million first time gun owners.”

              Good. Keep the millions of guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t oughta have ’em.

      2. I Callahan, you have no notion what my experience with guns might be. Or what my proposals for gun policy might be.

        I have no patience anymore for experience-challenged gun-range enthusiasts who try to tell me I don’t know anything about guns. Or that my reasons for wanting to make guns less ubiquitous are dishonest.

        Also, you talk like a sucker who has been fed paranoia, and likes the taste of it.

        1. Stephen, why don’t you just tell us what your experience with guns is, what your proposals for gun policy are, and what your reasons for wanting to make guns less ubiquitous are? Then we won’t have to speculate and wonder and upset you.

    3. All for sensible gun laws which apply to criminals—but only after the crime.

      So it’s not only the first amendment for which you favor prior restraint.

      1. Noticing that there are potential possible cases where a prior restraint might be appropriate is NOT “favoring prior restraint”. If you’re sitting in a cantina having just booked a charter on your freighter that will allow you to clear your debt to a local crime boss, and some two-credit would-be bounty hunter shows up at your table, threatening to drag you to that local crime boss unless you give HIM the money, shooting him under the table doesn’t mean you are “pro murder” even if George Lucas changes his mind and decides to edit your head moving unnaturally to avoid a shot from the bounty hunter.

  6. Semi-related: Federal judge overturns California assault weapons ban

    “SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge has overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

    U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled Friday that the state’s definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states.

    California first restricted assault weapons in 1989, with multiple updates to the law since then.

    California’s attorney general argued that assault weapons as defined by the law are more dangerous than other firearms and are disproportionately used in crimes and mass shootings. But Benitez said the guns are overwhelmingly owned for legal purposes.”

    Not only are they overwhelmingly owned for legal purposes, but the California AG was lying about them being disproportionately used in crimes, unless by “disproportionately” he meant, “Less often than other firearms.”

    1. It seems to me that state courts should decide cases of first impression regarding what a state constitution means.

      The federal court should have either applied some sort of abstention, or certified the question to the California Supreme Court.

      1. This case was based on the federal 2nd amendment, not state constitutional law. California is an outlier, in that its constitution has no 2nd amendment analog. (Thirty nine states did, last I looked.)

  7. We must preserve the principle that stalkers MUST be allowed to carry, in case they have to defend themselves against aggressive would-be stalkees. It’s all about defense of self.

    1. Stalker? When was this guy convicted of stalking?

      1. He was accused, and apparently that is good enough for “tough on crime” types who prioritize taking peoples’ rights away over the Constitution.

        1. Next up, anyone accused of a crime is ineligible to vote.

          1. Didn’t the R’s try this one already?

        2. “He was accused, and apparently that is good enough”

          If he didn’t think he was guilty, all he hadd to do was show up for his hearing, and present evidence showing he wasn’t guilty, and if he’s right, the problem goes away.

          But that’s not what he did. He went to court to argue that even if he is guilty, the TRO should not stand.

      2. ” When was this guy convicted of stalking?”

        When he filed an interlocutory challenge to the TRO instead of taking the opportunity to contest it at the scheduled hearing. If his defense was actual innocence, he already had an opportunity on the schedule to say so, and that’s not what he chose to do. So, if he’s waiving his opportunity to claim that he is innocent, that remaining possibility is that he’s guilty.

  8. I wonder how much soap and water it will take to wash the blood of the victim of this ruling, or some other victim from a similar rulingfrom the hands of the judge and those who support this decision. Actually I know the answer, there is not enough soap and water to wash those individuals clean.

    But it’s okay I guess because the estate of the victim(s) can always sue the shooter.

    1. I wonder how much soap and water it will take to wash the blood of the victim of this ruling

      None. You seem to be confused about what the role of the courts is.

    2. Wouldn’t washing away the blood of the victim require a victim shedding blood?

    3. What victim?

    4. “But it’s okay I guess because the estate of the victim(s) can always sue the shooter.”

      No, no, no. The stalking victim is supposed dto go buy a gun, and shoot the stalker with the full support of the firearms-enthusiast community. Because shooting the guy is less of an infringement of his rights than having the Sheriff hold his weapon collection for a week.

      1. Let’s set aside the fact that, at THIS point, we don’t know there’s even a stalking victim, since the allegations of stalking have not been tested.

        Either the purported stalker does, or does not, actually show up in person to threaten violence.

        If not, then there is no occasion for shooting, no?

        If the purported victim did shoot the alleged stalker, either it was a wrongful shooting, or rightful.

        If it was a wrongful shooting, (She hunted him down and executed him, say.) his rights have been greatly infringed, but assuming this is going to happen requires assuming the alleged victim is actually a criminal, in which case she shouldn’t be allowed to wrongfully deprive him of his guns, either.

        If it was a rightful shooting, his rights have not been infringed, because you’ve got no right to not be shot while attacking somebody.

        So, yes, absent actual proof that he’s a violent stalker, or advanced knowledge that she’s lying about it and is herself violently aggressive, rights violations are minimized by refusing to take his guns away.

        1. “If the purported victim did shoot the alleged stalker, either it was a wrongful shooting, or rightful”

          Either rightful or wrongful, the dead guy remains dead. There’s no way to fix that particular problem, either within the legal system or outside it.

          If the accusation of stalking is accurate, then a criminal has been disarmed. Not a tragedy. If the stalking accusation wasn’t accurate, then a lawful-carrying citizen was disarmed, which is something that can be readily remedied. Y’all are acting like handing his arsenal to the Sheriff means it’s gone forever.

  9. In this state-law case, there is another statute specifically covering the issue that provides for an injunction against guns if specific facts are found showing a likelihood of gun-related violence.

    Here, the complainant in the underlying stalking case not only didn’t allege any gun-related violence, she didn’t allege any physical violence, only that the defendent was sending her unwanted messages and other contact attempts.

    In light of these facts and the statutory scheme, it seems reasonable to conclude that the more specific statute controls and a complainant has to allege the required specific facts in order to support an injunction against possessing guns.

    1. In California, anti-stalking laws arose from the case of Rebecca Schaeffer. There were no threats of gun violence prior to the actual gun violence in that case.

  10. Isn’t this case just about the statute? No 2nd amendment issue was raised.

    Now if the Florida legislature goes back and amends the law to allow guns to be seized before a final order is issued, that might implicate the constitution.

    1. When cops kill unarmed people with guns that’s OK, because reasons…

Please to post comments