Red flag warnings

[jake23]

Far greater rights are subject to these processes already (e.g., personal liberty (civil committment) and parental rights (CHIPS processes)) and yet it seems to work for the vast majority - someone would have to show me why it wouldn’t work in a lesser situation (like taking my handgun for 5 days). Plus, judges aren’t morons - they reject many requests for temporary relief that don’t pass muster.

A lot of states already have some sort of process in place to remove people’s guns from them. Has it worked? I have no idea. I can tell you it sure doesn’t feel like it has in CA.

Let’s take civil commitment for example. There are routes that we can take to have someone committed against their will. Those have existed for quite some time. The people that are allowed the authority to make those claims are typically trained professionals. Let’s say we expanded the list of people that could have someone committed to mere co-workers or acquaintances. Would you think there would be room for abuse of this power? I do.

So if we expand the scope of people who can request that someone have their guns taken away, we would most likely increase the risk of abuse. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I don’t know.

These are the questions that need to be answered before we can advocate for the implementation of this type of law. Of course their could be checks and balances written into to it to protect people’s rights, but then the law will have no teeth. So it’s a balancing act for sure.

I can tell you that I have only one experience with having to go to the police to get a TRO against and individual here in CA. It was done ex parte. The TRO was granted and the police were authorized to go and collect the guns from said individual. They never did collect the guns from him. All they ever did was knock on his door. He never answered, therefore never had to surrender his firearms. 18 months after the TRO was granted, this individual was arrested for burglary, found guilty and served time for it. He still has his firearms. The guy is a criminal and doesn’t care. Apparently neither do the police.

I don’t know what the answer is......

Making it easier to take someone’s guns away from them might sound good, but shouldn’t we already be taking guns away from people that aren’t supposed to legally have them? If we don’t enforce the laws we have right now, why would we enforce others?

 

[VikingsGuy]

A lot of states already have some sort of process in place to remove people’s guns from them. Has it worked? I have no idea. I can tell you it sure doesn’t feel like it has in CA.

Let’s take civil commitment for example. There are routes that we can take to have someone committed against their will. Those have existed for quite some time. The people that are allowed the authority to make those claims are typically trained professionals. Let’s say we expanded the list of people that could have someone committed to mere co-workers or acquaintances. Would you think there would be room for abuse of this power? I do.

So if we expand the scope of people who can request that someone have their guns taken away, we would most likely increase the risk of abuse. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I don’t know.

These are the questions that need to be answered before we can advocate for the implementation of this type of law. Of course their could be checks and balances written into to it to protect people’s rights, but then the law will have no teeth. So it’s a balancing act for sure.

I can tell you that I have only one experience with having to go to the police to get a TRO against and individual here in CA. It was done ex parte. The TRO was granted and the police were authorized to go and collect the guns from said individual. They never did collect the guns from him. All they ever did was knock on his door. He never answered, therefore never had to surrender his firearms. 18 months after the TRO was granted, this individual was arrested for burglary, found guilty and served time for it. He still has his firearms. The guy is a criminal and doesn’t care. Apparently neither do the police.

I don’t know what the answer is......

Making it easier to take someone’s guns away from them might sound good, but shouldn’t we already be taking guns away from people that aren’t supposed to legally have them? If we don’t enforce the laws we have right now, why would we enforce others?

I have already said I am concerned about false allegations and process challenges, and as such am reluctant to go down the red flag route. But my posts were in response to those who scream “due process”, “2nd amendment” and “presumed innocent” and think that trumps all other discussion. No rights are beyond legal restrictions and I am tired of both gun rights and abortion right groups thinking they are the guardians of the one right above all others and above all discussion. I believe our government would work far better if a ridiculously large number of voters didn’t single issue vote on these 2 issues.

 

[ignorethefringes]

Are there any judges that make decisions heavily influenced by political bias?

Are there any cops that are more likely to shoot someone because of their skin color?

The answer to both is yes, there are probably some. But they are not the majority. We can't defend or take a stance based upon the outliers of the other side.

 

[LWC55]

Are there any cops that are more likely to shoot someone because of their skin color?

The answer to both is yes, there are probably some. But they are not the majority. We can't defend or take a stance based upon the outliers of the other side.

But that is exactly what folks who want to enact new laws are doing.....

 

[ignorethefringes]

But that is exactly what folks who want to enact new laws are doing.....

And we don't want to be like them but in the opposite direction. We have to be open to having conversation and trying to find what works for the majority. It's probably somewhere between what they want and what we want.

 

[ignorethefringes]

I guess i disagree with this. Many judges are placed into office through a voting process which has a R or D beside their name. Others are appoint by elected officials with an R or D constituency. Can we honestly say that politics play no role in their decision making? Furthermore, It seems well within the realm of the current political climate that a judge who promises a strong stance on gun issues in a strongly blue district can use a heavy hand when dealing with red flag issues. In fact, it is quite common for a reasonable person to read controvesial decisions and recognize that personal political bias and allegiance to voters influenced a judges decision. I think the political view of supreme court judges provides a better comparison than saying a tiny portion cops are racist.

But are not all judges supposed to vow to uphold the law? They cannot recklessly choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore based upon the R or the D next to their name. If a judge is continually ruling outside the law I would think there would be opportunity for removal of said judge. That doesn't mean we'll always like the ruling, but it has to fit within the law as far as I'm aware.

 

[RockinU]

I don't like the idea of these red flag laws. Like many of you, I have serious concerns about due process and abuses. Having said that, I also have to recognize that I have argued many times (as have many of you) that guns don't kill people, bad people kill people, and that this is a mental health issue and not a gun restriction issue. If we are going to take that stand, and that is how we truly see this, then at some point we are going to have to be part of the discussion on how to prevent the mentally ill having as much access to guns as they currently do. We can't just keep pointing to the problem, and do nothing about it. Laws like this could be one of the answers, and if they are, then we want a seat at the table when they are written to help insure that due process is maintained and protected, and that the potential for abuses is recognized and steps are taken to mitigate it.

Often we are the ones shining the light on this problem, we can't continue to resist all efforts to address it, we need to contribute and make sure that the measures taken to address it are reasonable, and don't infringe on the rights of those they aren't designed to.

 

[hossblur]

The same way you would if your ex-wife tells a judge you are a danger to yourself and others and asks to have you civilly committed for observation. Or a neighbor reports you for child endangerment. (Which as an aside, keeping my kids is way more important to me than keeping my guns and for decades every state has had emergency intervention processes for that - not sure why few object to that, but fret about this)

First your ex-wife would go the local LEO and States Attorney and have to convince them of the risk. If they find it compelling and credible they would take it to a judge at an emergency hearing. If the judge found it compelling, credible and of immediate risk they would order the LEO to temporarily seize the gun until an real hearing could be organized. Some TRO statutes have a time requirements for the follow-up hearing like within 72 hours. Then you would go to the hearing, your ex-wife would offer her proof, you would offer your counter arguments and with the burden being on the state to offer more compelling evidence than you. The judge decides in light of the evidence and the burden of proof and rules. If you win they give you your guns back. If you lose, then they would either keep them for some temporary period (like getting counseling or something) or I suppose permanent if there is some major irredeemable problem. For temporary seizures there would be some type of follow-up hearing that would allow you to show that the prior concerns are gone and your guns would be return.

This is not new ground, nor rocket science. And more important things than guns are (and have been for 200 years) subject to processes like this.



As you point out these are completely different circumstance so they do nothing to advance this discussion. Better examples would be civil commitment, civil competence procedures, restraining orders and child protection processes.



A ridiculous and offensive rant - so no need to respond.



I am comfortable that Sen Feinstein quotes are not admissible evidence at a TRO hearing.



Yup, just like discussed above — and the fact that there is a burden of proof proves that there are processes in which to apply that burden. If there was no judicial process there would be no need for a burden of proof.



Many historians would say that in 1790’s the concern was not about the government restricting private gun ownership, but the new Federal government disarming the state militias. In fact in the 1790’s there were laws preventing freed blacks, former Torries and other sub-groups from owning guns - Thomas Jefferson would not at all recognize the current NRA position on many things.

Interesting. I've seen this play out. The FBI lies to a FISA court, the court grants surveillance. 2 years $25million later we get a opps?

I watched as a friend whose wife is a deputy tell a judge my friend was abusive, chemically dependent and for good measure called his employer to tell them he molested children. He was a skiing coach for teens. Because she was a deputy, he has spent 2 years being blood and urine tested, and he was fired as a coach.

We see all the time women given preference in custody hearings.

We saw Ted Kennedy on a no fly list.

But lastly, it's interesting that you quote law, and legal experience, until the end, then you revert to "some historians"

Seems you don't have faith in the courts who have decided over and over?

We do not live in Orwell's 84'. We don't live in Tom Cruises minority report.

You are not GUILTY of a crime until YOU COMMIT said crime. There are laws on committing someone.

Otherwise should we roll through poor, minority communities and pick up all the 18-25 year old men because statistically they could be criminals?

It's a shitty deal. But daily you drive around in a multi ton vehicle, around other multi ton vehicles. Should we take your keys because you've had a wreck so statistically your more likely to be a dangerous driver?

You're probably right, Jefferson would recognize a lot of modern law. But i doubt highly he would have given up his ability to protect himself so as to make you feel better.

 

[shootbrownelk]

What happens when people stop seeking medical treatment for mental illness out of fear the government will come take away their second amendment rights?

I'm afraid a lot of our vetrans will be affected with this legislation if enacted. Vets that suffer from PTSD or other mental problems they developed while defending our freedoms. It is indeed a slippery slope.

 

[hossblur]

One last thought. How would red flags have stopped either?

Their writings? Their "manifesto"

Ever see a quentin Tarantino movie? Are his writings crazy? Ever listen to a late 60's acid rock song? Terroristic threats are already illegal. So your going to red flag fantasy writers? How about violent video game creators? Are they violent because of a creation?

Red flag laws as being proposed are feel good legislation.

Making it easier to hold someone, in a psych unit is great. Getting someone wansering around talking to themselves, sure.

Ever read the old Testament? Should preachers get picked up for reciting scripture?

Like has been stated previous. If judges were actually impartial, they wouldn't run for office with a D or R next to their name.

If you think you would go in front of a judge in Austin, san Fran, Portland, and have an even, fair chance to get your guns back, perhaps you need to be declared mentally deficient.

No one has to prove to a judge they are competent to exercise press freedom, religious freedom, etc, etc, etc. You either believe our system is based on GOD given rights(not court given), or you don't.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Interesting. I've seen this play out. The FBI lies to a FISA court, the court grants surveillance. 2 years $25million later we get a opps?

Pretty sure none of us here on HT are important enough for the FBI to lie about . . .

I watched as a friend whose wife is a deputy tell a judge my friend was abusive, chemically dependent and for good measure called his employer to tell them he molested children. He was a skiing coach for teens. Because she was a deputy, he has spent 2 years being blood and urine tested, and he was fired as a coach.

So are you suggesting authorities not follow up on child molestation charges or domestic assault? I have no interest in living in that world.

We see all the time women given preference in custody hearings.

If we are now down to trading anecdotes, I have my own -- I got sole legal and physical custody of my daughter in my divorce.

We saw Ted Kennedy on a no fly list.

Neither I or he are losing sleep over that little glitch.

But lastly, it's interesting that you quote law, and legal experience, until the end, then you revert to "some historians"

Merely replying to your chosen argument that, "The only reason for the 2A was because the framers distrusted a powerful gov." The historians know more about that than you or I. If you don't want to talk historians, then don't raise "historical" arguments.

Seems you don't have faith in the courts who have decided over and over?

For the first half of your reply you distrusted the courts, so this seems an odd objection.

As for "decided over and over", you show your lack of understand of the law of the land. I challenge you to find more than 2 binding SCOTUS cases in the last 75 years that supports a personal constitutional right to gun possession and ANY that supports an unlimited and unregulated right. Even SCOTUS's most avid 2nd Amendment supporter, Justice Thomas, has criticized his own conservative colleagues for viewing the 2nd Amendments rights as "second class rights".

We do not live in Orwell's 84'. We don't live in Tom Cruises minority report.

No one on this thread said we did.

You are not GUILTY of a crime until YOU COMMIT said crime. There are laws on committing someone.

You are right. But we are not talking about a criminal conviction, we are talking about civil proceedings in the nature of civil commitment and CHIPS hearings.

Otherwise should we roll through poor, minority communities and pick up all the 18-25 year old men because statistically they could be criminals?

Whole different area of the law - you can't mix criminal and civil jurisprudence.

It's a shitty deal. But daily you drive around in a multi ton vehicle, around other multi ton vehicles. Should we take your keys because you've had a wreck so statistically your more likely to be a dangerous driver?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right, I suppose they could if they wanted to. But nobody is asking for that so this isn't a very useful "foil".

You're probably right, Jefferson would recognize a lot of modern law. But i doubt highly he would have given up his ability to protect himself so as to make you feel better.

None of this is to make me feel better. But society always has and always will balance rights, obligations and interests. Just as in civil commitment, CHIPS, competency hearings and dozens of other legal processes that effect our rights - many of them in my opinion more precious than my much beloved right to have a gun -- society will have a say on gun ownership - and much of it will pass due process and much of it will pass constitutional muster. So we can either be part of the solution or wait to have it handed to us.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Ever see a quentin Tarantino movie? Are his writings crazy? Ever listen to a late 60's acid rock song? Terroristic threats are already illegal. So your going to red flag fantasy writers? How about violent video game creators? Are they violent because of a creation?

Ever read the old Testament? Should preachers get picked up for reciting scripture?

So off point as to not need specific response - I suggest taking a class in rhetoric.

Making it easier to hold someone, in a psych unit is great. Getting someone wansering around talking to themselves, sure.

So, we should make it easier to take away someones right to live a free life basis their ex-wife's allegations, but not just take away their guns? And by the way - if they commit you in many states they also take your guns - so it seems like you are ok with them taking your freedom and your guns, but not just your guns. Interesting balancing of one's rights.

Like has been stated previous. If judges were actually impartial, they wouldn't run for office with a D or R next to their name.

Whether someone's mental state presents an imminent danger to themselves or other is not a R or D issue.

No one has to prove to a judge they are competent to exercise press freedom, religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.

I suggest you go to an airport with nothing in your hands and nothing in your pockets and say loudly that you have a bomb and see if the first amendment protects you. In this example, you have committed no violent crime (other than that statement which the courts have found to be criminal despite the the first amendment) and pose no threat. All rights are bounded. Always have been and always will be.

You either believe our system is based on GOD given rights(not court given), or you don't.

Not really a constitutional angle but I am a huge fan of the declaration of independence as well so, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” Pretty compelling. Except the men who wrote it viewed half the population as mere chattel, had no problem exempting slaves from the right to liberty and were all in on capital punishment (which does cut against life).

And I do believe in a Christian GOD, and believe through grace he has blessed me with many gifts, but I have yet to see anything in scripture that includes the GOD-given right to own a 100 round drum magazine.

 

[Gila]

Red flag is just another step to disarming you. This law will not work and when it doesn't they will push more restrictive laws. 28 years as a LEO has shown me that no law works all the time and the gun grabbers will just keep pushing. Next will be registration so they know where to find them.

I believe on our founding fathers said something to the effect, choosing safety over liberty one deserves neither.

..……."Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids...………."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Calm down fellas

 

[Pelican]

The only red flag law I am familiar with is the one passed in Colorado and set to take effect Jan. 1st. It seems to me that it is inevitable that some people unjustly end up with their guns confiscated due to a single judge having the discretion to issue the order. At the initial hearing, the gun owner is not present or even notified about the hearing. I don't doubt that most judges will be objective, but judges are human and people make mistakes. As far as I can tell in Colorado, the gun owner does not qualify for a public defender. If someone can't afford an attorney, what chance would they have to mount any type of effective defense at the second hearing which may be up to 14 days later? If the petitioner falsely testifies in court while attempting to get someones guns confiscated, they can be charged with perjury. Once charged with perjury, that person wll be notified of the charges, has the right to be represented by an attorney during the entire process, and has the right to a jury to decide if they are guilty, while the person they falsely accused doesn't get those three benefits. That's #*&%ed up. At the least, I think any gun owner should have the same rights as the person accusing them.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Calm down fellas

Well, at least I made it in before the lock...

I wonder what the record of least post for a thread to get the lock is?

 

[hossblur]

So off point as to not need specific response - I suggest taking a class in rhetoric.



So, we should make it easier to take away someones right to live a free life basis their ex-wife's allegations, but not just take away their guns? And by the way - if they commit you in many states they also take your guns - so it seems like you are ok with them taking your freedom and your guns, but not just your guns. Interesting balancing of one's rights.



Whether someone's mental state presents an imminent danger to themselves or other is not a R or D issue.



I suggest you go to an airport with nothing in your hands and nothing in your pockets and say loudly that you have a bomb and see if the first amendment protects you. In this example, you have committed no crime (other than that statement which the courts have found to be criminal despite the the first amendment) and pose no threat. All rights are bounded. Always have been and always will be.



Not really a constitutional angle but I am a huge fan of the declaration of independence as well so, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” Pretty compelling. Except the men who wrote it viewed half the population as mere chattel, had no problem exempting slaves from the right to liberty and were all in on capital punishment (which does cut against life).

And I do believe in a Christian GOD, and believe through grace he has blessed me with many gifts, but I have yet to see anything in scripture that includes the GOD-given right to own a 100 round drum magazine.

Perhaps go read again? Some might suggest that sacraficing your own son is crazy? Or a whole religion based on a 14 yr old talking to an angel and finding hidden plates is a little nutty?

Im glad you got custody. But you know the stats and data.

Im not a lawyer, just a guy. But to use my friends story, he's now $25k into lawyers to prove he was not a drunk, or a molester. His accuser got a laugh. I'm not sure what you do, although I'm assuming lawyer, but a blue collar guy doesn't have days off work, $10,000 in the bank to try to disprove a negative.

And again. What would that have stopped on these cases? They bought guns legally. I haven't heard that they lied on the forms, or that they had preexisting criminal records. It's super easy after the fact to say "hey look there were signs".

But what were they? Racism? That's not illegal. Militant socialism? Believer in climate change? Writing crazy crap?

How many loons do you think wrote stuff about Fin after his wolf episode. Are they now subject to red flag laws? Is Rosie Donnell? Is Kathy Griffin? Is Alex Jones?

You have the right to be a loon. You have the right to sit in your basement, eating cheetos, playing call of duty.

What red flag laws do are open up a weapon for unpopular politixal speech to be punished. For unpopular writings. Unpopular activities(seems crazy to shoot animals you don't eat, like coyote right?).

This is an emotional attempt. You are smart. I can list 1000 ways your more likely to be killed than mass shooting. Most shootings don't involve your 1000 round drum.

Let's not forget, the Patriot Act was going to protect us from Terrorists killing us. There was a court, with judges (FISA). We heard the same " I'd gladly give up......" How's that working out?

Once your in the system that's different. But this is about government wanting to expand its ability to criminalize.

8000 folks died of aspirin last year. We need to do something!!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Perhaps go read again? Some might suggest that sacraficing your own son is crazy? Or a whole religion based on a 14 yr old talking to an angel and finding hidden plates is a little nutty?

Im glad you got custody. But you know the stats and data.

Im not a lawyer, just a guy. But to use my friends story, he's now $25k into lawyers to prove he was not a drunk, or a molester. His accuser got a laugh. I'm not sure what you do, although I'm assuming lawyer, but a blue collar guy doesn't have days off work, $10,000 in the bank to try to disprove a negative.

And again. What would that have stopped on these cases? They bought guns legally. I haven't heard that they lied on the forms, or that they had preexisting criminal records. It's super easy after the fact to say "hey look there were signs".

But what were they? Racism? That's not illegal. Militant socialism? Believer in climate change? Writing crazy crap?

How many loons do you think wrote stuff about Fin after his wolf episode. Are they now subject to red flag laws? Is Rosie Donnell? Is Kathy Griffin? Is Alex Jones?

You have the right to be a loon. You have the right to sit in your basement, eating cheetos, playing call of duty.

What red flag laws do are open up a weapon for unpopular politixal speech to be punished. For unpopular writings. Unpopular activities(seems crazy to shoot animals you don't eat, like coyote right?).

This is an emotional attempt. You are smart. I can list 1000 ways your more likely to be killed than mass shooting. Most shootings don't involve your 1000 round drum.

Let's not forget, the Patriot Act was going to protect us from Terrorists killing us. There was a court, with judges (FISA). We heard the same " I'd gladly give up......" How's that working out?

Once your in the system that's different. But this is about government wanting to expand its ability to criminalize.

8000 folks died of aspirin last year. We need to do something!!

This is a sticky balance, we haven't figured it out in 200 years and you and I aren't going to figure it out in 200 words. I share your concern about effective process, but don't believe that alone invalidates the discussion. So, let's agree to disagree. I don't expect to change your mind and I don't expect you to change mine. But for a few brief minutes we gave others a looking into some differing perspectives. Even if we disagree, I'd still buy you a beer and shoot a few rounds of sporting clays together if we crossed paths. Take care.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well, at least I made it in before the lock...

I wonder what the record of least post for a thread to get the lock is?

Let's not get too sensitive - hoss and I weren't calling each other names, we weren't disparaging whole groups of humanity and we were staying on topic. A little back and forth on the specifics is good for the sole.

 

[jake23]

I have said for a few years now that this is a solution in search of a problem.

Fact is that gun violence is a problem that is so statistically insignificant that it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for people wanting to ban guns.

How many people in the US died from dropping an electronic device into the sink or bath tub? Where is the outrage and demand for action?

Too bad we as a society can’t spend this amount of time and effort on real problems that will effect most people on his forum.