I have a question about the powers of the FBI , in relation to the Florida school shooting.
Apparently they got a tip about the student, that he might pose a risk to the school. Some have criticised the FBI for dropping the ball.
My question is, what could the FBI have done? The person was in lawful possession of his firearm. Could they have taken it away from him on a public safety basis? Could they have asked for a psych assessment?
Please, don’t start pointing fingers at any of the actors in this mess. Factual answers only, please.
There are limits to free speech; it’s possible some of his social media posting crossed the line & he could be charged w/ something like making terroristic threats.
It’s also possible there was not enough there but they’d try to have a chat with him. It’s amazing how many people have been arrested/convicted because they incriminated themselves when talking to the police when they should have just STFU.
Besides a criminal charge, they could have 302/5150/<whatever the FL code for involuntary commitment> is if they thought he was a danger to himself or others.
And the FBI could have passed the tip they received on to local law enforcement, or requested information from local law enforcement about any information they might have had on the subject. This would have allowed one agency to have all the information to get a complete picture about what was known about the subject of the tip.
When combined with information from local LE that they gained from the numerous calls for service to the home of the shooter perhaps that would have made a stronger case for criminal charges of making threats and/or an involuntary commitment.
Would the FBI or local law enforcement have been able to take legal steps to take his gun(s) away from him, via a court order, on a temporary basis pending mental health evaluation?
(Some reports said he had more than one; don’t know if that’s confirmed?)
A few states–but not Florida–have laws allowing guns and ammunition to be seized temporarily if authorities, mental health professionals, or family members suspect that they might be used in a crime or suicide. As I understand it, the seizure always requires a judge to issue the order. The laws go by a confusing variety of names like “red flag law”, “extreme risk protection order,” “gun violence restraining order” (GVRO), or “risk warrant.” As far as I can tell, only five states have such laws: California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon, and Washington. Several other states are now considering such laws in the wake of the Florida shootings.
I don’t really know whether there are ways to get guns out of the hands of potential criminals in states without such laws.
Federal law prohibits possession of a gun or ammunition by a person involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Florida law allows that a person who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution may not posses firearms if the examining physician attests that he would have filed a petition for involuntary commitment if the patient had not agreed to voluntary commitment and the patient is an imminent threat to himself or others. This applies even if the treatment is on an outpatient basis.