Red Flag laws, and how are they enforced?

I've had LEOs knock on my door 3 times late at night. I live in a two story house and what I do is open the window of my bedroom and call down to whomever's at the door. I ask them to step back a little and identify themselves. They've always complied.

Fortunately they've never been there to serve a warrant, which might have made a difference.

Mosin Bubba said:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What part of this are the antis not getting?

Click to expand...

Isn't obtaining a search warrant, part of due process? Police get evidence, present to a judge and request a search warrant.

Clean97GTI said:

Isn't obtaining a search warrant, part of due process? Police get evidence, present to a judge and request a search warrant.

Click to expand...

Oh that pesky thing, the Constitution. They just pass whatever laws they want, it's for the children you know, and so it's not really "due process". It is a "process". After all, many now think the Constitution, like The Pirate Code, is more like guidelines than actual rules. (tell me you didn't say that last line with a pirate accent, huh?)

alfsauve said:

Oh that pesky thing, the Constitution. They just pass whatever laws they want, it's for the children you know, and so it's not really "due process". It is a "process". After all, many now think the Constitution, like The Pirate Code, is more like guidelines than actual rules. (tell me you didn't say that last line with a pirate accent, huh?)

Click to expand...

The requirement that a warrant accompany a search comes from that pesky constitution.
It's in the very amendment some in this thread are claiming is violated by cops getting warrants to collect a gun from a specific person.

shafter said:

The door to door confiscations as many envision won't happen. They wouldn't need to do it that way. Pass laws making it a felony with serious penalties to possess whatever type of firearm they want banned. Most gun owners would turn them in rather than risk getting caught in possession. Sure, some people would hide them, but a hidden firearm serves no purpose and by this time the number of gun owners would have dwindled seriously. With the way things are going, by the time another generation or two comes along they'll be able to pass whatever they want.

Click to expand...

Sad to say, I agree with you.

Clean97GTI said:

The requirement that a warrant accompany a search comes from that pesky constitution.
It's in the very amendment some in this thread are claiming is violated by cops getting warrants to collect a gun from a specific person.

Click to expand...

I think the dispute is that said warrants are being issued without "due process". No charges are being filed for wrong doing, no crime has been committed, and the accused does not get to argue their side or face their accuser.

entropy said:

As I've explained in several threads on confiscation, any attempt at 'door to door' confiscation not involving anther countries' armed forces will not happen in the US, at least in our lifetimes.

Click to expand...

It's already happened on a local level, in New Orleans, after Katrina. Baby steps say the next is on a statewide level, and finally, nationally. Somewhere in there, things will likely explode in violence, and I for one hope I'm not here to fight in it, or even just say, "I told you so."

SCMikeyP said:

Sad to say, I agree with you.

Click to expand...

I think less than 100 were surrendered in NZ. I wouldn't surrender mine, would you? My sample set says few to none would comply, so far, unless you want to expand my data and sign up to hand yours over.

sequins said:

I think less than 100 were surrendered in NZ. I wouldn't surrender mine, would you? My sample set says few to none would comply, so far, unless you want to expand my data and sign up to hand yours over.

Click to expand...

I have no data, just my opinion.

My main concern isn't this generation of gun owners, but the effect a restrictive ban would have on dwindling future gun ownership numbers.

If possessing a certain type of firearm was a crime, some undetermined amount of casual gun owners would turn them in. Others would hide it, which doesn't do much for overall situation. Once it's banned, gun stores won't stock it and ranges won't allow. Naturally, younger generations would be less interested in them due to the lack familiarity. How many 25 years olds are upset that they can't own full automatics? Very few, they are desensitized and unfamiliar with them. The same process would work for semi automatics if we couldn't fight and win it through the courts. I don't buy an uprising and hiding them won't change laws.

I admit, it's a bleak outlook and I wish my hope for future generations and the 2A were brighter.

Stevie-Ray said:

It's already happened on a local level, in New Orleans, after Katrina. Baby steps say the next is on a statewide level, and finally, nationally. Somewhere in there, things will likely explode in violence, and I for one hope I'm not here to fight in it, or even just say, "I told you so."

Click to expand...

It was a dismal fail, and some States actually enacted legislation expressly forbidding such in the case of natural disasters, etc. It pretty much also put the kibosh on the use of mercs, er, contractors within the US after word of some of Blackwater's actions.

They won't argue that due process is required, they'll just redefine the technicalities of what due process means.

They are coming at the individual level, and they are coming at the macro level too. They will be putting a variety of helper laws from universal registration/background checks, and banning private transfers, and many other things to reduce how many firearms they do not know about and making any method of obtaining or owning guns they do not know about illegal. Various states have started to even outlaw making your own firearm off the books, 'ghost guns' they have been termed, even though it was an American tradition since our founding.


Red flag laws remove your RKBA. You have no right to keep, and no right to bear those arms, and they can be seized easier than most other property under red flag laws.
The only property the government is specifically forbidden from infringing on beyond a generality has become the easiest of all property to take away from you.
Whether temporarily or permanently. It is also the only property you can become forbidden from owning for life for an increasing number of offenses. Originally being serious felonies we would recognize as violent crime and over time including an increasing number of offenses that were not violent and later even misdemeanors and now even easier than that. How far we have fallen just since 1968.
California even made a special task force for checking up on anyone that becomes prohibited and confiscating their firearms as they look to add new things to prohibit an increasing number of people. Registration of firearms is what makes this possible.

If I wanted to think of some precedent a court would use for taking guns from people even before a crime, the closest I could think of would be asset forfeiture laws they started using in the 1980s War on Drugs. In case you are unaware, at the federal level and in many states you do not need to be convicted of anything for the government to seize and take permanent possession of property they say meets certain criteria under those laws, and then it is up to you to prove you are not guilty to even have a shot at an uphill battle to get it back. Guilty unless you prove yourself innocent, and they win by default. So they have been accustomed to and doing what would amount to unlawful taking under the Constitution for a good part of their budget for some decades now.
Most of society just did not take notice because like all of the laws that eventually ruin the lives of everyone, they start out targeting people we all agree are bad news.
In California they just greatly reduced asset forfeiture by requiring a conviction in 2016, and also added a law even more recently to prevent local law enforcement from helping the feds and splitting the profits like they started doing to get around the initial law requiring a conviction. Because at the federal level they still require no conviction to permanently take people's property. One of the few things California has done right in recent times.
Imagine that, needing to convict people to even punish them, clearly it never should have been Constitutional to start..
So make no mistake the government actually has decades of experience of just taking peoples' things. Most simply chose to think the end justified the means and ignore it, it was targeting mainly drug dealers after all.

A better term for these laws might be Red Coat laws.
I seem to recall the redcoats wanting to take by force some colonist arms to prevent them from causing trouble they had yet to cause starting the revolution that started our nation.
If they need to destroy the 4th, 5th, or various other Amendments to remove the 2nd they will. All while they will claim to be preserving and working within the framework of them all.

But really you cannot blame them. The Democrat method of taking over the nation is to give the nation to a foreign population, as was done with California in just a few decades. They know the second and often third generation descendants of poor immigrants vote for the handout party that promises not to enforce immigration. Even though half the reason they need a handout is by letting in so many people the cost of living has skyrocketed to require subsidies for poor people to even pay their bills in the states they let foreigners flood in by the millions. All while in just a few decades the demographics have changed from the populations that made up and built America to primarily those of new arrivals they are turning our nation over too. We are one of the easiest nations to invade and conquer. You just don't put on a uniform and use weapons as our military would crush you, instead you put on civilian clothes and come in unarmed by the millions and demand better treatment. But after giving huge swathes of the nation to a foreign culture, while promoting and encouraging negative subcultures as cultural heritage, they don't really trust them with arms, while not wanting those opposed to them armed either. Like children or wealth producing livestock that must be taken care of, and not allowed freedoms they could get hurt with or determine their own fate with.