Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity

mikeyp

NES Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14,514
Likes
29,570
Location
Plymouth
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Guilty until proven innocent, even if it's not you

Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity

Read more: Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


St. Cloud, FL –-(Ammoland.com)- Last Wednesday, Jonathan Carpenter of Osceola County, Florida was sitting at home when a mail carrier knocked on his front door.

The postal carrier had Carpenter signed for a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Carpenter signed for it, but he was confused because he was not expecting anything from the state. He quickly opened it and was floored.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

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.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court's office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff's office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.

Carpenter had never met the woman in question and never lived at the address listed in the restraining order. Moreover, other than being white, he looked nothing like the man the terrorized the woman.
The man in question is 5'8. Carpenter is 5'11. The alleged drug dealer is 110lbs. Carpenter is over 200. The man has black hair. Carpenter is completely bald. Last but not least, the man in question is covered in tattoos, and Carpenter only has a few.

It was apparent that the police had the wrong man, but Carpenter was in for his biggest shock yet. The Sherriff’s office told Carpenter he had to surrender his guns. Carpenter never even had as much as a hearing, yet he was losing his rights.

“The last thing on my mind was me having to turn over my gun,” Carpenter told AmmoLand. “I was upset when the Sheriff told me that I need to surrender my gun before any due process.”

He would not be able to get them back until he goes to court so the women can verify to the judge that they have the wrong Jonathan Carpenter. He would have to petition the court for the return of his firearms. An added expense that Carpenter would have to cover himself!

A police officer I spoke to off the record thinks that the courts ran a check for a Jonathan Edward Carpenter with a concealed carry permit. Although he could not tell me for sure, he thinks that is what happened in this particular case. He did say that this is a common practice.

When I pressed the officer of the likelihood of a drug dealer obeying Florida gun laws and getting a concealed handgun permit, he agreed that it probably isn't likely. He then stated that police and courts do make mistakes all the time, but he insisted that it is better to make mistakes than not do anything. Many disagree with that point.

For many, this is an example of how the system is broken. Second Amendment advocates worry with the expansion of extreme risk protection orders these situations will become more prevalent. Currently, 17 states have these red flag laws on the books.
Florida passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018. This is Florida’s version of a red flag law. Although this isn’t technically a risk protection order, many think cases like this highlight how red flag laws can be misused to disarm innocent people.

For Carpenter, he has to wait until August 27th for his day in court to start the process of getting his firearms rights back. To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away. He is currently seeking legal counsel.
 
This is the argument against licensing.
Why, upon filing of RO, didn't the cops go over to the lady's apartment and check up in the guy? He was "armed" and she was in "fear".
No, they pull some administrative BS and send a letter.

Because its not about anyone's safety, its about keeping the mechanism of control churning and tightening at every opportunity.
 
"To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away." Can you say Tyranny?

"He is currently seeking legal counsel." Unfortunately, he should have done that with the letter to begin with.

We are now Guilty until proven innocent. Hello Nazi Germany....welcome to Amerika.
 
Last edited:
I hope someone's keeping a list. We have this case, and the uncle in Vermont - the latter being more "interesting" as it's a clear case of ERPO abuse.
 
Unfortunately this stuff doesn't help. Cops: 3 More Potential Mass Shooters Stopped


in these cases there seems to be evidence of an intent to commit a crime. They tweeted and posted stuff on their accounts. So they should be looked at. But we shouldn't need a special "red flag" law to do this.

We all said it with the Parkland shooter and it would have been nice had they stopped him. And we trashed law enforcement and the FBI because they were alerted to that shooters intent.

The guy in the OP shares a name. There is no evidence against him for doing anything. I do not think it is the same.

If you post or otherwise articulate an interest in a mass event then it is good the authorities take a look at you.

When all the evidence such as a physical description and address do not match and there is ambiguity as to who the correct person is then law enforcement needs to take extra steps to ensure they have the correct person. The guy named in the OP is going through this because his local PD doesn't give a sh#t about getting it right.

On the other side of it there is the guy who did commit this domestic violence against the girl, presumably, and he hasn't been looked at and could have weapons.
Maybe he does and he is still free to go after that woman.

They don't care though. They jammed up a good guy who exercises 2A. they are fine with that all day long.
 
Last edited:
This seems like more BS along the lines of civil asset forfeiture--depriving a citizen of their property without due process.
I don't understand how laws/enforcement like this are not struck down as unconstitutional.
 
While I can't comprehend the first order (the revocation), what did you expect afterwards??? That they'd fix it that very second and he'd be off Scott-free???

Not a chance.

Look at the flip side. Assume the revocation is something that should be allowed without a hearing. It isn't and shouldn't, but let's say it should.

Get a letter in the mail. 100% you. You're the toolbag they say you are. But you really don't live at X and you sorta don't look like the description (you shaved your head and they totally mucked up your height, let's say).

You march on down and demand your rights back. Because YOU say you aren't this dude. You've even got a DL with a different address!

They're supposed to not confiscate your guns at that point????

Once the mistake happened, you need to go through proper procedure. It sucks. But this is government. NO ONE is an exception because of the risk of a bad-apple slipping through the cracks.

This has no bearing on the fact that revoking his CCW without cause was wrong. The guy should have KNOWN there was a period of correction and that he would be firearm persona-non-grata during that time. It'd be the same if they accidentally shut off his CCW.

100% of this issue has to do with the first 5 paragraphs, nothing more.
 
Once the mistake happened, you need to go through proper procedure. It sucks. But this is government. NO ONE is an exception because of the risk of a bad-apple slipping through the cracks.

Is this the anti Blackstone view or just an out yourself as a statist thread?
 
Get a letter in the mail. 100% you. You're the toolbag they say you are. But you really don't live at X and you sorta don't look like the description (you shaved your head and they totally mucked up your height, let's say).

You march on down and demand your rights back. Because YOU say you aren't this dude. You've even got a DL with a different address!

They're supposed to not confiscate your guns at that point????

Correct, they aren’t. Nobody should ever have any property taken from them based on a letter they received in the mail. That’s absurd.

Once the mistake happened, you need to go through proper procedure. It sucks. But this is government. NO ONE is an exception because of the risk of a bad-apple slipping through the cracks.

So to be clear, you have to go through the “proper” procedure, which is apparently a bureaucratic one, but the government does not need to go through the actual proper procedure, like adhering to the requirements in the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments? Getting a warrant, having due process, and being able to face your accuser would prevent and mistakes in the first place. That’s the process.

But your last sentence here says it all. You’re apparently okay with innoncent people being punished for fear of letting one guilty person go free. Yeah, that philosophy is exactly backwards and a perversion of any sense of liberty and justice.
 
I am not completely opposed to red flag laws well written and in this instance, although they made a huge mistake in identity, at least they didn't storm his house in the middle of the night, shoot his dogs, etc. The execution of the order was not done recklessly, which is *one* of my major concerns (ie police kick in doors, people get shot, all over panic or mistake and/or fraudulent report that indicts the innocent)..

BUT they should've given him a hearing and public defender with the expediency granted to a bail or arraignment hearing - ie such things normally happen today or next business day after an arrest (in this case of course its a confiscation of property) - there is no reason this hearing should take any longer.
 
"To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away." Can you say Tyranny?

"He is currently seeking legal counsel." Unfortunately, he should have done that with the letter to begin with.

We are now Guilty until proven innocent. Hello Nazi Germany....welcome to Amerika.


This is one of those things. Too many still see the police as their friend and the government as fair. When you get that letter you go straight to a lawyer, leave your guns with a friend, and let the lawyer make the calls. It sucks, but the government is in the business of using bureaucracy to grind down individuals whether or not they did anything because it is safer for the government employee to not help you than it is to make things right.

When they tell you you have to go to the cops that's a full stop even if you are silly enough to try dealing with the government yourself on this issue. The cops are never your friend here and will gleefully screw you over to make sure they can tell idiots they were "Doing something".
 
While I can't comprehend the first order (the revocation), what did you expect afterwards??? That they'd fix it that very second and he'd be off Scott-free???

Not a chance.

Look at the flip side. Assume the revocation is something that should be allowed without a hearing. It isn't and shouldn't, but let's say it should.

Get a letter in the mail. 100% you. You're the toolbag they say you are. But you really don't live at X and you sorta don't look like the description (you shaved your head and they totally mucked up your height, let's say).

You march on down and demand your rights back. Because YOU say you aren't this dude. You've even got a DL with a different address!

They're supposed to not confiscate your guns at that point????

Once the mistake happened, you need to go through proper procedure. It sucks. But this is government. NO ONE is an exception because of the risk of a bad-apple slipping through the cracks.

This has no bearing on the fact that revoking his CCW without cause was wrong. The guy should have KNOWN there was a period of correction and that he would be firearm persona-non-grata during that time. It'd be the same if they accidentally shut off his CCW.

100% of this issue has to do with the first 5 paragraphs, nothing more.

Well, it should be incumbent on the government to get it right the first time , every time.
The penalties should be stiff for not doing so.
Kick the wrong door in at 2AM and damage things and people , at minimum kiss off that nice government job and benefits. Hurt someone innocent in the process , jail time.
This particular case appears to be some lazy ass guberment teat sucker going "Eh screw it , close enough".
 
Well, it should be incumbent on the government to get it right the first time , every time.
The penalties should be stiff for not doing so.
Kick the wrong door in at 2AM and damage things and people , at minimum kiss off that nice government job and benefits. Hurt someone innocent in the process , jail time.
This particular case appears to be some lazy ass guberment teat sucker going "Eh screw it , close enough".


Getting rid of qualified immunity would go a long way toward fixing this.
 
Look at the flip side. Assume the revocation is something that should be allowed without a hearing. It isn't and shouldn't, but let's say it should.
38tzsn.jpg
 
the point everyone is missing here is Lautenberg.

A domestic restraining order is a nationwide revocation and seizure of firearms based on one persons statements, and without a hearing where one can refute the charges.

There is no wiggle room for "you can keep your guns while we look into it", until the order expires or is vacated you are screwed. There is no due process.
 
the point everyone is missing here is Lautenberg.

A domestic restraining order is a nationwide revocation and seizure of firearms based on one persons statements, and without a hearing where one can refute the charges.

There is no wiggle room for "you can keep your guns while we look into it", until the order expires or is vacated you are screwed. There is no due process.
I'm not an expert on how other states deal with Lautenberg, but I have read that at least some do NOT confiscate until AFTER a hearing with both parties present. Perhaps they move the hearing to the same/next day, I don't know. But that is what I've read in the past. MA would never allow something like this as they don't believe in "rights" in MA!
 
MA had their own version of Lautenberg long before the Feds did, local Chiefs were yanking permits and grabbing guns when RO's were issued, WITHOUT CRIMINAL CHARGES BEING FILED OR AN ARREST

Once an emergency DV RO is issued, Lautenberg is in force and you are a prohibited person from my understanding, but IANAL.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom