Shanghai McCoy
Member
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?
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?
So from reading the above article it sounds as if there is due process and an appeals process. At least in Florida.
And, just how are people to be identified as gun owners? Dare I use the "R" word?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.
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.
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.Eventually, just having a gun will be proof that you are unstable and anti-social in the eyes of the law.
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.
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.