Red Flag Confiscation Orders

[Losing_Sanity]

Wow, something to think about that could stop your whole hunting adventures in the blink of an eye. A Red Flag Confiscation Order is pretty serious! It is interesting just how far normal house hold stuff can influence a violation of this order once it has been issued. Remember, innocent people are never targeted... (Sarcasm) There is a list of states on the linked page. I guess the biggest thing for me is, there is a process to get a Red Flag order to take your guns, but not one to remove the order. Doen't seem fair. I'm interested in all opinion and the opinion of the Lawyers and Law Enforcement folks as well that are on this forum. It is my understanding that some Law Enforcement have refused to enforce this and it is vary controversial.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

I don't agree with taking guns one bit, but I think that article does a good job explaining that if it does happen to you, don't fight with the police doing their job serving the court order. Rather, show them to your guns and keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do their job and get you your guns back.

I'm happy that I have never lived in a state where this is a problem, but I have also lived in a state with exceptionally high rates of suicide, many with firearms. At the end of the day I have to ask if saving someone from suicide is worth the risk of taking guns from someone innocent. I honestly can say I am torn about this, especially when I have seen the affects of suicide first hand. I get the argument that if you take guns away they will find another way to do the act, but is saving even one child's life worth it? or one young adult? Man is that a tough thing for me to process personally...

 

[JLS]

In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection (Published 2013)

Lobbyists and their allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.

www.nytimes.com

 

[MTGomer]

don’t fight with them?

If the Second Amendment wasn’t written specifically so you could fight with them, what is it for?

 

[WyoDoug]

I would fight it. It gives law enforcement way too wide latitude to determine who can have guns or not. Put a liberal sheriff in power which has happened or a liberal district or states attorney, you got a train wreck about to happen. It's way too prone to abuse and I am betting NRA and other groups are going to file a lawsuit against it or sponsor a lawsuit through the courts to the first person victimized by these crazy laws. Gun control is a stepped process and the liberals admit that. They will not stop at just these "common sense" gun control laws as they call it. Eventually, their goal is Australia type gun control.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I don't agree with taking guns one bit, but I think that article does a good job explaining that if it does happen to you, don't fight with the police doing their job serving the court order. Rather, show them to your guns and keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do their job and get you your guns back.

I'm happy that I have never lived in a state where this is a problem, but I have also lived in a state with exceptionally high rates of suicide, many with firearms. At the end of the day I have to ask if saving someone from suicide is worth the risk of taking guns from someone innocent. I honestly can say I am torn about this, especially when I have seen the affects of suicide first hand. I get the argument that if you take guns away they will find another way to do the act, but is saving even one child's life worth it? or one young adult? Man is that a tough thing for me to process personally...

Thank you SD_Prairie_Goat for your input on this issue. It appears to be an emotional issue for many. I'm sorry for the direct involvement you have experienced, and appreciate your views. Sometimes it is hard to see that there are situations that something has to be done to protect the innocent. It's not always so cut and dry.

I do think a person should fight such an order, but I do not think a firefight is always the best option. I would assume that by the time it gets to the order being served a persons life could already be in terrible turmoil and they would not think to cooperate and fight it in the legal system. By that time they may see it as just another failing aspect of their life.

I don't know what the right answers are, but I do know that if there is a process to obtain such an order, there ought to be a process to reverse the order. There are too many other avenues that this action can migrate to in order to eliminate guns altogether.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Thank you SD_Prairie_Goat for your input on this issue. It appears to be an emotional issue for many. I'm sorry for the direct involvement you have experienced, and appreciate your views. Sometimes it is hard to see that there are situations that something has to be done to protect the innocent. It's not always so cut and dry.

I do think a person should fight such an order, but I do not think a firefight is always the best option. I would assume that by the time it gets to the order being served a persons life could already be in terrible turmoil and they would not think to cooperate and fight it in the legal system. By that time they may see it as just another failing aspect of their life.

I don't know what the right answers are, but I do know that if there is a process to obtain such an order, there ought to be a process to reverse the order. There are too many other avenues that this action can migrate to in order to eliminate guns altogether.

I can't speak for every state, but I think for many states they initially take your guns, then hold a hearing in the very near future to decide your fate. I would assume at this point you can get your guns back if you show you're not crazy or a danger. I really don't think most people would need to be worried about losing their guns for the rest of their life. I'm not even sure if this type of order would be able to.

 

[Scott85]

I think that there is a need to hold onto weapons while a situation cools down or is investigated. I think the law should spell out the due process in order for police to go to the judge and get an order that will be in effect for 45 days while the investigations happens. If nothing is found the weapons are turned over to the person no questions asked no lawyer needed. The law should also spell out punishment for persons making false accusations against the gun owner. Also the law should spell out and grant emergency concealed permits to victims of domestic violence, etc.

 

[BluegrassBilly]

There is a process to reverse the order, which the author of that article briefly mentions at then end of his fear-mongering. The Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution - even in California - as is due process. However, the courts recognize that in some situations, a due process hearing may be held after the fact. It's known as a post-deprivation hearing. In order to be constitutional, these laws must provide for such a hearing shortly after the deprivation - and that's your chance to reverse the order.

Unlike the author, I buy my cheeseburgers with the proceeds earned from using my law license. I would not recommend anybody bury their firearms and fail to disclose them when law enforcement shows up with an order. Nor do I recommend engaging in an armed confrontation - that makes you no better than the Bundys. Despite what you may see in media, we have the best judicial system the world has ever known. Make use of it.

Ethical disclosure: I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney. The above statement is not intended to give legal advice, but is merely a reflection of my semi-informed thoughts.

 

[Pelican]

I don’t have a problem with someone loosing their guns if it is warranted, but CO’s law seems like like it makes it damn easy for a judge to issue the ERPO. At the initial hearing, all the judge needs to issue the ERPO is a “ a predonderamce of evidence.” As the respondent (gun owner) is not notified of the hearing, the petitioner presents evidence while the respondent has no representation at all. How is there not going to be more evidence in support of the petition when only one side is represented.
The court then schedules another hearing within 14 days. The judge then needs “clear and convincing evidence”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt” like a criminal trial, to continue the order for up to one year. To me, if your are going to deny someone a constitutional right, the burden of proof should at least be equal to a criminal trial. A jury trail would seem to be consistent with our constitutionals right also.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Good points are being made and I appreciate the non legal point of view.

Consider for a moment, a person files a false complaint or a complaint out of "Concern". The order gets issued and the officers execute the order. The person in question cooperates and gathers up all guns. Confiscated are say 6 guns. Maybe some are collectables or keep sakes, but the judge sees 6 guns, not collectables. They also confiscate say 1200 rounds of various ammo and reloading tools. Mostly 22 from the hording times of Obama, but none the less 1200 rounds. Now some eager person to save the world labels the person by saying he was preparing for a war. Next you are judged on opinions and its a very costly, up hill battle to recover, if you ever could. Not to mention the embarrassment of running someones name through the muck.

Giving that scenario, it does not look vary good for the person accused to legally reverse the order. And once you have the record, regardless the outcome, you have to defend it in every background check.

Just some thoughts for conversation...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Losing_Sanity You make a fair point... the logical counter point being, well at least said person or said persons victim is still alive. Getting your firearms back is a hassle but death is permanent.

On it's face there are good arguments for the law, but as others have noted there are some big issues. I'm not sure how I feel about slippery slope arguments in general as often they don't pan out.

I'm still on the fence, and I really appreciate the dialogue about the issue.

 

[Pucky Freak]

This happened to my father in law in FL last year and was complete BS situation. He was mad as hell but did cooperate with authorities. Basically, his neighborhood association president had an ax to grind with him and made up some allegations. He has a big arsenal and had to jump through some hoops to get everything back, but it's all over and done with now, relocated back to IA, where there is no such thing as a confiscation order.

As degrading and possibly unconstitutional as this may be, I would encourage you to comply if it happens to you, for the sake of you and your family's lives. I work in public safety and as others have said, the boys in blue are not the bad guys here.

 

[MTGomer]

You have a right to due process. You have a right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. And a right to bear arms.

Uncompensated takings are also not usually tolerated in the US

These orders violate all of those do they not?

 

[one ate E grain]

Thankfully my sheriff has said he himself would go to jail for not enforcing the law rather than enforce it. No doubt there are other ways to remove someone's firearms if they are thought not competent to keep them. My county is very pro second amendment, people from both parties. https://www.greeleytribune.com/news...eally-wind-up-in-jail-over-red-flag-standoff/ I would hope most bogus uses of the law would get culled before they ever reach a judge.

 

[Pelican]

I would hope most bogus uses of the law would get culled before they ever reach a judge.

Read the Colorado bill. I’m not a lawyer, but there doesn’t seem to be anybody between the petitioner and the judge. Nobody. Nothing. Zero people. Straight to the judge.

This law seems to be exacting criminal punishment on people that have not been convicted of anything.

 

[Pucky Freak]

You have a right to due process. You have a right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. And a right to bear arms.

Uncompensated takings are also not usually tolerated in the US

These orders violate all of those do they not?

You do have these rights, and these orders do violate these rights. There are some seriously flawed laws on the books in a lot of places in America. But do things the right way and make your voice heard at the ballot box and by speaking your mind. The string-pullers at the higher levels of government need to be held accountable. But seriously, are you going to have an armed encounter with a cop who does his job to feed his family so you can prove a point? It's not a matter of you being right, you are. It's a matter of now that you are right, what are you going to do about it?

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

But seriously, are you going to have an armed encounter with a cop who does his job to feed his family so you can prove a point? It's not a matter of you being right, you are. It's a matter of now that you are right, what are you going to do about it?

That last bit right there hits the nail on the head! Just because you're right doesn't mean you can kill someone...

 

[MTGomer]

You do have these rights, and these orders do violate these rights. There are some seriously flawed laws on the books in a lot of places in America. But do things the right way and make your voice heard at the ballot box and by speaking your mind. The string-pullers at the higher levels of government need to be held accountable. But seriously, are you going to have an armed encounter with a cop who does his job to feed his family so you can prove a point? It's not a matter of you being right, you are. It's a matter of now that you are right, what are you going to do about it?

I have something to live for and the means to hire a lawyer, so that’s probably the route I would go, regardless of how futile it may be to take your grievances against the state to the state. A lot of people that probably have a lot stronger feelings about this than I do have neither. I think it’s only a matter of time before something doesn’t go too smoothly, don’t you?
I suppose each person that is actually in that situation would have to make that decision for themselves.
‘Just doing my job’ is a pretty weak defense of somebody that took an oath to uphold the constitution.
I imagine most police officers are opposed to these laws and many probably will not carry them out, especially as their application spreads out of far left areas like LA.

 

[sbhooper]

I have something to live for and the means to hire a lawyer, so that’s probably the route I would go, regardless of how futile it may be to take your grievances against the state to the state. A lot of people that probably have a lot stronger feelings about this than I do have neither. I think it’s only a matter of time before something doesn’t go too smoothly, don’t you?
I suppose each person that is actually in that situation would have to make that decision for themselves.
‘Just doing my job’ is a pretty weak defense of somebody that took an oath to uphold the constitution.
I imagine most police officers are opposed to these laws and many probably will not carry them out, especially as their application spreads out of far left areas like LA.

I agree with this. I have known cops that will do this just to put a feather in their caps and use the "just doing my job" excuse, so that they can be a big shot. I generally have nothing against cops, as I spent 27 years in law enforcement, but I have also seen how some fools treat people while "just doing their jobs". That badge gets to weighing about 50 pounds.

These laws are a travesty and some people back east have already been killed, in the application of said laws. Going along with this makes about as much sense as voting for the idiots that pushed them through.