"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...s-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/IM...es/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?