[usconservative]

This new law doesn't sound legal.

People with weapons were in compliance with the law before the "law" was passed.

Now they're out of compliance once the new "law" passes.

Previously legal possessions are now confiscated under new "law" and it doesn't appear there's compensation for those possessions being confiscated, just a lengthy and expensive court process to get them back.

How is this "law" Constitutional?

[1_Inch_Group]

It’s essentially an extension to the Domestic Violence Restraining Order.

With that....it was someone you used to bang that could take your guns away.

Florida extended that to family members.

Unsure whether you bang them or not, that is your business

[Ciaphas Cain]

It's ex post facto and thus unconstitutional.

A ninth grade civics class could tell anyone that.

Or it used to be able to, anyway.

[Mark17]

This new law doesn't sound legal.

People with weapons were in compliance with the law before the "law" was passed.

Now they're out of compliance once the new "law" passes.

I thought we didn’t have ex post facto laws. Maybe I was wrong. 👎 It may not be constitutional, but when was the last time libtards and RINOs paid any attention to the constitution?

[Jed Eckert]

The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott....

Who is now running for U.S. Senate. Can't wait to see what other surprises he has in store for us if elected.

Rick Scott signed into law more restrictive gun laws than Barack Obama. Sad but true.

[atomic_dog]

It's not constitutional. In fact it is clearly unconstitutional. It is an "ex post facto" law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.