"Red Flag" laws..?

[Shanghai McCoy]

I have been seeing some references to Florida's new red flag law and was wondering if this could be a trend nation wide? Anyone know the details and how this works?

 

[Tommygunn]

Details probably vary from state to state, but, basically, if a family member, or leo, has a reason to believe a gun owner is disturbed, or violent , or could be in a very bad place emotionally, the police or sheriff can confiscate the person's guns, atleast temporarily.
It seems to allow this without a court hearing or court order ..... leaving the dispossessed gun owner little chance to contest the action.
Details about returning the guns .... I confess to be unsure about. Others will have to chime in.

 

[GBExpat]

From what little I have read about it, Tommygunn appears to have covered major points.

For someone subject to one of these "secret" orders, their first notification may very well be the early-morning knock on the door by a team of police officers. IMO, not a good situation for either the person or the officers.

I have not read anything about it becoming a possible nation-wide trend, but it involves personal firearms ownership, so ...

 

[AlexanderA]

These "red flag" laws have the potential of being extremely dangerous for gun ownership. The danger is not just in the gun owner himself being the target of a "red flag" complaint, but also in any member of his household, such as a spouse or child, being the target. The guns could be taken if it's alleged that the household member had access to the guns. So you would literally be at the mercy of an unstable family member, and the people who might come into contact with that person.

This broadens the universe of "disqualified people" exponentially. I'm convinced that this is not just an unintended consequence, but was carefully thought through by the antigunners. They are becoming fiendishly clever. Something that seems "reasonable" on its surface really isn't.

 

[lemaymiami]

From what I've read they're an attempt to prevent a tragedy that more than one family member or emergency type saw coming - and you have to admit we've had more than our share of incidents in recent years where violence was fairly predictable but nothing was done until after the bodies began to fall...

These kind of laws will undoubtedly rub up against the right to own firearms - and will, of course, end up getting manipulated by folks involved in bad domestic situations that want to use the weight of the law to achieve favorable results for their side (as a cop I dealt with more than one wife who claimed molestation of their small children by the husband -at the encouragement of their lawyers...and I was pretty sure I was being lied to). This kind of law might turn out to be a good thing - but it will always be controversial....

If I were participating in the drafting of this kind of law I'd want clear cut requirements for a court hearing within one week of any firearms confiscation so that the targeted individual can have an opportunity to rebut any allegations that formed the basis for the emergency action...

Here in Florida officers are authorized to seize any weapons involved in a disturbance - and the weapon owners have to get a court order to recover them... I always advised my officers to do just that if there was the slightest chance that the dispute or disturbance would get worse if the guns were allowed to remain on the scene... Each state handles that sort of stuff differently I suppose.

I'll be glad to read what wiser heads have to say about this...

 

[kmw1954]

How many times have the police been called for a domestic dispute that never happened and only called because a spouse wanted the other removed from the house because the marriage is on the rocks. I know of 2 incidents were that was the case, false accusation to achieve an end. In one case the guy had to hire an attorney to recover his guns after he moved out. Cost him a lot of money. After the divorce she admitted to my wife that it never happened but the incident was used in court to restrict child visitations.

Sorry but as well meaning as these laws are they also scare the hell out of me because of these incidents. The potential for abuse is truly present.

 

[SilentStalker]

I have been seeing some references to Florida's new red flag law and was wondering if this could be a trend nation wide? Anyone know the details and how this works?

Yes. It’s the new strategy. Coming to a state near you. We got to start standing up to this crap!

 

[P5 Guy]

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...der-guns-months-after-new-gun-law-took-effect

Yes it is happening.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

So from reading the above article it sounds as if there is due process and an appeals process. At least in Florida.

 

[SilentStalker]

So from reading the above article it sounds as if there is due process and an appeals process. At least in Florida.

Yeah, there is, after you’ve had your rights taken from you and then have to spend all of your hard earned cash to get your rights restored. After all of that you’d be lucky to get all your stuff back in one piece. It’s not right.

Let’s look at it from a different perspective. How do you think the government would feel if I gathered a large group and commandeered some fighter jets, some tanks, armored vehicles and a slough of other stuff just because I’m afraid that they might use it on civilians? How do you think that would go. It’s basically theft made legal on a large scale. It’s wrong.

When the gov can do this then the rule of law is out the window imo. What happened to innocent before proven guilty. Just because you think someone may do something doesn’t mean they will. We are getting closer to minority report everyday and it’s downright scary!

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

^^^
I don't think it is right. What I do think is that they are making it look "legal", but that don't make it "Right"...

 

[CapnMac]

Found this to be scary within the linked article:

Parris thinks the law needs to be narrowed down to only people with proof of gun ownership or those who have histories of attempting to purchase one.

And, just how are people to be identified as gun owners? Dare I use the "R" word?

The article mentions, if briefly, that the time scale for the immediacy of the threat is entirely vague.

The fact that, apparently, this order has been served upon non-owners probably deseres more attention, too.

This, to my eye, does not look to be a gain to the RKBA community.

 

[boom boom]

Details probably vary from state to state, but, basically, if a family member, or leo, has a reason to believe a gun owner is disturbed, or violent , or could be in a very bad place emotionally, the police or sheriff can confiscate the person's guns, atleast temporarily.
It seems to allow this without a court hearing or court order ..... leaving the dispossessed gun owner little chance to contest the action.
Details about returning the guns .... I confess to be unsure about. Others will have to chime in.

Because a taking of a right is involved, a court hearing does have to be held but that is after the taking. For example, even under current laws in most states, police, mental health professionals, sometimes relatives, etc. can refer individuals to the state as being an immediate threat to themselves or others. In most states, that can give justification to the state to detain a person for observation period, which varies from 23 hours to ten days (https://legalbeagle.com/8696682-laws-72-hours-mental-observation.html). At the end of that observation period, the person gets a court hearing to determine competency and whether they are not or no longer an immediate threat to themselves or others.

Thus, the red flag extends this to allow police to seize firearms (and perhaps other weapons depending on the state) temporarily before the inevitable court hearing. Due process requires that a court ultimately sign off on any permanent deprivation. That being said, many people have had great difficulties in getting police to release firearms in their possession even without the mental health issue. Victims of crime, acts of violence, etc. have often had to resort to court action to require the police to release the firearms back to their owners. These have often been crudely defaced with markings for inventory purposes.

I would argue that the key to avoiding abuse is to allow lawsuits to proceed if the referral is found to be in bad faith and payment of damages for any defacement or unfounded seizures plus court ordered expungement of any records.

 

[Speedo66]

Eventually, just having a gun will be proof that you are unstable and anti-social in the eyes of the law.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

If enough confrontations occur trying to take guns from LAC's there will be either a rethinking of the order or a civil war.

We will see soon enough...

 

[SilentStalker]

Eventually, just having a gun will be proof that you are unstable and anti-social in the eyes of the law.

This is the goal!

 

[Labguy47]

With castle doctrine I wouldn’t even answer the door. When the cops force their way in it will be like being SWATed, and the insuing multi-million lawsuit will set my daughter up for life.

In other words I wouldn’t even want to be law enforcement in this situation

 

[George P]

You are now guilty until proven innocent; and the left will make sure you are never proven innocent

 

[Deanimator]

This is just the beginning. Look at the imbecile who wants to troll your social media and search history.

I GUARANTEE that more people will be denied because they insulted the wrong leftist politician or asserted the wrong number of genders than will EVER be because of legitimate threats.

 

[AlexanderA]

Eventually, just having a gun will be proof that you are unstable and anti-social in the eyes of the law.

Yup, that's the Catch-22. Anyone who wants a gun thereby proves, ipso facto, that he's too crazy to own one. That's going to be the result when guns are culturally outside the mainstream. We may be only 2-3 generations from that point, at least in certain areas. Just look back and remember how smokers were made into pariahs.

 

[Spats McGee]

These laws are just almost begging to be abused. I've commented to some fellow lawyers that they're going to become another tool in divorce actions. They'll be used to get assets (the guns) out of the house and into the hands of the police. As it will usually be the husband who owns the guns, the wife's lawyer will ask the divorce court to enter an order holding the guns while the divorce is pending, claiming either that the husband will harm the wife and/or that he will sell them off and hide the cash. Regardless of the outcome of the red flag hearing, the divorce court will likely grant that request, figuring that the husband doesn't "need" the guns, and that this will thwart any possible attempt to hide assets. So that several-thousand-dollar, wood-and-blued-steel beauty, . . . . will sit in the police evidence room, in the custody of someone with no legal obligation to take care of it.

And that's just one of the problems I see. And yes, we're going to see them spread. Even our governor in AR has said that he might support one.

 

[SilentStalker]

These laws are just almost begging to be abused. I've commented to some fellow lawyers that they're going to become another tool in divorce actions. They'll be used to get assets (the guns) out of the house and into the hands of the police. As it will usually be the husband who owns the guns, the wife's lawyer will ask the divorce court to enter an order holding the guns while the divorce is pending, claiming either that the husband will harm the wife and/or that he will sell them off and hide the cash. Regardless of the outcome of the red flag hearing, the divorce court will likely grant that request, figuring that the husband doesn't "need" the guns, and that this will thwart any possible attempt to hide assets. So that several-thousand-dollar, wood-and-blued-steel beauty, . . . . will sit in the police evidence room, in the custody of someone with no legal obligation to take care of it.

And that's just one of the problems I see. And yes, we're going to see them spread. Even our governor in AR has said that he might support one.

Aren’t you a lawyer? How do we fight this? Can’t we argue a case without even being a victim of this? When is enough enough?

 

[boom boom]

Easiest way is for gun rights advocates to make sure that allowing redress for unfounded acts of seizures and of allowing lawsuits awarding damages and lawyers fees for unwarranted temporary confiscations against individuals and government. It balances sympathy for a genuine circumstances with redress for any overuse of such actions so it cannot become a rationale for gun seizures.

With the current composition of the court, SCOTUS is getting ready to address whether asset seizures can in some contexts be unconstitutional. I suspect that a coalition exists that will set outside parameters on asset confiscation of which this is a special case.

 

[SigP229R]

These "red flag" laws have the potential of being extremely dangerous for gun ownership. The danger is not just in the gun owner himself being the target of a "red flag" complaint, but also in any member of his household, such as a spouse or child, being the target. The guns could be taken if it's alleged that the household member had access to the guns. So you would literally be at the mercy of an unstable family member, and the people who might come into contact with that person.

This broadens the universe of "disqualified people" exponentially. I'm convinced that this is not just an unintended consequence, but was carefully thought through by the antigunners. They are becoming fiendishly clever. Something that seems "reasonable" on its surface really isn't.

These "red flag" laws have the potential of being extremely dangerous for gun ownership. The danger is not just in the gun owner himself being the target of a "red flag" complaint, but also in any member of his household, such as a spouse or child, being the target. The guns could be taken if it's alleged that the household member had access to the guns. So you would literally be at the mercy of an unstable family member, and the people who might come into contact with that person.These "red flag" laws have the potential of being extremely dangerous for gun ownership. The danger is not just in the gun owner himself being the target of a "red flag" complaint, but also in any member of his household, such as a spouse or child, being the target. The guns could be taken if it's alleged that the household member had access to the guns. So you would literally be at the mercy of an unstable family member, and the people who might come into contact with that person.


It scares me totally witless. Especially the part about "without due process of law". I saw something about this on another board and at that time Md. had been the only state to use it. I am afraid if we "the gun owners" do not stand up to this in the early stages and as Barney Fife would have said nip it in the bud it will be just the first step in the government being able to walk into our houses and take whatever they want to without and due process of law . I really hope someone will get this to the SCOTUS and they will strike it down.

 

[GEM]

The social pariah and being deranged for having guns is a good point. I heard that at work from people. I also have said that if you 'bury' your guns in a weapons ban state, your ex will turn you in. Your annoyed co-worker who knew you had one, will turn you in.

Unfortunately, (oh, do I keep saying the same thing), the chosen marketing strategy to tie gun ownership to a particular party and bonding to a President as a loyalty test, contributes to these attitudes among the non-choir world.