"Red Flag" laws..?

[Hasaf]

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.

This is part of why I do not take part in most social media. If it can be linked to my real name I am not interested.

I just checked, at this moment I am logged in through a VPN in Brazil. For the record I have never been to Brazil. The closest I came was Bolivia.

Things that may seem innocuous today, may seem despicable in twenty or thirty years. This is an example of the 'ole "the less you do, the less you can do wrong." However, in this application it is, "the less you say or post, the less you can be proven of having said or posted wrong."

 

[lemaymiami]

On a personal note, back when I had a crew to supervise... one of the first things I always counselled one of my officers to do when having domestic troubles.... was to get their guns out of the house... That makes good sense even with no “red flag” laws on the books.

 

[Spats McGee]

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?

Yes, 15+ years in litigation, ~10 of those in constitutional litigation.

The problem with mounting a legal challenge to the red flag laws will be finding the right plaintiff. You can, theoretically, challenge a law without being a victim of enforcement. It's an issue of "standing," and I don't have time to do a bunch of research, so I'll have to paraphrase a couple of things. One of the prerequisites to mounting a legal (courtroom) challenge to a law is that the plaintiff mush have standing. In order to have standing, you need "injury in fact," a causal connection between the challenged law, and the injury must be concrete rather than speculative. Now, going back to the theoretical part, it has been held sufficient that a plaintiff has a concrete desire to do what the challenged law forbids. The Plaintiff is not required to do the thing. (For example, a NJ resident might challenge an assault weapons ban, arguing that he or she desires and intends to purchase one, if the challenged law is lifted.) Exactly how do we find a "favorable" plaintiff (favorable for litigation purposes), to challenge these? We're going to need someone who has had the red flag law used on him or her, had his or her guns seized, who suffered some kind of injury (physical, psychological, financial . . . they'll all work) and for whom there really was no basis for the RFL to be brought into play.

How do we fight this? For starters, we need to quit preaching to the choir and start talking to our representatives. We need to get out and take some newbies to the range.

 

[DeepSouth]

It may be coming to the entire country, with a bipartisan backing.

This recently popped up on my news feed, I’ll confess I haven’t had time to look to much into it.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/graham-blumenthal-gun-bill/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/


EDIT: I just noticed the date on the article. 3-8-18 I have no idea why it just popped up on my news, but it did.

 

[CapnMac]

The very next thing we need to be vigilant for is that the "red flag" then triggers being "prohibited."

Scenario: You have a nephew who lives down the block. Said nephew may or may not have emotional issues which have spilled over to threats or rumors of threats against his high school. He gets red -flagged. You then get red-flagged for being the "next door uncle." Kid gets counseling, joins the Marines and is a great citizen. You try to get your guns back. "Hey, you're subject to or have been) a red flag: No guns for you!"

Now, that's a simplistic example. Note, too, that, if being subject to a red flag gets you prohibited, that affects your 'standing.'

 

[Deanimator]

The very next thing we need to be vigilant for is that the "red flag" then triggers being "prohibited."

Scenario: You have a nephew who lives down the block. Said nephew may or may not have emotional issues which have spilled over to threats or rumors of threats against his high school. He gets red -flagged. You then get red-flagged for being the "next door uncle." Kid gets counseling, joins the Marines and is a great citizen. You try to get your guns back. "Hey, you're subject to or have been) a red flag: No guns for you!"

Now, that's a simplistic example. Note, too, that, if being subject to a red flag gets you prohibited, that affects your 'standing.'

No, based on the Stalinist instincts of the anti-gun left, it's a probable outcome.

 

[GAF]

I have seen scenario`s like the above played out several times with friends. Guns in one case and child custody a couple of times.
False accusations were made and it cost lots of money for the accused to get back what they had lost. I kept my friend guns until he could have them back. There are no red flag laws in Wisconsin that I am aware of, but they don`t need them. If the red flags laws would be used as intended they just might do some good, but people will misuse them for revenge and punishment for perceived wrongs.

 

[cheygriz]

A challenge!

If you think the potential for abuse outweighs the possible benefits, write a "model" law that addresses the abuse potential, but still allows LE to disarm criminals and dangerous nutjobs.

Not easy, is it?????

 

[Sniper66]

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.

I'm a retired psychologist and part of my past job was performing court ordered evaluations in just such cases as these. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get a clear picture of actual events and psychological testing does little to shed light on the subject. Stories are sometimes completely fabricated for the purpose of gaining leverage in a child custody dispute or more often are embellished reports to sound more dangerous than they really are. The police are powerless to determine what is actually going on and so err on the side of caution and usually make the arrest. In these so-called red flag situations, that means taking guns (usually legally acquired) from citizens. To complicate matters further, even in situations where the court has the task of determining whether or not the person is "dangerous to self and others" (which would justify taking guns) can easily go array. Judges too often disregard recommendations of psychologists and impose their own beliefs on the situation. I witnessed numerous cases where the mental health professionals testified that the person was dangerous to self or others only to have the person released after telling the judge that they were "just having a bad day". And, by the way, judges have been confiscating guns from people for decades. Sometime if you guys are interested I could tell interesting true stories about such confiscations. Some seemed justified, others not, and all questionable from a legal stand-point.

 

[kmw1954]

A challenge!

If you think the potential for abuse outweighs the possible benefits, write a "model" law that addresses the abuse potential, but still allows LE to disarm criminals and dangerous nutjobs.

Not easy, is it?????

I have a 13yo granddaughter that was born with multiple birth defects, has been deaf from birth and is also autistic, she is known to have violent outbursts. Her father is an avid duck hunter. Should he be restricted because of his daughters disabilities?

 

[lionking]

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...

"at the encouragement of lawyers"

The second paragraph is one of the most messed up things I have ever heard/read. I am happily single and will probably remain that way. Girlfriend can stay a night or the weekend but I have made it clear I 'm not interested in a long term relationship where we live together. Needless to say because of that my relationships do not last that long usually.

 

[Zerodefect]

They've been doing exactly what ya'll are worried about, for about 15 years now. They can kick in your door and shoot you without a warrant any time they want to. Been doing it for years. Swat at the wrong address? Don't forget to shoot the homeowner on the way out.

Staying off the radar and living in the sticks, is your best bet.

How would you write a law to allow the Police to do something, to someone spouting violent crazy stuff, and scaring their own families? Limit it to concerned spouses? Parents? Sister? Immediate relatives? Could you preemptively remove family that you've disowned from that list?

I don't blame Trump for wanting to do something to help. If it's wrong, the other branches will have to work it out. They won't. Fair chance that this is just more smoke.

 

[lionking]

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

Yes it is happening.

FROM THE ARTICLE
Quote: "
"She believes after four-and-a-half months, Florida’s version of the ‘red flag” law as its also known is starting to reveal some disturbing grey areas, specifically among individuals who don't have histories of violence or mental illness.

“These are individuals who are often exercising their first amendment rights online, who are protecting constitutionally protected speech online,” she said. “Maybe it was odious, maybe people didn’t like it but they were hit with the risk protection order because of it.”

Take University of Central Florida student, Chris Velasquez. His case made headlines in March when Orlando police filed a risk protection petition after he praised mass shooters online"

wow that is ripe for abuse. Just imagine having a discussion on the purpose of the 2nd amendment and someone says " the purpose of the 2nd is to protect against a tyrannical government" and then the person goes on to say how the government in his opinion has become tyrannical now, next thing you know someone reports him as a potential terrorist.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's getting to the point in this country where merely being a gun owner can put you into a world of hurt. The authorities can come and seize your guns under some flimsy pretext of a complaint, and maybe even shoot you in the process. I'm surprised that so many gun owners are willing to put themselves into official databases, for example by applying for concealed carry permits, or owning NFA items. I guess if you're going to be a gun owner, you have to be extra careful in choosing your family and associates -- especially in whom you marry.

 

[Spats McGee]

It's getting to the point in this country where merely being a gun owner can put you into a world of hurt. The authorities can come and seize your guns under some flimsy pretext of a complaint, and maybe even shoot you in the process. I'm surprised that so many gun owners are willing to put themselves into official databases, for example by applying for concealed carry permits, or owning NFA items. I guess if you're going to be a gun owner, you have to be extra careful in choosing your family and associates -- especially in whom you marry.

True, but the other side of that coin is: If we hide in the shadows, aren't we tacitly conceding that being a gun owner is shameful?

 

[lionking]

It's getting to the point in this country where merely being a gun owner can put you into a world of hurt. The authorities can come and seize your guns under some flimsy pretext of a complaint, and maybe even shoot you in the process. I'm surprised that so many gun owners are willing to put themselves into official databases, for example by applying for concealed carry permits, or owning NFA items. I guess if you're going to be a gun owner, you have to be extra careful in choosing your family and associates -- especially in whom you marry.

There is no crystal ball for someone to know how their relationship or spouse is going to be years later. Years later it can turn, that's life. Add in a factor of getting into a relationship with a ex involved and or kids that are not your own and it can make it more complicated.

Social media like facebook, I refuse to get into political/religious discussions on it, I keep it light about family and friends and life events. One I have family and friends that don't always agree on politics, I see no need to jeopardize family relationships over such a thing. I may post pics of friends at the range having fun but that's it. Some people get too passionate about politics and don't think before they say something and in this day and age it can come back to haunt you like these red flag laws.

As far as discussion boards, again better think what you say , saying the quote like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" and going on and on about how you think the government is a enemy can make some think you are a potential terrorist and based on what the article has said some police chiefs think that's enough to pay you a visit. Sad but becoming true.

 

[lionking]

Here's a question, say your gun gets taken away and say you paid $600 to buy the gun and the lawyer and court fees cost thousands of dollars to get your $600 gun back what then? Most people will just not bother.

And for those that don't bother to get it back who gets the gun then?

 

[Zerodefect]

I did the exact opposite to draw family relationships into the light.

Axed them. Then made new friends and family that I can count on.

Life is good.

 

[CoalTrain49]

State laws will vary. WA passed one last year.

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

Trump sanctioned this commission and endorses Red Flag laws.

• The Commission endorses Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, which give authorities a temporary way to keep those who threaten society from possessing or purchasing firearms.

Link https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...onald-j-trump-committed-making-schools-safer/

The ERPO language starts on page 49.

I believe this will lead to either a bill from congress that Trump will sign or possible funds from the adm for state law enforcement if they comply with federal guidelines. In either case it isn't good.

If you thought Trump was pro constitution and pro gun you better have a seat and let someone explain it to you.

 

[cheygriz]

I have a 13yo granddaughter that was born with multiple birth defects, has been deaf from birth and is also autistic, she is known to have violent outbursts. Her father is an avid duck hunter. Should he be restricted because of his daughters disabilities?

Of course not. that would be ridiculous. But he should be responsible enough to maintain his weapons in an environment that precludes his daughter from having access to them. And he should be held civilly liable if he fails to do so.

 

[kmw1954]

Of course not. that would be ridiculous. But he should be responsible enough to maintain his weapons in an environment that precludes his daughter from having access to them. And he should be held civilly liable if he fails to do so.

And I agree. Though it would seem that not everyone sees it the same way. Some say he is not capable enough to ensure that the child will never access that firearm therefore there is a risk because she don't always have control of her actions or emotions..

 

[Hasaf]

Of course not. that would be ridiculous. But he should be responsible enough to maintain his weapons in an environment that precludes his daughter from having access to them. And he should be held civilly liable if he fails to do so.

I still have a problem with laws that punish a person for the acts of other people. Sure, in a case like that, where there is a known behaviour issue, good judgement says that the weapons should be secure. The problem is in objectively defining those lines, and even in defining secure.

I teach at a middle school. We have had real threats, coupled with the means of carrying them out. No one blamed the parents or any other person. The crime was attempted by the criminal, no other person.

This "who can we blame" sounds more like the old, "if you can't fix the problem, fix the blame," than anything else.

 

[AlexanderA]

As far as discussion boards, again better think what you say , saying the quote like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" and going on and on about how you think the government is a enemy can make some think you are a potential terrorist and based on what the article has said some police chiefs think that's enough to pay you a visit. Sad but becoming true.

And it's not too smart to post, in all capital letters, that you WILL NOT COMPLY or MOLON LABE. Might come back to haunt you.

 

[CoalTrain49]

A challenge!

If you think the potential for abuse outweighs the possible benefits, write a "model" law that addresses the abuse potential, but still allows LE to disarm criminals and dangerous nutjobs.

Not easy, is it?????

It isn't easy living in a country with a constitution that spells out a person's rights either. The 5th amendment is clear.

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;

Many people believe that a person shouldn't even own a firearm. So if we're in such a hurry to deprive a person of their constitutional rights why not just make possessing a firearm a matter for your neighbor to decide with some type of red flag report. Seems easy enough to me.

I think we already know what the abuse potential is. If it's there somebody will abuse it. I think that was the reason for 5A to begin with. If there had been no previous abuse by the crown there would have been no reason to even consider it.

 

[lionking]

It is a tricky situation. In the case of the nut job that shot up the Florida school several people not just one warned about him, he posted several things on the net which is documented proof, cops even interviewed him based on enough tips from what I heard. No one wants to be the one who could have done something but didn't in the future.

On the other hand just someone saying something about someone with no proof, and they still come and take them away, is ripe for abuse. There are issues of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment on this not just the 2nd. If someone is now guilty until proven innocent by hearsay I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a SCOTUS issue.