"Red flag" firearm confiscation ends in death

[CG12]

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere here: https://archive.fo/8AR4E

A Maryland law that went into effect October 1st allows law enforcement to serve "extreme risk protective orders". In this case it seems a family member requested that this man's firearms be removed. He was killed by police after a struggle over his weapon. Anyone know of similar laws in other states? Any LE care to lend their perspective? Is it really as simple as telling the police that so-and-so is crazy and needs his guns taken away, or does the law necessitate some type of medical or legal ruling? This article makes no mention of such.

[peterb]

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red-flag-laws-pending-bills-tracker-nra/

A state-by-state list as of this spring.

[olstyn]

I'm surprised it took so long for this to be the result of one of those laws. Seriously, what did the people who created those laws expect would happen when they send cops to people's houses to take away their guns? Even if the first 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 times went smoothly, this was virtually guaranteed to happen eventually. I will be further surprised if it's the last time a person dies in this way. :(

[HCM]

Not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere here: https://archive.fo/8AR4E

A Maryland law that went into effect October 1st allows law enforcement to serve "extreme risk protective orders". In this case it seems a family member requested that this man's firearms be removed. He was killed by police after a struggle over his weapon. Anyone know of similar laws in other states? Any LE care to lend their perspective? Is it really as simple as telling the police that so-and-so is crazy and needs his guns taken away, or does the law necessitate some type of medical or legal ruling? This article makes no mention of such.

State statutes vary but all are modeled on protective orders in that they are issued by a judge or magistrate.

The down side is that like protective orders they are issued ex- parte, meaning only one side is presented to the the judge and the subject does not get to contest the order in court until it has been served and they have been stripped of their guns.

Most states limit who can request such orders to persons with specific relationships like immediate family to limit frivolous or malicious filing.

[BehindBlueI's]

Indiana has had it for years. "Laird's Law", named for Jake Laird who was an IPD officer killed by a mentally ill suspect who murdered his mother then went active shooter on a neighborhood street. Police had previously confiscated his weapons, but as no law on the books allowed them to remain held he got them back.

In the most nutshell version, if the officer has probable cause an initial confiscation can take place. Then there's a hearing with a judge to determine if the firearms continue to be held or must be immediately released. If they are held, the person can be declared a "prohibited person".

It's very much like an arrest. The officer works off probable cause standards then the court system takes over.

Detailed version/actual law: https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Jake_Laird_Law_Summary.pdf

And Jake Laird: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPS/IMPD/About/Memoriam/Pages/tlaird.aspx


Officer Timothy "Jake" Laird, badge number 2479, was killed on August 18, 2004, when officers responded to numerous 911 calls from neighbors reporting gunfire in the 2700 block of Dietz Street on the near south side of Indianapolis. ....Earlier in the year, on January 20, 2004, police had been sent to 2704 S. Dietz Avenue to help paramedics with a combative patient. During that incident, police placed Anderson under immediate detention and confiscated a large quantity of weapons and ammunition. Upon release from his detention, Anderson sought return of the confiscated weapons. In the absence of legal authority to prevent the return of the weapons, the Police Department released them to Anderson in early March 2004. Following the August shooting, family and friends reported Anderson was a troubled man who suffered from schizophrenia, and who had not been taking his prescribed medication.


4 other officers were injured and survived.

[Mark D]

State statutes vary but all are modeled on protective orders in that they are issued by a judge or magistrate.

Most states limit who can request such orders to persons with specific relationships like immediate family to limit frivolous or malicious filing.

California has such a law. It allows spouses and family members to make the request. There was just a legislative push to expand the law - the language would have allowed co-workers to request the order.

To the surprise of the 2A community, Governor Brown vetoed it. (He did, however, sign a number of other gun control measures).

[TGS]

I'm surprised it took so long for this to be the result of one of those laws. Seriously, what did the people who created those laws expect would happen when they send cops to people's houses to take away their guns? Even if the first 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 times went smoothly, this was virtually guaranteed to happen eventually. I will be further surprised if it's the last time a person dies in this way. :(

I'm not sure what words to use to sum up your post......but I'm guessing you're seeing this as an inherently bad thing, as if the law, its purpose and/or execution is somehow at fault in a negligent way?

If a citizen was killed when trying to fight police who were trying to conduct a PC arrest, would you write the same response? "What did they think was going to happen, trying to arrest someone who was suspected of a felony?" Well, obviously you wouldn't because it's expected that some people will fight the police, particularly those of criminal mindset and or not in the right mind.

I'll be as bold to say that it's obvious the guy needed the guns taken away by virtue of the fact he got into a fight with cops over a loaded gun they were attempted to seize in accordance with law. He obviously wasn't "right" upstairs. I'm not seeing this as any sort of damning incident on the law's part, which I got the hint from your post that's generally how you feel.

[Totem Polar]

There was just a legislative push to expand the law - the language would have allowed co-workers to request the order.

Jesus.

Good for gov Brown.

[Casual Friday]

I'm unfamiliar with MD's law. What type of due process takes place before determining that the firearms should be seized?

[Robinson]

It seems to me the OP is asking for input on whether red flag laws allow for any type of due process and whether there is a risk of abuse of the law.

I don't advocate fighting the Police in such a situation -- the battle should be in the court. But after reading the descriptions of various states' laws on the site linked in post #2 it does make me think that at least in some locations it's possible for someone to have a Constitutionally protected right taken away without due process based on the word of a family member. The question I have is whether there are protections in place to prevent that from happening?

[Nephrology]

I'm unfamiliar with MD's law. What type of due process takes place before determining that the firearms should be seized?

IN's Laird Law (as described in BBI's post) lays out the criteria fairly well. May be different from MD. My reading of Laird Law text suggests it is eminently reasonable.

Not a lawyer/cop, but it sounds kinda similar to 72h hold. Evidence of imminent danger posed to self/others or grave disability that may result in the same is enough to have a judge sign a hold that will keep the pt in hospital custody w/o the right to make their own medical decisions for 72h. At the end of that period of time they are either released or go before a judge to request more permanent custody. Similar pattern for no contact orders. Temporary holds are easy to get, making them permanent has higher burden of proof that must be argued in court within a pretty short time frame.

Not a lawyer so this migh tbe wrong, just my reading of the text

[Casual Friday]

IN's Laird Law (as described in BBI's post) lays out the criteria fairly well. May be different from MD. My reading of Laird Law text suggests it is eminently reasonable.

Not a lawyer/cop, but it sounds kinda similar to 72h hold. Evidence of imminent danger posed to self/others or grave disability that may result in the same is enough to have a judge sign a hold that will keep the pt in hospital custody w/o the right to make their own medical decisions for 72h. At the end of that period of time they are either released or go before a judge to request more permanent custody. Similar pattern for no contact orders. Temporary holds are easy to get, making them permanent has higher burden of proof that must be argued in court within a pretty short time frame.

Not a lawyer so this migh tbe wrong, just my reading of the text

I saw his post but I'm asking specifically about MD's law as it pertains to this incident.

[TGS]

I'm unfamiliar with MD's law. What type of due process takes place before determining that the firearms should be seized?


It seems to me the OP is asking for input on whether red flag laws allow for any type of due process and whether there is a risk of abuse of the law.

I don't advocate fighting the Police in such a situation -- the battle should be in the court. But after reading the descriptions of various states' laws on the site linked in post #2 it does make me think that at least in some locations it's possible for someone to have a Constitutionally protected right taken away without due process based on the word of a family member. The question I have is whether there are protections in place to prevent that from happening?

https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#can

An affiant has to petition the court, and a judge issues a temporary order. A final order is only issued when the respondent has....responded....I'm sure Blues would be able to make a funny dad joke out of that.

Final order can only last 1 year, with a 6 month extension.

[blues]

https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#can

An affiant has to petition the court, and a judge issues a temporary order. A final order is only issued when the respondent has....responded....I'm sure Blues would be able to make a funny dad joke out of that.

Final order can only last 1 year, with a 6 month extension.

Nothing (allegedly) funny about my dad jokes. Or Maryland for that matter, where my mother, sister and brother in law are all moving by the end of the year. Hopefully they understand LEOSA.

[TGS]

Nothing (allegedly) funny about my dad jokes.

Don't sell yourself short.

Where abouts in MD? Anywhere close to DC?

[blues]

Don't sell yourself short.

Where abouts in MD? Anywhere close to DC?

My understanding is that they both bought and are about to close in the same development in Silver Springs.
Mother bought a condo, sister and BIL a large home.

[shane45]

The problem with laws like this are that states like NJ will abuse the living hell out of it. The intent in NJ is to separate you from your firearms by any means they can contrive.

http://nj1015.com/nj-cops-came-to-confiscate-guns-after-son-discussed-school-safety-dad-says/

[TAZ]

The whole red flag thing is an incredibly sharp double edged sword, but I’m certain neither side will ever abuse it. And I’m sure there are stiff penalties for making false claims that will deter folks from lying or some stuff like that.

I’m not very partial to the whole idea that one side gets to make a claim and someone’s rights are stripped away. It seem like there might be something fishy about that. Kind of like needing to prove innocence or something.

However, given the absolute lack of a mental health system in the USA that can adequately deal with the crazies we seem to have running about, I’m not sure how to better address the issue in the short term. It seems incredibly retarded to dump mental health issues on LEO. Cause IMO by that time things have gotten out of hand. It would be nicer if there were ways and places that could help folks with their mental issues before they escalate to the point of needing LEO intervention. Maybe even if folks took an interest earlier in the process... But hey, what do I know.

I have yet to see the final version of the proposed TX, so I can’t comment on whether I like it. I would hope these laws have due process protections built in that don’t require further costly legal action to get property back after being shown to be innocent (memories of asset forfeitures and cash seizure of years past). I’d also like to see measures that a falsely accused person can take against their accusers to recoup any $$ and generate some punitive measures against false claims.

[JRB]

My biggest problem with this MD incident and other similar laws being passed is the overall lack of awareness of the law. Becoming law barely a month ago, I think it's incredibly likely that the citizen in this situation genuinely believed that it was an unlawful seizure of his weapons. The whole situation went down like this, according to the various sources I've found:

-LE executes warrant at his home at approximately 5am
-Citizen answers the door with a loaded handgun (reasonable, IMHO)
-Citizen allows LE to enter and puts the weapon down
-LE explains the warrant and attempts to collect his weapon
-Citizen gets in physical struggle to get weapon back
-Weapon ND's into a wall hurting nobody
-LE dumps a lot of shots into him at close range, guy dies on scene

Two big things need to change, especially when these laws are passed:

First - there needs to be a public campaign of some kind to make it reasonably obvious to folks that such a law is in effect. This campaign should include the names of all the elected officials supported it. That campaign also needs to make it abundantly clear that the accused will get legal representation and have a bonafide opportunity very soon to get them back in court.

Second - I believe such confiscations should require the report/testimony and agreement of two family members, not just one. I have personally seen the Lautenberg stuff tangle up the careers of two good Soldiers, all because their wife just got that steaming hot pissed off at them about something, and then claimed some kind of DV against them to 'get their attention' or some such.
They were later exonerated, but it took almost two years in one case (ruining his Army career, obviously) and the other ended about 6 months in after he got repeated video incidents of her beating on him with various household items and then threatening to cut his dick off with a knife.
Personally I think these laws set a terrifying precedent. Not unlike the SWATTING epidemic, relying on a single report from a single individual to be accurate for such a response endangers more lives than it protects. Furthermore, once it's been established that certain speech or behavior warrants arbitrary and immediate confiscation of one's weapons - it's incredibly easy to keep lowering that bar on what kinds of behavior/speech/etc warrants weapon confiscation.

I, for one, would like to keep my 1A rights as well as my 2A. I believe my 1A rights include being allowed to get upset and speak my mind about something that upsets me. Though at this point it would not surprise me if there were case law or other precedent that specifically stated otherwise.

The final and most terrifying thing to me, is that with continued encroachments like this it will not be long before some folks start considering everything a completely unlawful infringement of the 2A, and simply decide to shoot first and ask questions later when LE shows up - because they believe it to be impossible to get a fair shake in the courts as a gun owner.

[Robinson]

https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#can

An affiant has to petition the court, and a judge issues a temporary order. A final order is only issued when the respondent has....responded....I'm sure Blues would be able to make a funny dad joke out of that.

Final order can only last 1 year, with a 6 month extension.

So in that case the person who had their firearms confiscated just has to hope there is no need for them for the duration of the order.

I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand we need to get better at keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them -- because of mental illness or other legitimate reasons. But I can sure see how a worst case scenario could happen in which a family member gets a bug up their ass and out of spite causes someone to lose their firearms and then not have them in a time of dire need.

[TGS]

The intent in NJ is to separate you from your firearms by any means they can contrive.

Not a very good example to make your point with.....the firearms weren't even seized, and the police obviously weren't out to trample any rights.

NJ State Troopers are a bunch that don't get involved in trying to argue with subjects. Don't want to roll down your window and provide ID on a traffic stop? They don't argue about it on the side of the road for 10 minutes before busting out your window and arresting you. They abide by the rule of "ask, tell, make" very strictly. If they wanted to take guns through any means necessary, there wouldn't even have been a conversation.


My understanding is that they both bought and are about to close in the same development in Silver Springs.
Mother bought a condo, sister and BIL a large home.

Let me know if you're coming through the area. If I'm free we'll go visit the national LE museum together and grab a meal or something.



I’m not very partial to the whole idea that one side gets to make a claim and someone’s rights are stripped away. It seem like there might be something fishy about that. Kind of like needing to prove innocence or something.

The entire criminal justice system, as well as civil system, takes things away from defendants based on accusations made by complainants. It's how the country has worked for hundreds of years.


I have yet to see the final version of the proposed TX, so I can’t comment on whether I like it. I would hope these laws have due process protections built in that don’t require further costly legal action to get property back after being shown to be innocent (memories of asset forfeitures and cash seizure of years past). I’d also like to see measures that a falsely accused person can take against their accusers to recoup any $$ and generate some punitive measures against false claims.

Hear-hear. A complainant should have to sign an affidavit, and in time pressing cases the LEO should be able to call for a telephonic warrant if they find PC with the affidavit. The process provided shouldn't be punitive in nature (i.e. there's a proscribed way to get the guns back if complaint/mental health evaluation is bogus) and there is a reasonable time limit where the guns can be held without a final court order pending mental health evaluation(s)….that way people aren't strung along. All costs should be at the foot of the state.

The system would heavily rely on prosecution of false statements to reduce its abuse by complainants wanting to fuck with somebody, which is where my faith drops off, because prosecutors don't give a shit.

[TGS]

Furthermore, once it's been established that certain speech or behavior warrants arbitrary and immediate confiscation of one's weapons - it's incredibly easy to keep lowering that bar on what kinds of behavior/speech/etc warrants weapon confiscation.


And I think that's where this is largely solved by writing the law right.

There's already established legal standard for what language constitutes an actionable threat, HCM can get into the specifics on it as his job right now is literally finding and interviewing people who are about to commit mass violence, and parsing real threats from either 1) nonissues and 2) people who've had shit reported against them simply out of spite. That stuff already happens, it's nothing new.

There's also already legal standards on what it takes for police to put you in an involuntary 72-hour psych eval.

[TGS]

So in that case the person who had their firearms confiscated just has to hope there is no need for them for the duration of the order.

Well, yeah....

.....and a felon has to hope there is no need for them during the rest of their life. So...…we aren't talking about any ground breaking concept here.

[Robinson]

Well, yeah....

.....and a felon has to hope there is no need for them during the rest of their life. So...…we aren't talking about any ground breaking concept here.

A key difference is that a felon has been tried and convicted of a crime.

[TGS]

A key difference is that a felon has been tried and convicted of a crime.

...and a key difference is that MD's ERPO is temporary, and based on a PC affidavit reviewed by a judge who issues a court order.....

[Robinson]

...and a key difference is that MD's ERPO is temporary, and based on a PC affidavit reviewed by a judge who issues a court order.....

I honestly hope it works the way it's supposed to.

[JRB]

And I think that's where this is largely solved by writing the law right.

There's already established legal standard for what language constitutes an actionable threat, HCM can get into the specifics on it as his job right now is literally finding and interviewing people who are about to commit mass violence, and parsing real threats from either 1) nonissues and 2) people who've had shit reported against them simply out of spite. That stuff already happens, it's nothing new.

There's also already legal standards on what it takes for police to put you in an involuntary 72-hour psych eval.

That's the bulk of my worry - my confidence in any law involving firearms being 'written right' is asymptotically close to zero.
My faith in LE or AUSA/DA's refusing to enforce or prosecute because it's a crappy law *is* zero.

[JRB]

Well, yeah....

.....and a felon has to hope there is no need for them during the rest of their life. So...…we aren't talking about any ground breaking concept here.

Guilty until proven innocent is nothing new - that is absolutely true.

[shane45]

Not a very good example to make your point with.....the firearms weren't even seized, and the police obviously weren't out to trample any rights.

NJ State Troopers are a bunch that don't get involved in trying to argue with subjects. Don't want to roll down your window and provide ID on a traffic stop? They don't argue about it on the side of the road for 10 minutes before busting out your window and arresting you. They abide by the rule of "ask, tell, make" very strictly. If they wanted to take guns through any means necessary, there wouldn't even have been a conversation.



Let me know if you're coming through the area. If I'm free we'll go visit the national LE museum together and grab a meal or something.



The entire criminal justice system, as well as civil system, takes things away from defendants based on accusations made by complainants. It's how the country has worked for hundreds of years.



Hear-hear. A complainant should have to sign an affidavit, and in time pressing cases the LEO should be able to call for a telephonic warrant if they find PC with the affidavit. The process provided shouldn't be punitive in nature (i.e. there's a proscribed way to get the guns back if complaint/mental health evaluation is bogus) and there is a reasonable time limit where the guns can be held without a final court order pending mental health evaluation(s)….that way people aren't strung along. All costs should be at the foot of the state.

The system would heavily rely on prosecution of false statements to reduce its abuse by complainants wanting to fuck with somebody, which is where my faith drops off, because prosecutors don't give a shit.



Please dont mistake my example with having an issue with the state police. It is directed at the state. However, this is just one example. But had the dad caved, then they would have been successful. I have many friends in the NJSP. But the "rest of the story" and alluded to in the article is indeed that they were very aggressive on scene. My issue witht his case was that there never was any articulated threat. NJ is a mine field of contrived laws. Lets say the firearm in question was a $50 rusted piece of junk. Not even worth the effort to recover right? Wrong. Being relieved of anything in NJ is a big deal. You arent informed of this. They just politely ask you to sign off on the surrender of the weapon. Guess what. If you do, your a lifetime prohibited person! So even if it was a piece of junk, if you value your rights, you have to go full tilt to get a $50 piece of junk back here. Front row seat to the case where the dad got his son a M&P22. Facebook post of happy gift day resulted in Police at the door demanding for him to open his safe and surrender the weapon. Lawyer on the phone stopped that debacle. 2 kids suspended from school for participating in sporting clays. Trust me when I tell you that here, red flag laws WILL be abused.

[Mark D]

I have mixed feelings about these laws. On one hand, there's gaping holes in our mental health system. On the other, there is clear potential for abuse.

In California, the people who can request the Gun Violence Restraining Order are:

1. Spouse or domestic partner
2. Parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren and their spouses (including stepparents or stepgrandparents)
3. Spouse’s parents, children, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren
4. Any person who regularly lives in the house now, or within the last 6 months.

And the firearms are seized and held until a hearing is conducted, "about 21 days later".

if the judge approves the order at the hearing, it is in effect for 12 months, and can be extended in 12 month increments. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=PEN&division=3.2.&title=2.&part=6.&chapter=&article=

The recent push to expand this law in CA would have made it more vulnerable to abuse. As I mentioned previously, the expansion was approved by the legislature but vetoed by Governor Brown. His probable successor (Gavin Newsom) is considered unlikely to show the same restraint when it comes to 2A issues.

[BehindBlueI's]

Every law has the potential for abuse, just as any other form of authority and/or technology. This does not mean we become a anarchist collective of luddites. It means we use the checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.

[TAZ]

Every law has the potential for abuse, just as any other form of authority and/or technology. This does not mean we become a anarchist collective of luddites. It means we use the checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.

While I agree with the concept of checks and balances, we still have an obligation to craft legislation that isn’t ripe for abuse and hope someone has the $$ to challenge till the cows come home to get it changed.

[TGS]

Please dont mistake my example with having an issue with the state police. It is directed at the state. However, this is just one example. But had the dad caved, then they would have been successful. I have many friends in the NJSP. But the "rest of the story" and alluded to in the article is indeed that they were very aggressive on scene. My issue witht his case was that there never was any articulated threat. NJ is a mine field of contrived laws. Lets say the firearm in question was a $50 rusted piece of junk. Not even worth the effort to recover right? Wrong. Being relieved of anything in NJ is a big deal. You arent informed of this. They just politely ask you to sign off on the surrender of the weapon. Guess what. If you do, your a lifetime prohibited person! So even if it was a piece of junk, if you value your rights, you have to go full tilt to get a $50 piece of junk back here. Front row seat to the case where the dad got his son a M&P22. Facebook post of happy gift day resulted in Police at the door demanding for him to open his safe and surrender the weapon. Lawyer on the phone stopped that debacle. 2 kids suspended from school for participating in sporting clays. Trust me when I tell you that here, red flag laws WILL be abused.

What part of the NJ law makes you a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g) if they seize the guns? Can you share that?

[shane45]

Its not the seizure part, its the surrender that does you in. Ill dig it up for you.

[CG12]

...and a key difference is that MD's ERPO is temporary, and based on a PC affidavit reviewed by a judge who issues a court order.....

Why do you think that it's ok to deprive people of their rights because a judge gives an order? Remember David Abbott? He obtained a search warrant in Virginia to photograph a 17 year old's genitals in a sexting case in order to "compare" them to the evidence. When the boy couldn't get hard, Abbott went back to court and obtained another search warrant signed by three judges permitting him to take the teen to a hospital and administer erection-inducing drugs via injection. There's more to that case, but there are two examples of egregious rulings that were supported by "court order".

So what if a judge reviews something and issues a court order? Guess I'll let them inject teens with erection inducing drugs and take pictures of their genitals. Guess I'll let them take my guns away since my sister said I was a threat. Guess I'll let....

[beenalongtime]

I'm not sure what words to use to sum up your post......but I'm guessing you're seeing this as an inherently bad thing, as if the law, its purpose and/or execution is somehow at fault in a negligent way?

If a citizen was killed when trying to fight police who were trying to conduct a PC arrest, would you write the same response? "What did they think was going to happen, trying to arrest someone who was suspected of a felony?" Well, obviously you wouldn't because it's expected that some people will fight the police, particularly those of criminal mindset and or not in the right mind.

I'll be as bold to say that it's obvious the guy needed the guns taken away by virtue of the fact he got into a fight with cops over a loaded gun they were attempted to seize in accordance with law. He obviously wasn't "right" upstairs. I'm not seeing this as any sort of damning incident on the law's part, which I got the hint from your post that's generally how you feel.


I did not read it the way you read into it. I read into it more surprise that it took so long, to actually run across someone who was a danger and the bad result there of.

[shane45]

This warning came from a legal seminar I attended. I believe the "gotcha" was surrender = not returned.

I believe this is it:


...who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth. No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued:



(8)To any person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991," P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et seq.) and whose firearm has not been returned.


https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-25-21/

[BehindBlueI's]

While I agree with the concept of checks and balances, we still have an obligation to craft legislation that isn’t ripe for abuse and hope someone has the $$ to challenge till the cows come home to get it changed.

Of course. The legislature is part of checks and balances.

We've had Laird's Law since 2005 and I'm unaware of any findings of abuse as some back door to gun control. Knee jerks aside, it's been a valuable tool and the checks and balances in place are superior to what we had before. Which was either give a nut job back his guns to murder people (which is always met with the cry of "why didn't somebody do something?!!) or to act outside the scope of the law. We used to end run this by confiscating the person's license to carry a handgun, and the state law was you had to have it on your person to carry. This was unsatisfactory for everyone, as it didn't remove the person's firearms or access, just gave you an enforcement mechanism if you found them carrying a handgun in public (although they could carry a long gun with impunity). This actually had less due process as well. Now you don't have to have it on your person and we have a legal process that includes judicial oversight. It is a direct parallel to an arrest. Officer has PC or a warrant, takes action, judge reviews it for probable cause (before the fact if a warrant, after the fact without). It is the same burden of proof required to take a *person* to jail as it is to take a gun to impound.

[HCM]

This warning came from a legal seminar I attended. I believe the "gotcha" was surrender = not returned.

I believe this is it:


...who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth. No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued:



(8)To any person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991," P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et seq.) and whose firearm has not been returned.


https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-25-21/

That section of NJ law only applies if the firearm was seized in conjunction with an arrest for domestic violence.

It would not have applied to the dad who bought his son the M&P 22 and it would not apply to a gun seized under a red flag protective order unless the NJ legisture started so in their statute.

Your basic issue is “NJ”

[shane45]

The advice from the lawyers extended to seized for any reason. The key element was not getting it back. They have client case after case of trying to undo an uninformed surrender or forfeiture that turned them into prohibited persons. Im no lawyer, Im just repeating their advice. If you read the law you can see that there doesnt need to be a conviction. The case can be dropped completely and they can still move for forfeiture. What many outside of NJ may not understand is the courts here are extremely anti gun so they will almost always move for forfeiture. They usually automatically file for it according to the attorneys. I know that those of you living in America may find some of this a bit far fetched or hard to believe. But I can tell you you have no idea how bad it is here. How about a PD that requires what amounts to a permission slip from your spouse to be allowed to purchase firearms. Completely illegal. But done everyday here. I was a founding board member of the NJ2AS mentioned in the article. We brought many lawsuits here in NJ so I can tell you I have witnessed a bucket full of injustice from a front row seat. We are fighting a stacked deck here. Here is another example. Minimum mandatory sentence, commission of a crime with a gun. That has been interpreted to mean any crime where a gun was present to include where the gun its self was the focus for whatever reason. So say someone from PA inadvertently crossed a state line with a valid carry permit. They could be subject to minimum mandatory sentencing even though there was no actual crime with the gun. We asked the author of that legislation if that is what he intended. The answer was a firm no, he meant someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. Interpreted by most to mean what it appears to mean. Contrived by NJ for its antigun interests.

[HCM]

The advice from the lawyers extended to seized for any reason. The key element was not getting it back. They have client case after case of trying to undo an uninformed surrender or forfeiture that turned them into prohibited persons. Im no lawyer, Im just repeating their advice. If you read the law you can see that there doesnt need to be a conviction. The case can be dropped completely and they can still move for forfeiture. What many outside of NJ may not understand is the courts here are extremely anti gun so they will almost always move for forfeiture. They usually automatically file for it according to the attorneys. I know that those of you living in America may find some of this a bit far fetched or hard to believe. But I can tell you you have no idea how bad it is here. How about a PD that requires what amounts to a permission slip from your spouse to be allowed to purchase firearms. Completely illegal. But done everyday here. I was a founding board member of the NJ2AS mentioned in the article. We brought many lawsuits here in NJ so I can tell you I have witnessed a bucket full of injustice from a front row seat. We are fighting a stacked deck here. Here is another example. Minimum mandatory sentence, commission of a crime with a gun. That has been interpreted to mean any crime where a gun was present to include where the gun its self was the focus for whatever reason. So say someone from PA inadvertently crossed a state line with a valid carry permit. They could be subject to minimum mandatory sentencing even though there was no actual crime with the gun. We asked the author of that legislation if that is what he intended. The answer was a firm no, he meant someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. Interpreted by most to mean what it appears to mean. Contrived by NJ for its antigun interests.

It’s no secret NJ law is based on the unconstitutional premise that all firearms possession is illegal unless it falls with the exceptions carved out by law. Things go downhill from there. It’s also no secret NJ police, in particular the NJ state police have a reputation for abuse of gun owners going back decades. Their abuse of out of state gun owners was so bad they were a prime motivation in the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act at the federal level.

However, these are NJ specific problems which are not related to the issue of red flag gun restraining orders and the original example you raised also was not related to red flag gun restraining orders.

[HCM]

And I think that's where this is largely solved by writing the law right.

There's already established legal standard for what language constitutes an actionable threat, HCM can get into the specifics on it as his job right now is literally finding and interviewing people who are about to commit mass violence, and parsing real threats from either 1) nonissues and 2) people who've had shit reported against them simply out of spite. That stuff already happens, it's nothing new.

There's also already legal standards on what it takes for police to put you in an involuntary 72-hour psych eval.

For the record, while it would occasionally be convenient, I oppose gun specific “red flag” restraining orders.

In my opinion, the cons and potential for abuse out weigh the benefits.

We certainly do see false reports, both unintentional and malicious / poison pen types.

The current process of Emergency Detention for psyche eval is adequete. The issue I see is there is little follow up. Many of those people need help and instead they are medicated, declared stabilized and released without any community support or follow up.

[olstyn]

I'm not sure what words to use to sum up your post......but I'm guessing you're seeing this as an inherently bad thing, as if the law, its purpose and/or execution is somehow at fault in a negligent way?

I think that while red flag/gun violence protection orders seem to be well-intentioned, at least on the surface, the potential for abuse, miscommunication, and resultant tragedy is huge, and that as a result, the cost/benefit analysis does not seem to add up in favor of enacting this type of law. I would also say that from my perspective, there's a large difference between probable cause/serving a warrant and an ex parte removal of someone's rights. I feel that if you want to take away someone's legally-owned firearms outside of the context of an arrest and actual charges being filed, the court proceeding at which they can respond to the allegations which led to the confiscation should occur pre-confiscation, not post-confiscation.

[JAD]

but vetoed by Governor Brown. His probable successor (Gavin Newsom) is considered unlikely to show the same restraint when it comes to 2A issues.

Wow, I forgot that y’all replaced Brown with Cap’n Crunch. As the Dead Kennedys said, “we’ve got a bigger problem now.”

[shane45]

The original example was touted as one of the first examples of the new red flag laws. Now if it truly did or not probably merits discussion. But it is my understanding that indeed it was at least discussed as the basis for their arrival on site.

On a different note, I can personally vouch that the NJSP, specifically the FIU(Firearms Investigations Unit) have been great to deal with. There are a few pro 2nd guys in there bucking the system!

[HCM]

The original example was touted as one of the first examples of the new red flag laws. Now if it truly did or not probably merits discussion. But it is my understanding that indeed it was at least discussed as the basis for their arrival on site.

On a different note, I can personally vouch that the NJSP, specifically the FIU(Firearms Investigations Unit) have been great to deal with. There are a few pro 2nd guys in there bucking the system!

I am not talking about the OP of the thread,

I’m talking about the case you cited from NJ in which police showed up at the house due to the M&P 22 bought for the son’s use. This one: http://nj1015.com/nj-cops-came-to-confiscate-guns-after-son-discussed-school-safety-dad-says/

There was no court order / red flag restraining order in that case. It is just NJ cops doing NJ cop bullshit.

[TGS]

I feel that if you want to take away someone's legally-owned firearms outside of the context of an arrest and actual charges being filed, the court proceeding at which they can respond to the allegations which led to the confiscation should occur pre-confiscation, not post-confiscation.

That sort of defeats the entire idea of protecting the public from someone that we can articulate is an imminent danger to the public, doesn't it?

[Mjolnir]

Guilty until proven innocent is nothing new - that is absolutely true.

What’s new is the atrocious acceptance of this evil concept and others arguing FOR this evil concept.

WE are destroying the Republic we were sworn to uphold. [emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

Every law has the potential for abuse, just as any other form of authority and/or technology. This does not mean we become a anarchist collective of luddites. It means we use the checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.

We have long past the “checks and balances our founding fathers wisely put in place.”

Look at the subject of this thread... if we followed the advice of our founders we would NOT be having this conversation.

We are an unprincipled nation and unprincipled people are to be ruled with an iron rod, historically speaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[olstyn]

That sort of defeats the entire idea of protecting the public from someone that we can articulate is an imminent danger to the public, doesn't it?

Yes. However, it also preserves the idea of innocent until proven guilty and keeps us away from a path that leads to living in the world of Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report."

I'm also concerned about the idea of an abuser/stalker using one of the more loosely-written versions of these laws to ensure that their intended victim is unarmed. I happen to know an abuse survivor whose first reaction on hearing about the concept was that if her state had one of those laws and her abusive ex knew she had guns, his first reaction would be to file for one of these orders, so it's not a vague, nebulous possibility I'm worried about; it's a predictable response. I'll grant that it's probably a corner case, but it's a deeply scary one.

[shane45]

I am not talking about the OP of the thread,

I’m talking about the case you cited from NJ in which police showed up at the house due to the M&P 22 bought for the son’s use. This one: http://nj1015.com/nj-cops-came-to-confiscate-guns-after-son-discussed-school-safety-dad-says/

There was no court order / red flag restraining order in that case. It is just NJ cops doing NJ cop bullshit.

Understood. I wasnt clear. I didnt intend that as an example of red flag, it was intended to illustrate the atmosphere here as was the example of the suspension from school for participating in sporting clays. But the link you quoted is indeed the case where the kid was in school and they had a security discussion with the students in the gym as I understand it. They were going over the security protocals with the students touting how it will keep them safe and the student in question remarked to his buddy how he didnt think these were very good changes, that they weren't really going to make it safer. It was overheard by another who told his parents. Said parents demanded something be done which triggered the cops at the front door demanding the surrender of firearms. I can totally see questioning the plans of the schools around here. Some of the ones I have seen included keeping soup cans and books on the desk to throw at active shooters up to the teachers bringing nerf guns to school to work out what they think would be a good plan. :(

[JRB]

That sort of defeats the entire idea of protecting the public from someone that we can articulate is an imminent danger to the public, doesn't it?

It all feels like witch hunts to me.

Deprive someone of their RKBA by force, they spend untold thousands of dollars and months if not years of effort to get it back - oh they're okay after all (they sank and died)

See that un-needed violence beget a violent response - oh see he was a violent asshole! (floated and was executed for being a witch)

The problem is that the accusation and the initial response is no different than an arbitrary conviction.

[TGS]

The problem is that the accusation and the initial response is no different than an arbitrary conviction.

I guess I don't see it like that at all, at least with the states we've talked about that abide by some sort of due process like MD and IN.

Presenting PC to a judge and acting on a court order is the golden standard for due process, and it's not a conviction in any purpose or sense of the word. In MDs case you get your guns back within days after a mental health evaluation clears you, certainly not months or years. In MDs case, months to years would only happen if mental health practitioners held that you were a danger to yourself/others, which as a mechanism of abuse simply hasn't materialized like the doomsday scenarios people on the gun-ternet dream up about swarms of tyrannical psych doctors working on secret orders from the UN to disarm the American populace.


ETA: I also find it ridiculous to try and make an association between executions and someone who tries to shoot cops when they serve a warrant.....because, in the end, that's what the fucking guy was doing by any reasonable assumption. People don't wrestle loaded guns from cops for fun any more than a naked guy with a hard-on chases ladies through dark alleyways at night with a butcher knife just to ask where they can make a donation to the Red Cross.

[JRB]

I guess I don't see it like that at all, at least with the states we've talked about that abide by some sort of due process like MD and IN.

Presenting PC to a judge and acting on a court order is the golden standard for due process, and it's not a conviction in any purpose or sense of the word. In MDs case you get your guns back within days after a mental health evaluation clears you, certainly not months or years. In MDs case, months to years would only happen if mental health practitioners held that you were a danger to yourself/others, which as a mechanism of abuse simply hasn't materialized like the doomsday scenarios people on the gun-ternet dream up about swarms of tyrannical psych doctors working on secret orders from the UN to disarm the American populace.

It was inaccurate of me to use the word 'conviction'. That is a good and fair point.
My intent was to illustrate the affect on the individual in question is considerably negative regardless of whether or not it was warranted/justified.
Coming from the perspective of someone with a security clearance, the accusation alone is enough to destroy someone's career particularly if you're required to maintain access to arms and ammunition.
So while one might not become a prohibited person because of the accusation and expensive drawn-out clusterfuck that tends to follow it - terrible damage to one's finances and career are likely. Over a single fucking phone call from someone neither impartial or qualified to assess someone's mental health.

Having seen this exact sort of mechanism abused twice by upset women, who thereby did incredibly serious damage if not destroyed the careers of good men, I have a very dismal view of these sorts of policies and I see absolutely nothing good coming from it in the long run. It's good that MD's is a '72hr hold' style of confiscation instead of the 'guilty until proven innocent' kind, but many states with these sorts of laws are not that quick or reasonable about returning firearms.
Having seen how frequently laws are written with absolutely terrible language that permits terrible and unintended consequences and abuse, I can't help but be terribly skeptical about any such legislation being 'good overall' for any reason. I know fellow Soldiers, sworn LE, and regular dudes that are serious gun enthusiasts that do not date or have any hopes of a serious long term relationship anymore specifically because of the risk to their careers and lives due to the crazy amount of damage a pissed off spouse can do with one phone call.

The problem is that 'the people' are becoming increasingly stupid and unreasonable in their expectations of law enforcement and governance, and they're being humored for no good reason with shit like this, and it poses an incredibly grave threat both to LE and to common folks with guns.
If these sorts of laws must be humored, they *MUST* include provisions with FELONY level consequences for the accuser if the accused is cleared. Otherwise it's just telling the world that anyone that owns guns can be irrevocably fucked with a single phone call and nothing bad happens to you either way if you use it like that.



ETA: I also find it ridiculous to try and make an association between executions and someone who tries to shoot cops when they serve a warrant.....because, in the end, that's what the fucking guy was doing by any reasonable assumption. People don't wrestle loaded guns from cops for fun any more than a naked guy with a hard-on chases ladies through dark alleyways at night with a butcher knife just to ask where they can make a donation to the Red Cross.

I find it ridiculous that a whole group of LEO's would get placed in harms' way based on a phone call that could not articulate a crime being committed. Do we know he was wrestling the gun away to keep his lawful property against a perceived unlawful police confiscation? Or was he intending to murder cops? Easy to say the latter when the only one that could say otherwise is in the ground. Good people with zero LE interaction or cognizance might not know that wrestle a cop for a gun = lawful use of lethal force. What pisses me off is that we have no way of knowing which way that went because the guy is dead.

It met any reasonable UOF guidlines, I agree, but what bothers me is what it took to get all those LEO's at his door: A phone call from an individual that was not impartial or qualified to assess mental health, that also articulated no crime being committed or imminent.
Your flippant comparison to a bloody boner rapist is completely inaccurate.

[TGS]

If these sorts of laws must be humored, they *MUST* include provisions with FELONY level consequences for the accuser if the accused is cleared. Otherwise it's just telling the world that anyone that owns guns can be irrevocably fucked with a single phone call and nothing bad happens to you either way if you use it like that.

They already exist, but because nobody will properly direct any fucking taxes to real government needs instead of happy-feelz bullshit, we have court systems that are about 1/5 the capacity they should be, or smaller, and there's literally no reasonable way to expect most jurisdictions to prosecute simple false statements that aren't a convenience charge out of a bigger case.


Your flippant comparison to a bloody boner rapist is completely inaccurate.

Whoa there......I get you're in NM, but this movie should have reached there by now....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKFthgUbCdY

[JRB]

They already exist, but because nobody will properly direct any fucking taxes to real government needs instead of happy-feelz bullshit, we have court systems that are about 1/5 the capacity they should be, or smaller, and there's literally no reasonable way to expect most jurisdictions to prosecute simple false statements that aren't a convenience charge out of a bigger case.


That... holy shit that is incredibly frustrating. I know our local court system is overworked like crazy, but for some reason I assumed that was another New Mexico problem and why we attract so many shitheads (aside from the toothless three strikes laws that bring the career shitbirds in from Cali, Colorado, Texas, Arizona, etc. If that's a country-wide problem, no wonder we're not prosecuting stuff like that.



Whoa there......I get you're in NM, but this movie should have reached there by now....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKFthgUbCdY

It has, and it's not that backwards (kinda)
I should have caught that reference, mea culpa!
At least I have a good excuse to re-watch all the Dirty Harry movies now - and I owe you a beer if we ever find ourselves at the same bar. Missing a Dirty Harry reference on P-F is a pretty damn serious faux pas.

[blues]

Missing a Dirty Harry reference on P-F is a pretty damn serious faux pas.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTaw1HJ35fg/T3PqfdVxIfI/AAAAAAAAGAY/VivK-ClbOd0/s400/large_magnum_force_blu-raysubs_magnum_force_blu-ray.jpg


;)

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes. However, it also preserves the idea of innocent until proven guilty and keeps us away from a path that leads to living in the world of Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report."

Do you also object to people being jailed pre-trial? Same standard of probable cause. And has been for centuries. Are you going to argue that I can put you in a cage, (and I being a citizen, not an LEO, as most states allow for citizen's arrests on felonies and violent/breach-of-peace misdemeanors) but I can't confiscate your guns? Which is actually a bigger intrusion into your rights?

You are innocent until proven guilty in court. If you are caught with the smoking gun in your hand, on video, with a dozen witnesses and a corpse at your feet which you shout "I MURDERED THIS GUY!" to the arriving cops you are presumed innocent of that crime until proven guilty in court. That does not preclude you from being arrested, held, and subject to pre-trial release restrictions if you aren't held. It would seem the argument is that inanimate objects have more rights then humans if we're going to go down the particular path of probable cause does not allow enforcement actions pending trial.




If these sorts of laws must be humored, they *MUST* include provisions with FELONY level consequences for the accuser if the accused is cleared.

No. "Cleared" can come in a variety of ways, from a stupid jury to excluded evidence to a lousy prosecutor even if the person was factually guilty. It would also not allow for honest mistakes. The law has *never* required certainty on these points. You can *kill* someone based on what you knew at the time, even if it turns out you were mistaken. If you see me stabbing someone to death and draw a gun on me, only to find out it was a filming of a YouTube prank after the fact, should you be charged with a felony? If you arrest me for shoplifting and I'm in jail over the weekend, but the prosecutor drops the charges because it's under the dollar amount they prosecute for, should you eat a felony?

The law is, and should be, if you willfully report false information.

[NH Shooter]

My uncle Harry likes to drive after he's had too many (or at least that's what aunt Mildred says). Based on that I should be able to make a call, fill out the forms, etc. and have all motor vehicles registered in uncle Harry's name impounded before he kills somebody.

Of course, aunt Mildred been know to have a few too and tell some whoppers while under the influence...

[BehindBlueI's]

My uncle Harry likes to drive after he's had too many (or at least that's what aunt Mildred says). Based on that I should be able to make a call, fill out the forms, etc. and have all motor vehicles registered in uncle Harry's name impounded before he kills somebody.

Of course, aunt Mildred been know to have a few too and tell some whoppers while under the influence...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fossils-archeology/images/2/2c/D1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20161213024017

[JRB]

No. "Cleared" can come in a variety of ways, from a stupid jury to excluded evidence to a lousy prosecutor even if the person was factually guilty. It would also not allow for honest mistakes. The law has *never* required certainty on these points. You can *kill* someone based on what you knew at the time, even if it turns out you were mistaken. If you see me stabbing someone to death and draw a gun on me, only to find out it was a filming of a YouTube prank after the fact, should you be charged with a felony? If you arrest me for shoplifting and I'm in jail over the weekend, but the prosecutor drops the charges because it's under the dollar amount they prosecute for, should you eat a felony?

The law is, and should be, if you willfully report false information.

Using lethal force in an emergent situation where one can reasonably believe there's an immediate threat to great bodily harm/etc is witnessing a *crime* - or at least, what you can reasonably perceive to be a crime at the time. UOF is based on what you know at the time and it must pass that 'reasonable' waterline to get a pass.

My issue with this is there is *no crime* in these situations - just a family member that's pissed off/annoyed/bothered/etc by someone that happens to own guns and is willing to say some sort of sentence including 'owns guns' and 'I think he/she may hurt someone even though he/she hasn't threatened anyone'.

If we cross this bridge, and due to lack of courts/prosecutors/shitty laws/etc the accuser cannot (or won't) be held accountable for malice or an egregious mistake - we're effectively criminalizing being a gun owner that upsets someone else enough to pick up a phone, and if that person that picks up the phone has nothing to fear, it's going to be abused more often than not.
That is horseshit of the highest order. Jailing before a trial involves accusation of a *CRIME* confiscation of one's guns is reasonable if you're being charged with a *CRIME*.

Furthermore, when has a big 'oops' ever been an excuse for breaking the law? Crazy Ms Assgrabbed that choked out that club bouncer is facing charges, and rightfully so.

If we're going to let the happy feelings brigade legislate that owning guns means you're not allowed to annoy or bother anyone lest they pick up a phone - I want the person picking up that phone to have some real goddamn skin in the game to at least TRY to deter malicious use of the law.
Because the best-case scenario as a gun owner in this is being deprived of your property for ~72 hours, dealing with all that's involved in getting your property returned, a few grand in legal fees at the minimum, and you'll be 'delayed' on every NICS check for the rest of your life... and that is the *BEST CASE* scenario following one phone call from a random family member. The worst case is of course getting shot dead over a likely misunderstanding during a completely unnecessary interaction with LE, and losing your career, savings, and 2A to varying degrees is the grey area.

Over one phone call with no crime at all involved. I simply cannot support that in good conscience. LE should be there to intervene when RAS or PC of criminal actions are involved, period.

[olstyn]

Do you also object to people being jailed pre-trial?

No, because they've been charged with a crime, which is fundamentally different than a "red flag" where there hasn't actually been a crime committed, let alone charged.

[BehindBlueI's]

Using lethal force in an emergent situation where one can reasonably believe there's an immediate threat to great bodily harm/etc is witnessing a *crime* - or at least, what you can reasonably perceive to be a crime at the time. UOF is based on what you know at the time and it must pass that 'reasonable' waterline to get a pass.

My issue with this is there is *no crime* in these situations - just a family member that's pissed off/annoyed/bothered/etc by someone that happens to own guns and is willing to say some sort of sentence including 'owns guns' and 'I think he/she may hurt someone even though he/she hasn't threatened anyone'.

If we cross this bridge, and due to lack of courts/prosecutors/shitty laws/etc the accuser cannot (or won't) be held accountable for malice or an egregious mistake - we're effectively criminalizing being a gun owner that upsets someone else enough to pick up a phone, and if that person that picks up the phone has nothing to fear, it's going to be abused more often than not.
That is horseshit of the highest order. Jailing before a trial involves accusation of a *CRIME* confiscation of one's guns is reasonable if you're being charged with a *CRIME*.

Furthermore, when has a big 'oops' ever been an excuse for breaking the law? Crazy Ms Assgrabbed that choked out that club bouncer is facing charges, and rightfully so.

If we're going to let the happy feelings brigade legislate that owning guns means you're not allowed to annoy or bother anyone lest they pick up a phone - I want the person picking up that phone to have some real goddamn skin in the game to at least TRY to deter malicious use of the law.
Because the best-case scenario as a gun owner in this is being deprived of your property for ~72 hours, dealing with all that's involved in getting your property returned, a few grand in legal fees at the minimum, and you'll be 'delayed' on every NICS check for the rest of your life... and that is the *BEST CASE* scenario following one phone call from a random family member. The worst case is of course getting shot dead over a likely misunderstanding during a completely unnecessary interaction with LE, and losing your career, savings, and 2A to varying degrees is the grey area.

Over one phone call with no crime at all involved. I simply cannot support that in good conscience. LE should be there to intervene when RAS or PC of criminal actions are involved, period.


Crazy McGrabass is facing charges not due to her mistake in fact, but the fact she used unreasonable force EVEN IF HER BELIEF WAS CORRECT. You can't choke someone unconscious who is no threat to you in retaliation for a prior act. While a jury might be more forgiving had she not been mistaken, her actions were clearly illegal regardless of who goosed her.

I am unwilling to not have a legal enforcement mechanism against someone who's showing signs of, say violent mental illness, any more then I'm for allowing an impaired driver to drive off and wait for them to kill someone. I am satisfied with the Indiana law on the matter and the judicial remedies in place if there is overreach. I haven't, and don't intend to, research every individual state. There is potential for abuse, but again the same is true of arrest authority in general. That is not a reason to leave zero pre-tragedy enforcement options.

[BehindBlueI's]

No, because they've been charged with a crime, which is fundamentally different than a "red flag" where there hasn't actually been a crime committed, let alone charged.

Ok. Then are you against a forced psychiatric hold? No crime.

Real world example. Mentally ill paranoid. Believes the mailman is a CIA agent breaking into his house routinely to steal his "manuscripts ". Calls the police himself to report his beliefs. Meets officers at the door with a handgun, pointed at the floor, "in case you were the mailman. "

No crime has taken place. What do you do? Declare innocent until proven guilty and say a nice prayer for the mailman?

[BehindBlueI's]

I meant to include this above, and now it's too late to edit it in:




Furthermore, when has a big 'oops' ever been an excuse for breaking the law?

Already answered:



It would also not allow for honest mistakes. The law has *never* required certainty on these points. You can *kill* someone based on what you knew at the time, even if it turns out you were mistaken. If you see me stabbing someone to death and draw a gun on me, only to find out it was a filming of a YouTube prank after the fact, should you be charged with a felony? If you arrest me for shoplifting and I'm in jail over the weekend, but the prosecutor drops the charges because it's under the dollar amount they prosecute for, should you eat a felony?


That's how the law actually works. Based on what you reasonably knew at the time. The fact you were mistaken (again, assuming REASONABLE) is not relevant to the justification of use of force.


My issue with this is there is *no crime* in these situations - just a family member that's pissed off/annoyed/bothered/etc by someone that happens to own guns and is willing to say some sort of sentence including 'owns guns' and 'I think he/she may hurt someone even though he/she hasn't threatened anyone'.

That's not probable cause. That's, at best, lead information. Enough to start an investigation, not enough to take enforcement action. Now a detailed and corroborated account of why the person believes that the family member is a threat could change it to reasonable suspicion, perhaps even probable cause.

[olstyn]

Ok. Then are you against a forced psychiatric hold? No crime.

Real world example. Mentally ill paranoid. Believes the mailman is a CIA agent breaking into his house routinely to steal his "manuscripts ". Calls the police himself to report his beliefs. Meets officers at the door with a handgun, pointed at the floor, "in case you were the mailman. "

No crime has taken place. What do you do? Declare innocent until proven guilty and say a nice prayer for the mailman?

The example you put forth seems to me to be both direct, right now evidence that manuscript guy is looney tunes/in need of help *and* a fairly direct, if somewhat obliquely articulated, threat to the mailman. I feel that this is a different enough from "red flag" laws to warrant different treatment. In the event that he can't be persuaded to see a doctor, then forcing him to see one is probably the right call. I realize that I'm drawing somewhat fine distinctions between the two concepts, but from my perspective, at least, they *are* different.

[BehindBlueI's]

The example you put forth seems to me to be both direct, right now evidence that manuscript guy is looney tunes/in need of help *and* a fairly direct, if somewhat obliquely articulated, threat to the mailman. I feel that this is a different enough from "red flag" laws to warrant different treatment. In the event that he can't be persuaded to see a doctor, then forcing him to see one is probably the right call. I realize that I'm drawing somewhat fine distinctions between the two concepts, but from my perspective, at least, they *are* different.

How is it different? It's exactly what the Red Flag type laws *are*. There is probable cause that this guy is going to hurt someone. He's not declared guilty of anything yet, and is therefore legally innocent. He hasn't even committed a crime yet. He hasn't communicated his threat to the mailman, so no Intimidation. Having the gun in his own residence pointed at the floor isn't illegal. Yet common sense says we need a way to legally segregate him from society before he does what everyone who read the passage about what we were confronted with sees the inevitable conclusion of us just shrugging and walking away. If you agree we can force him into confinement at a psych ward based on the above, the removal of his firearms is a lesser intrusion.

Maryland's law that started this:


(A) (1) A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL:
(I) BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
PENALTY OF PERJURY;
(II) INCLUDE ANY INFORMATION KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
THAT THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING
PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY
POSSESSING A FIREARM;
(III) SET FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE
INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN ITEM (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH;
(IV) EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR THE PETITIONER’S KNOWLEDGE OF
THE SUPPORTING FACTS, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE BEHAVIOR AND
STATEMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT LED THE
PETITIONER TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT PRESENTS AN IMMEDIATE AND
PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT OR OTHERS;
(V) DESCRIBE THE NUMBER, TYPES, AND LOCATION OF ANY
KNOWN FIREARMS BELIEVED TO BE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND
(VI) INCLUDE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION
REGARDING:
Ch. 250 2018 LAWS OF MARYLAND
– 30 –
1. ANY UNLAWFUL, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE,
DISPLAY, STORAGE, POSSESSION, OR BRANDISHING OF A FIREARM BY THE
RESPONDENT;
2. ANY ACT OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE THE RESPONDENT
MADE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT OR AGAINST ANOTHER, WHETHER OR NOT THE
THREAT OF VIOLENCE INVOLVED A FIREARM;
3. ANY VIOLATION BY THE RESPONDENT OF A
PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER TITLE 4, SUBTITLE 5 OF THE FAMILY LAW ARTICLE;
4. ANY VIOLATION BY THE RESPONDENT OF A PEACE
ORDER UNDER TITLE 3, SUBTITLE 15 OF THE COURTS ARTICLE; AND
5. ANY ABUSE OF A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS
SUBSTANCE OR ALCOHOL BY THE RESPONDENT, INCLUDING ANY CONVICTION FOR A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE INVOLVING A CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE OR
ALCOHOL.
(2) A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER MAY
INCLUDE, TO THE EXTENT DISCLOSURE IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED, HEALTH
RECORDS OR OTHER HEALTH INFORMATION CONCERNING THE RESPONDENT.
(B) A PETITIONER SEEKING AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER
THIS SUBTITLE MAY FILE A PETITION WITH:
(1) THE DISTRICT COURT; OR
(2) WHEN THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COURT CLERK IS CLOSED, A
DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONER.
(C) (1) ALL COURT RECORDS RELATING TO A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME
RISK PROTECTIVE ORDER MADE UNDER THIS SUBTITLE ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THE
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE DIVULGED, BY SUBPOENA OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT BY ORDER
OF THE COURT ON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.....


So a signed document, under penalty of perjury, that must be approved by a judge and must contain articulated facts as to why the it's an emergency to remove the person's guns? What's the argument against this? Not the strawman arguments of "Sally thinks Billy said Timmy believes Joe is a threat, calls it in, and Joe loses his guns" arguments. It's presented to a judge, so the "there's no due process" argument rings hollow. Other than a jury, what other option is there? The "there's no penalty" argument seems to lose steam in the "under penalty of perjury" that starts the law. So there's lots of arguments against what people *think* the law is, but with the actual law posted help me see the problems.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/Chapters_noln/CH_250_hb1302e.pdf

Here's the house bill that was enacted if you want to read it and know what you're arguing against. Note it's a strike-through copy, so earlier provisions that were proposed but not included are there but struck through. I tried to find a clean copy, but Google kept sending me to news sights, and this is what I found on Maryland's website.

[JRB]

So a signed document, under penalty of perjury, that must be approved by a judge and must contain articulated facts as to why the it's an emergency to remove the person's guns? What's the argument against this? Not the strawman arguments of "Sally thinks Billy said Timmy believes Joe is a threat, calls it in, and Joe loses his guns" arguments. It's presented to a judge, so the "there's no due process" argument rings hollow. Other than a jury, what other option is there? The "there's no penalty" argument seems to lose steam in the "under penalty of perjury" that starts the law. So there's lots of arguments against what people *think* the law is, but with the actual law posted help me see the problems..


Ch. 250 2018 LAWS OF MARYLAND
– 30 –
1. ANY UNLAWFUL, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE,
DISPLAY, STORAGE, POSSESSION, OR BRANDISHING OF A FIREARM BY THE
RESPONDENT;

It is *incredibly* easy to meet this standard to someone who has it out for you. In this case, if the caller so much as even saw the firearm, it is a damn easy exaggeration to say 'he had it out and was waving it around'.
I also don't see the comparisons to the 72hr mental health hold as having any relevance either. You're in and out in 72hrs, incur some legal fees, have a LE detainment on record, the long-term repercussions are different from the guy that spends months (or years) of time and thousands of dollars in legal BS to get his own property back.
What pisses me off about this kind of thinking is that there's this assumption from LE and lawmakers that once someone's released it's all hunky dory and they should be groveling and grateful for that - there is no cognizance or admission that the additional time, paperwork, costs, legal fees, etc expended to get their own property returned to them are singly the fault of a caller with a false report, and that caller has no skin in the game or legal responsibility to make that right.

If anyone can show me even one case where the 'caller' got charged and convicted of perjury for falsely reporting a case like this and I'll concede this point. I thought the glut and lack of prosecution of shit like this was limited to New Mexico but apparently it's a nationwide problem.
But unless those repercussions have teeth and get prosecuted, it's a one-sided bullshit law and there's no reason why a single, biased caller won't exaggerate in any way needed to incur LE response under this law.

[BehindBlueI's]

It is *incredibly* easy to meet this standard to someone who has it out for you. In this case, if the caller so much as even saw the firearm, it is a damn easy exaggeration to say 'he had it out and was waving it around'.

It's equally easy to say they pointed it at you. Or demanded your wallet. Where's that leave us? No laws against pointing a firearm and robbery because someone might abuse it? Almost like you can't have a useful tool that works well in the vast majority of circumstances because someone somewhere might abuse it. I'm sure you see the parallel.



I also don't see the comparisons to the 72hr mental health hold as having any relevance either. You're in and out in 72hrs, incur some legal fees, have a LE detainment on record...

That's actually not how it works. The 72 hour hold is to give the mental health and legal systems time to evaluate you and decide if you should be held long term. It's the exact same thing as once I arrest someone I have 72 hours to officially charge them. It's not 72 hours and you're out, it's 72 hours and a decision must be made. If you go there and present as violently mentally ill, there's no countdown until they have to let you out to do your mayhem. A 72 hour hold could be the precursor for an indefinite detention, just like a 72 hour hold for charging could lead to life in prison.

[CG12]

Anne Arundel County Chief of Police Altomare recently stated that his officers seized 33 weapons since the law went into effect, and that 114 ERPOs have been served in MD. In fact, their program is going so swimmingly that the department is building new storage facilities to handle the increase in siezed firearms!

[shane45]

And just an adder for where things go. In NJ when any firearm is seized ALL AMMO is seized as well. No big deal right? Well, they dont return ammo.! For those of us that are competitive shooters, this could easily represent big money going POOF!.... Many I know are sitting on 3 or 4 k$ of ammo easily.

[blues]

And just an adder for where things go. In NJ when any firearm is seized ALL AMMO is seized as well. No big deal right? Well, they dont return ammo.! For those of us that are competitive shooters, this could easily represent big money going POOF!.... Many I know are sitting on 3 or 4 k$ of ammo easily.

Yet another reason to flee.

[BehindBlueI's]

And just an adder for where things go. In NJ when any firearm is seized ALL AMMO is seized as well. No big deal right? Well, they dont return ammo.! For those of us that are competitive shooters, this could easily represent big money going POOF!.... Many I know are sitting on 3 or 4 k$ of ammo easily.

A lawsuit ended that practice here years ago. If the guns are returned, the ammo must be as well.

[AMC]

Any law that can impact a person's liberty can be abused. FRO' sought under penalty of perjury do give folks seeking them "skin in the game". Yes, that is dependent on the local prosecutor being willing to enforce that, but that's true of any false allegations of criminal action, isn't it?

I understand folks being concerned for the potential abuse of these laws in certain areas, and I agree that due process must be protected. Everyone here would probably agree that mental illness of some type has played a role in many mass shootings, more so than "easy availability of firearms"....so what do we do?

Another real world example. Paranoid schizophrenic army vet with huge gun collection and 40,000 rounds of ammo believes neighbors are monitoring him electronically through the walls and threatens them. His family calls police repeatedly, worried that he will harm his parents who he lives with. We all knew where this was headed, and took appropriate action and alerted mental health authorities to our concerns. It ended exactly where we knew it would...a homicide, 24 hour standoff, and suicide attempt. We need to do better. How do others suggest we proceed?

[blues]

It ended exactly where we knew it would...a homicide, 24 hour standoff, and suicide attempt. We need to do better. How do others suggest we proceed?

The billion dollar question.

[Mjolnir]

It’s saddening the number who will defend violation after violation of the Constitution & Bill of Rights...

All of the “what ifs” not withstanding, due process is what it is.

Any who cannot quite comprehend how Nations fall... need look no further than this thread.

“But... but... it could be your (fill-in-blank).”

Does
Not
Matter

Please stop “pardoning” this kind of crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shane45]

The biggest obstacle in all of this is good judgement is a thing of the past replaced with risk averse decision making.

[JRB]

It's equally easy to say they pointed it at you. Or demanded your wallet. Where's that leave us? No laws against pointing a firearm and robbery because someone might abuse it? Almost like you can't have a useful tool that works well in the vast majority of circumstances because someone somewhere might abuse it. I'm sure you see the parallel.

The issue is that it is not parallel. Filing a false report of a crime that never happened is significantly different than 'airing my concerns about his health'. It is seen by society differently, it is seen by prosecution and the legal system differently, it is a totally different thing.
There is no excuse for filing a false report/call etc about assault with a deadly weapon - the 'red flag' holds can easily be backpedaled with a 'I was just concerned about him'. It circles back to the accountability/skin in the game issue I'm talking about. There is no inherent cultural/moral qualms about exaggerating or overstating that kind of report nor is there any legal ramifications, at least, none that will ever go to trial or not be saved by the 'I was just concerned for his well-being and my community's safety' excuse.

Ultimately the problem is that once the call is made there's no method to un-fuck that situation on the spot. No surveillance video from your own home can save you, no testimony from other people in the household can save you - it's a *crimeless* he-said-she-said that doesn't give the 'he' a chance to say anything until they're already deprived of property and tossed into the clusterfuck of the existing legal system.


That's actually not how it works. The 72 hour hold is to give the mental health and legal systems time to evaluate you and decide if you should be held long term. It's the exact same thing as once I arrest someone I have 72 hours to officially charge them. It's not 72 hours and you're out, it's 72 hours and a decision must be made. If you go there and present as violently mentally ill, there's no countdown until they have to let you out to do your mayhem. A 72 hour hold could be the precursor for an indefinite detention, just like a 72 hour hold for charging could lead to life in prison.

Thanks for clearing that up - unfortunately that only seems worse for anyone finding themselves 'red flagged', especially if local DA/LE elements are known to be deliberately ruthless to gun owners.



A lawsuit ended that practice here years ago. If the guns are returned, the ammo must be as well.

That's all well and good - but there's no accountability for condition, either. A local C&R FFL was raided by a shitload of LE and ATF in my area a few years ago over suspicion of illegally smuggling in old C&R guns to avoid import markings, IIRC. After they couldn't find anything to actually stick him with, they returned his very diverse C&R collection with very deliberately broken buttstocks, missing bolts/parts, etc and other obvious impact damage to almost his entire collection of very valuable guns. What's to stop any other LE organizations from doing the same on these red-flag calls?


Any law that can impact a person's liberty can be abused. FRO' sought under penalty of perjury do give folks seeking them "skin in the game". Yes, that is dependent on the local prosecutor being willing to enforce that, but that's true of any false allegations of criminal action, isn't it?

I understand folks being concerned for the potential abuse of these laws in certain areas, and I agree that due process must be protected. Everyone here would probably agree that mental illness of some type has played a role in many mass shootings, more so than "easy availability of firearms"....so what do we do?

Another real world example. Paranoid schizophrenic army vet with huge gun collection and 40,000 rounds of ammo believes neighbors are monitoring him electronically through the walls and threatens them. His family calls police repeatedly, worried that he will harm his parents who he lives with. We all knew where this was headed, and took appropriate action and alerted mental health authorities to our concerns. It ended exactly where we knew it would...a homicide, 24 hour standoff, and suicide attempt. We need to do better. How do others suggest we proceed?

In these cases, the 'I agree that due process must be protected' sounds a lot like the 'I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but nobody needs an AR-15' kinds of statements. Either there's due process where someone can state their side of it and have it heard BEFORE significant consequences such as confiscation of property... or there is NOT due process. I know that is not how the current legal system works, and that IMHO needs to be fixed instead of being broken further with 'red flag' laws like this.

Paranoid Schizophrenic is a clinical diagnosis and if he had been diagnosed with that, he should already have been a prohibited person. If the symptoms were that severe he likely should have been in the VA for inpatient mental health care, and it sucks that nobody could get him there. It's a damn shame his parents called LE to 'fix everything' instead of calling the VA, a psychologist, or hell his war buddies to come talk to him.
I repeatedly tell this to my Soldiers and their families every chance I can - don't call the Police unless you need someone cited, arrested, or shot. If it's a problem that isn't fixed with those, then call the VA, call a suicide hotline, call their psychologist, call friends/family to talk them down, call anybody but the Police unless there's imminent and immediate danger to someone else.
It has worked and that same advice managed to avoid LE interaction on a close call we had about a year ago with a Soldier in my unit, who got the help he needed safely without making everything worse with uniformed LE pointing guns at him.

The problem is that too many people just fall to pieces, panic, and call 911 without thinking about the ramifications - and expect LE to be magically able to fix everything.

[AMC]

A doctor making a diagnosis does not automatically render a person 'prohibited' if it's not communicated. This individual had received treatment, including at the VA, and including a 72 hr Hold by local LE....twice. A 72 hr Hold is 'up to' 72 hrs....it usually ends up being much less than 24 hrs. In fact his guns were seized as part of the 72 hr Hold....just not apparently all of them. The issue is bigger than these FROs can fix, too. It is too difficult to force OBVIOUSLY UNSTABLE AND DANGEROUS people into involuntary treatment, and that need to change. I also agree with the need to protect the rights of the mentally ill, but how is it protecting their rights to allow them to dive further into madness and squalor?

[Yung]

Not long ago I heard Alan Korwin and Maj Toure both point out that red flag laws threaten a gun owner's 1A right just as much as their 2A right, if not more so.

[GuanoLoco]

There’s an awful lot of trust in the reasonableness of the system and processes being cited.

Then again, reasonable people hve a lot of good reasons to NOT trust the system, trebly so in geographies where the political leaders have an anti-2A axe to grind.

I’m not really the trusting type in this regard. If a system can be abused, it will be abused - both by acusers and those in positions of authority whio have an agenda.

To be honest, I’d rather take my chances with the nut cases than abuses of the system. An individual has a better chance of defending one’s self against the former.

[Mjolnir]

There’s an awful lot of trust in the reasonableness of the system and processes being cited.

Then again, reasonable people hve a lot of good reasons to NOT trust the system, trebly so in geographies where the political leaders have an anti-2A axe to grind.

I’m not really the trusting type in this regard. If a system can be abused, it will be abused - both by acusers and those in positions of authority whio have an agenda.

To be honest, I’d rather take my chances with the nut cases than abuses of the system. An individual has a better chance of defending one’s self against the former.

Now THIS... is a reasonable post.

Spoken like a TRUE American.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fixer]

The whole red flag thing is an incredibly sharp double edged sword, but I’m certain neither side will ever abuse it. And I’m sure there are stiff penalties for making false claims that will deter folks from lying or some stuff like that.

I’m not very partial to the whole idea that one side gets to make a claim and someone’s rights are stripped away. It seem like there might be something fishy about that. Kind of like needing to prove innocence or something.

However, given the absolute lack of a mental health system in the USA that can adequately deal with the crazies we seem to have running about, I’m not sure how to better address the issue in the short term. It seems incredibly retarded to dump mental health issues on LEO. Cause IMO by that time things have gotten out of hand. It would be nicer if there were ways and places that could help folks with their mental issues before they escalate to the point of needing LEO intervention. Maybe even if folks took an interest earlier in the process... But hey, what do I know.

I have yet to see the final version of the proposed TX, so I can’t comment on whether I like it. I would hope these laws have due process protections built in that don’t require further costly legal action to get property back after being shown to be innocent (memories of asset forfeitures and cash seizure of years past). I’d also like to see measures that a falsely accused person can take against their accusers to recoup any $$ and generate some punitive measures against false claims.

Almost word for word this is where I'm at.

This legislation looks almost certain either state or federal. I think the issues you mention need to be seriously considered.

Not to be glib or flippant but considering the absolute idiocy being elected; considering the clown show-meets-dumpster-fire politicians and congress we currently have; considering the insanely partisan environment we live in--there is absolutely no way one can ensure these red flag or erpos are going to be applied fairly. And if the results are not what was desired, the law will be expanded--your neighbor, your co worker, an online poster...can trigger one of these. Soon enough the language you use, deemed hate speech, or gender biased, will be used to adjudicate you as a mental defective not able to be trusted with weapons. This legislation has a huge potential for bias.


So the intent of the laws are sound. There needs to be, as you mention, the due process and I'd argue extreme countermeasures for false accusations.

[Crazy Dane]

I have ridden both sides this double edge all the way to the pointy tip. Way back when the ex kicked me out her lawyer talked her into doing a 50B, a protection order. When the local sheriffs deputy came to serve that order I was required to surrender any firearm or go to jail. Since I didn't want to ride any where with him I gave up my guns. As soon as he left I went straight to a lawyer who was able to build a case against her and poke that 50b full of holes, yes it did cost me $1200. We had the hearing 3 weeks later at 10:00 am, by 3:00 pm I had all of my guns back in my possession with an apology from the sheriff. The take away here is that it is easy to debunk false claims especially if you are smart and don't make any reason to doubt other wise.


A few years ago dad started to get sick with dementia and was ok right up till the point he wasn't. Almost over night the paranoia kicked in and everyone was trying to steal from him. No amount of talking on my side could get through to him. I talked with DSS and they sent some one out and he would not let them in and dad still had enough wits to fool them into thinking I was over reacting. The Sheriffs department went out talked with him and found no reasons to do anything but they did not go in to his house. He finally took a shot at my uncle and I was able to get an involuntary commitment done. The doctors ended up sending him to a short term mental hospital and I was able to get all of his guns while he was there. From there we got him in an assisted living facility which in short order he manipulated a VA doctor that he had never seen before in to letting him go back home. When he left his health and living conditions continued to spiral out of control and I was working with DSS and other agencies to get him help. It took almost another year to get him the help he needed. He is in a locked memory care unit now and I am the devil. In the long term, a judge finally ruled him incompetent and gave the officially order to get his guns. During that time I had committed a felony by stealing his guns and if I didn't have a couple of good Sheriffs on my side I would have went to jail. He was reporting to them that I had stole his guns amongst other things. When I went to get his guns, I found that he had 3 pistols loaded and placed for a quick easy grab. He had 2 shotguns and 3 rifles standing around the kitchen door, 2 of the rifles had spent brass in the chamber. Who did he shoot at besides my uncle? He had another shot gun and rifle in the bathroom, loaded. This is the reason that the red flag laws are being written and if I had the ability to use that, I would have and would have been better off for doing it.

[NETim]

Almost word for word this is where I'm at.

This legislation looks almost certain either state or federal. I think the issues you mention need to be seriously considered.

Not to be glib or flippant but considering the absolute idiocy being elected; considering the clown show-meets-dumpster-fire politicians and congress we currently have; considering the insanely partisan environment we live in--there is absolutely no way one can ensure these red flag or erpos are going to be applied fairly. And if the results are not what was desired, the law will be expanded--your neighbor, your co worker, an online poster...can trigger one of these. Soon enough the language you use, deemed hate speech, or gender biased, will be used to adjudicate you as a mental defective not able to be trusted with weapons. This legislation has a huge potential for bias.


So the intent of the laws are sound. There needs to be, as you mention, the due process and I'd argue extreme countermeasures for false accusations.

I'd want the ability to financially destroy any who launch false accusations. Red flag laws have the potential to be massively abused. There has to be built in deterrence for those making accusations with malicious intent.

[Old Man Winter]

I have ridden both sides this double edge all the way to the pointy tip. Way back when the ex kicked me out her lawyer talked her into doing a 50B, a protection order. When the local sheriffs deputy came to serve that order I was required to surrender any firearm or go to jail. Since I didn't want to ride any where with him I gave up my guns. As soon as he left I went straight to a lawyer who was able to build a case against her and poke that 50b full of holes, yes it did cost me $1200. We had the hearing 3 weeks later at 10:00 am, by 3:00 pm I had all of my guns back in my possession with an apology from the sheriff. The take away here is that it is easy to debunk false claims especially if you are smart and don't make any reason to doubt other wise.

How's that go if you weren't in a position to retain a lawyer for $1200?

[fwrun]

I'd want the ability to financially destroy any who launch false accusations. Red flag laws have the potential to be massively abused. There has to be built in deterrence for those making accusations with malicious intent.

That’s assuming they have finances to destroy. I’m certain there will be some kind of “good faith” protection sewn in.

[Borderland]

Here's the WA ERPO law if anyone is interested. I think I read somewhere that it's been used seven times already in about 2 years. There is a penalty for using it maliciously without cause. Gross misdemeanor I believe.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94

We're all gun control happy here.:( Our dumbshit governor thinks he has a chance to become president. That right there tells me he doesn't have both oars in the water.

[Mystery]

Situation can escalate and people get killed.
Whether it's a simple traffic stop, drunk family member, mentally ill, violent robbery or in this case, red flag alert, when things escalate with one party (sometimes both) always armed with a firearm, bad things happen.
Doesn't matter what the call was for.

[Zincwarrior]

I'd want the ability to financially destroy any who launch false accusations. Red flag laws have the potential to be massively abused. There has to be built in deterrence for those making accusations with malicious intent.

At the same time, arguments can't be made that we need to focus on healthcare if laws designed to remove firearms from people who need healthcare are then attacked. Can't have it both ways.

[Duke]

My mortgage rate was based on what I’ve done....not what I may do or have the ability to do.


Everyone feels as though they are on the right side of any given issue. Yet no matter how thin you cut a steak it still has 2 sides.

There is no world in which red flag laws won’t be abused to one degree or another. Think the meth planting cop thing a while back.


I’m sure all this has been said in this thread. Mainly typing a few semi coherent thoughts to mold into a letter to my state reps.

[Crazy Dane]

How's that go if you weren't in a position to retain a lawyer for $1200?


It would have been harder if I had to do it own my own. I had the proof that I didn't do what she said I did, just didn't know how to lay it all out. it would have been impossible if I had went to jail.

[Totem Polar]

It would have been harder if I had to do it own my own. I had the proof that I didn't do what she said I did, just didn't know how to lay it all out. it would have been impossible if I had went to jail.

This gets into another area of self-defense that everyone needs to be folding into their fastcoin/grappling/tacmed/MUC game: financial fitness and, especially, the art of documenting everything. I admit that the financial thing can be a crapshoot; you play your hand the best you can. But learning how to save and file hardcopy of comms; use a journal, etc... that can be solid purple/brown belt level shit, right there.

Tangential, but, I have survived moderately contentious meetings with deans and provosts—as an adjunct—simply by being able to remain pleasant, and reach into an obviously thick, packed, and indexed file for just the right email printout or meeting minutes to counter all suck being run across the desk. Documentation is king; spoken words would be called farts if they came out the other end.

The result of one meeting was my area being given several thousand dollars out of nowhere—probably to keep me fat, happy, and out of the dude’s office with those 300 page file folders. Never had to say a word myself, besides thanking him for his time and recommending some cool restaurants.

Documentation: it’s what’s for dinner, right after you’ve practiced your AIWB draw or hip escapes. JMO.

[HCM]

I'd want the ability to financially destroy any who launch false accusations. Red flag laws have the potential to be massively abused. There has to be built in deterrence for those making accusations with malicious intent.


That’s assuming they have finances to destroy. I’m certain there will be some kind of “good faith” protection sewn in.

Whether there is formal “good faith” protection built in or not, based on what I have seen with false, 911 calls, police reports, internal affairs complaints, restraining orders etc 99 times out of 100 nothing happens to those marking false reports, even knowing and intentional false reports because punishing these assholes would have a “chilling effect.”

Prosecutions for perjury and false report in such circumstances are EXTREMLY rare.

[Borderland]

This gets into another area of self-defense that everyone needs to be folding into their fastcoin/grappling/tacmed/MUC game: financial fitness and, especially, the art of documenting everything. I admit that the financial thing can be a crapshoot; you play your hand the best you can. But learning how to save and file hardcopy of comms; use a journal, etc... that can be solid purple/brown belt level shit, right there.

Tangential, but, I have survived moderately contentious meetings with deans and provosts—as an adjunct—simply by being able to remain pleasant, and reach into an obviously thick, packed, and indexed file for just the right email printout or meeting minutes to counter all suck being run across the desk. Documentation is king; spoken words would be called farts if they came out the other end.

The result of one meeting was my area being given several thousand dollars out of nowhere—probably to keep me fat, happy, and out of the dude’s office with those 300 page file folders. Never had to say a word myself, besides thanking him for his time and recommending some cool restaurants.

Documentation: it’s what’s for dinner, right after you’ve practiced your AIWB draw or hip escapes. JMO.

Yep, I was a union shop steward for awhile. Documented the shit out of every written communication from management. I even kept a private email account that I cc'd the text to. Came in pretty handy a few times when their memories suddenly failed them. I was quite surprised how some people's memories are bad beyond belief.

[Totem Polar]

...I even kept a private email account that I cc'd the text to. Came in pretty handy a few times when their memories suddenly failed them.

Yup. Solid blue belt chops, right there.

I’ve seen management cook the books on meeting minutes posted internally. Keep original copies *somewhere* you can control.

[Totem Polar]

Whether there is formal “good faith” protection built in or not, based on what I have seen with false, 911 calls, police reports, internal affairs complaints, restraining orders etc 99 times out of 100 nothing happens to those marking false reports, even knowing and intentional false reports because punishing these assholes would have a “chilling effect.”

Prosecutions for perjury and false report in such circumstances are EXTREMLY rare.

I liked your post, but not because I like it, if you get my drift.
;)

[HCountyGuy]

This gets into another area of self-defense that everyone needs to be folding into their fastcoin/grappling/tacmed/MUC game: financial fitness and, especially, the art of documenting everything. I admit that the financial thing can be a crapshoot; you play your hand the best you can. But learning how to save and file hardcopy of comms; use a journal, etc... that can be solid purple/brown belt level shit, right there.

Tangential, but, I have survived moderately contentious meetings with deans and provosts—as an adjunct—simply by being able to remain pleasant, and reach into an obviously thick, packed, and indexed file for just the right email printout or meeting minutes to counter all suck being run across the desk. Documentation is king; spoken words would be called farts if they came out the other end.

The result of one meeting was my area being given several thousand dollars out of nowhere—probably to keep me fat, happy, and out of the dude’s office with those 300 page file folders. Never had to say a word myself, besides thanking him for his time and recommending some cool restaurants.

Documentation: it’s what’s for dinner, right after you’ve practiced your AIWB draw or hip escapes. JMO.

Solid advice right there, and was presented unto me many years ago and repeated.

“Write stuff down! If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen.”

[Zincwarrior]

My mortgage rate was based on what I’ve done....not what I may do or have the ability to do.


Everyone feels as though they are on the right side of any given issue. Yet no matter how thin you cut a steak it still has 2 sides.

There is no world in which red flag laws won’t be abused to one degree or another. Think the meth planting cop thing a while back.


I’m sure all this has been said in this thread. Mainly typing a few semi coherent thoughts to mold into a letter to my state reps.

No, your mortgage rate was based on cost of funds and a margin representing the maximum the financial entity felt it could charge at a specific loan to value. You were not really a factor. :cool:

[Duke]

No, your mortgage rate was based on cost of funds and a margin representing the maximum the financial entity felt it could charge at a specific loan to value. You were not really a factor. :cool:


Yea I know. Was just reaching for a history vs future example

[HCM]

I liked your post, but not because I like it, if you get my drift.
;)

Because #TRUTH (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=TRUTH) ?

[Totem Polar]

Because #TRUTH (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=TRUTH) ?

Pretty much.

Solid post; lame reality.

[Trukinjp13]

https://gunowners.org/action-alert-your-senators-need-to-hear-from-you/

Link to email the senators. GOA is fighting this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Apparently other conservative groups are fighting this as well. Alan Dershowitz has also come out against it, pleasantly surprising me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Apparently other conservative groups are fighting this as well. Alan Dershowitz has also come out against it, pleasantly surprising me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dershowitz may be a liberal but he takes the Constitution seriously. I respect his willingness to not let partisanship sway his allegiance.

[Trukinjp13]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190809/b04eb47b0c75f4ff3533a10a34918251.jpg

Ron Paul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mjolnir]

I have ridden both sides this double edge all the way to the pointy tip. Way back when the ex kicked me out her lawyer talked her into doing a 50B, a protection order. When the local sheriffs deputy came to serve that order I was required to surrender any firearm or go to jail. Since I didn't want to ride any where with him I gave up my guns. As soon as he left I went straight to a lawyer who was able to build a case against her and poke that 50b full of holes, yes it did cost me $1200. We had the hearing 3 weeks later at 10:00 am, by 3:00 pm I had all of my guns back in my possession with an apology from the sheriff. The take away here is that it is easy to debunk false claims especially if you are smart and don't make any reason to doubt other wise.


A few years ago dad started to get sick with dementia and was ok right up till the point he wasn't. Almost over night the paranoia kicked in and everyone was trying to steal from him. No amount of talking on my side could get through to him. I talked with DSS and they sent some one out and he would not let them in and dad still had enough wits to fool them into thinking I was over reacting. The Sheriffs department went out talked with him and found no reasons to do anything but they did not go in to his house. He finally took a shot at my uncle and I was able to get an involuntary commitment done. The doctors ended up sending him to a short term mental hospital and I was able to get all of his guns while he was there. From there we got him in an assisted living facility which in short order he manipulated a VA doctor that he had never seen before in to letting him go back home. When he left his health and living conditions continued to spiral out of control and I was working with DSS and other agencies to get him help. It took almost another year to get him the help he needed. He is in a locked memory care unit now and I am the devil. In the long term, a judge finally ruled him incompetent and gave the officially order to get his guns. During that time I had committed a felony by stealing his guns and if I didn't have a couple of good Sheriffs on my side I would have went to jail. He was reporting to them that I had stole his guns amongst other things. When I went to get his guns, I found that he had 3 pistols loaded and placed for a quick easy grab. He had 2 shotguns and 3 rifles standing around the kitchen door, 2 of the rifles had spent brass in the chamber. Who did he shoot at besides my uncle? He had another shot gun and rifle in the bathroom, loaded. This is the reason that the red flag laws are being written and if I had the ability to use that, I would have and would have been better off for doing it.

Similar to my father.

I first removed the firing pins and took possession of the ammo. Put some snap caps in the mag of his pistol.

Moved them into my safe as it was more secure.

Took them to him unannounced on occasion just to let him know that they were being cared for.

He’s at a point now that he cannot express any recollection of them.

Man, it hurts seeing a loved one going through that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

...snip...



No. Just no.

We already did this.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?36820-H-R-838-TAPS-act-is-Precrime-becoming-a-reality