Broward County Sheriff Calls for ‘No Guns’ List for ‘Mentally Ill’ after Ft. Lauderdale Airport Murders

The “progressive” solution to evil in a “gun-free zone” is more victim pool disarmament. [Ft. Laudrdale-Hollywood International Airport security video screenshot]

Ignoring the inescapable fact that last Friday’s killings at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport happened in a “gun-free zone,” Broward County’s Democrat Sheriff Scott Israel instead called for increasing the number of people prohibited from firearms ownership, the Sun Sentinel reported Sunday. Israel joins all the gun-grabber groups in calling for further bans, with some characterizing procedures for checking firearms in with baggage on flights as “a gap in the system.”

“Airport Carry is legal in 44 states, but Florida will put you in jail,” Florida Carry observes about an obvious and actual gap in “non-sterile” areas. While some legislators are working to fix that, opposition from the citizen disarmament lobby makes clear they want law enforcement to be the only ones authorized to have guns. And we can see how that worked out.

“Once again, the cops ‘form a perimeter’ while a mass murderer goes about his business,” frequent Ft. Lauderdale airport visitor Thomas DiLorenzo notes on LewRockwell.com. “There is an armed TSA bureaucrat sitting at a desk where you exit the terminal area and go into baggage claim. He sits about ten paces from the first baggage carousel, where the shootings occurred. Despite this, the news is reporting that the Fort Lauderdale shooter reloaded twice, and then when he ran out of ammo began walking out of the airport, at which point the cops finally emerged from their ‘perimeter’ and arrested him. But not after he murdered five people and shot eight others without any interference at all by the TSA, state police, or county cops who are always crawling all over the Fort Lauderdale airport like ants at a picnic.”

We’ve seen this phenomenon before, and we’ve seen courts rule there is no duty to protect citizens, even if armed police are nearby. That case involved two New York City transit officers who, rather than intervene to stop a slasher’s stabbing attack, “locked themselves in a motorman’s car only a few feet from … the attack.”

“Something has got to change,” Sheriff Israel told the Sun Sentinel, ignoring that reality, and leaving what that “something” is unsaid. “Israel didn’t know what form the laws should take, but said people diagnosed with mental-health issues, ‘should be put on some type of list that it’s mandatory that they not come in possession of firearms.’”

That’s right out of the “something must be done” playbook, and that opens the door to “anything goes.” Which, of course, is the plan.

“A person suffering from mental illness, in my opinion, should not be able to buy, possess or carry a handgun or a rifle, any type of firearm. Convicted felons — same. People who are put on no-fly lists — the same. We shouldn’t be selling them weapons and allowing them to carry weapons.

“We need to take guns out of the hands of people that are suffering from mental illness,” he elaborated, adding confiscation into the mix.

What the sheriff is doing is casting a wide net in which everyone can potentially be caught up to deal with the evil deeds of someone who had reportedly given authorities numerous opportunities to see they were dealing with someone who was a danger to others. He’s also establishing himself as a rights-infringing oath-breaker instead of an Oath Keeper.

An inescapable truth is, when you create “prohibited persons” lists, a lot of people who shouldn’t be on them end up there anyway. And getting off can be next to impossible for those who don’t possess the savvy, persistence and wherewithal to fight a “false positive.”

Another is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. And that should only be determined with full due process, with all the equivalent protections of a jury trial, as opposed to what’s often called “adjudication” by list-compiling LEOs and government attorneys, judges, bureaucrats or “mental health professionals” who allow professional considerations and personal biases to affect their rulings.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Edwin Vieira 12 January, 2017, 16:04

    Did the Sheriff undergo a psychiatric examination before he was issued his badge and gun? If not, why not? In light of the power he exercises in that office, it would seem that a psychiatric examination would be more appropriate for him than for the average citizen who possesses (or wants to posses) a firearm..

    Reply this comment
    • Bill 13 January, 2017, 08:48

      I don’t know about the Sheriff specifically, but I and all other LEO’s I’m aware of undergo psyc evaluation as part of the entry exam process.

      Reply this comment
      • Ivan Berry 14 January, 2017, 16:30

        Sorry, but a psyc evaluation relies too much on pseudo science, and psycology itself is filled with enablers practioners. Shell shock (PTSD) from earlier conflicts just increases when the psyc community get involved. Remember the false memories created in the 90s in hystrionic adolescent girls? Enablers.

        Reply this comment
  2. MIke 12 January, 2017, 19:57

    How sad. I did not know about the NY transit officers being cowards.

    Reply this comment
  3. Robert 12 January, 2017, 20:43

    What an idiot, it is the same old thing, ban the good guy from having a gun and then only the bad guy has a gun. If an armed Oath Keeper or a concerned citizen with a concealed permit had been the person walking behind the shooter he could have ended the incident before it started ! What the hell is so complicated about that. I would have been happy to shoot him in the back and save several lives. Perhaps the Oath Keepers should be patrolling the airports instead of those afraid to take action ! I am sorry to e so blunt but there are a lot of STUPID people in authority without the necessary fortitude to do what needs to be done.

    Reply this comment
  4. Gary 12 January, 2017, 20:47

    I’ve said it before I’ll say it again,… Our elected officials, who have taken the same oath as I did don’t see it as an oath, they see the raising of the right hand as a “formality” to not do what they see fit….and the heck with the Constitution .

    Reply this comment
    • Gary 12 January, 2017, 22:29

      Okay. Let me try this again. What I meant to say was to a lot of politicians the raising of the right hand is only a formality, not an oath. They do as they please and could care less about the Constitution.

      Reply this comment
  5. StormN1 13 January, 2017, 00:43

    I’ve read or heard somewhere that LEOs are trained a standard SOP to ‘wait for back up’ no matter what. Why make things worse with dead officers? – so the logic goes. I’m sure the logic is very attractive but I think the officer should be ‘ trained’ to use his/her own discretion or an adjustment need be made to some SOP.

    Reply this comment
    • Goldsearcher 16 January, 2017, 18:12

      I started in LOE in 1955, A State Police Dept. When we arrived at the scene, take control. There probably will not be any back, soon anyway , So take control, the longer you wait the worse it gets, It’s your responsibility. Good luck.

      Reply this comment
  6. Rich 13 January, 2017, 05:47

    I will be calling this Sheriff today to ask him if he can recite the oath that he took. And then cheerfully explain to him that he is sworn to uphold the Constitution….whether he likes it or not. Either that, or turn in your badge and look for another career. There are plenty of other patriots ready and willing to fill his incompetent shoes I am sure. I suggest ALL Oath Keepers do the same. Enough is enough.

    Reply this comment
  7. Carl Moeckel 13 January, 2017, 07:00

    Gun Free Zones enable criminals to break the law by disarming law abiding citizens. If law abiding citizens can not defend themselves when the police are not present. No one can!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  8. Jarhead 17 January, 2017, 14:53

    He should have been committed to a mental hospital long ago…….and the Affirmative Action FED/GOV employees that did nothing should be fired or arrested & charged..

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*