Jake Laird Law cited?

[quiggly]

Police: Mentally Unstable Man Had Dozens Of Guns, Drugs - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

This is the first that I have heard about this law? Anyone else know about it.

I actually know this person and have never known him to be mentally unstable although I do not discount this.

But how do LEO's determine mental unstability here and how does the Jake Laird Law they talk about differ from the regular law?

Anyone?

 

[bigcraig]

How did the IMPD conclude he was unstable, and not just stupid for discharging a gun in his garage?

That said, sounds as though the guy had enough weed to send him to the big house anyway.

Oh well, the guy brought these problems on himself.

 

[LEaSH]

With that much grass, I thought they can take the house and all of its contents. Siezure then confiscation after a conviction.
I might be mistaken.

As far as determining mental instability, I'm curious too. He might have blurted out something inapropriate in front of a cop. Or they found he has subscription antidepressants. Or has a distant incident on his record.
It might be another discretionary charge.

 

[Denny347]

Judge Collins in Court 8 actually determines mental stability. We will take them until court date and she will determine if it is permanent or not. Part of the week, the court is "mental" court.

 

[bigcraig]

Judge Collins in Court 8 actually determines mental stability. We will take them until court date and she will determine if it is permanent or not. Part of the week, the court is "mental" court.

I totally understand what happened in the case.

Guy shoots a gun in his garage.
Guys neighbors call police.
Police investigate and find a lot of weed.
Police arrest and confiscate guns and weed.

All that makes sense, except, the "mental" issue. I find it poor reporting on the person writing the story by not addressing what determined that the perp was "mental".

I also lol'd at the "Part of the week, the court is "mental" court.", I am sure most courts have their "mental" moments as well.

 

[SNAFU-M1A]

When they arrived he was in the garage w/ a rifle pacing, talking crazy, mumbling to himself, etc.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In 2004 there was a horrific murder involving an allegedly mentally disturbed individual who had his firearms seized but was able to have them returned. In 2005 the Indiana General Assembly modified Indiana law to address this incident:

House Bill 1776

The additional language is in bold.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

BTW,

Sited: located, placed at

Sighted: able to see

Cited: to quote as authority

Sighted in: what Kirk's M14 was not at an Appleseed

 

[Bill of Rights]

In 2004 there was a horrific murder involving an allegedly mentally disturbed individual who had his firearms seized but was able to have them returned. In 2005 the Indiana General Assembly modified Indiana law to address this incident:

House Bill 1776

The additional language is in bold.

Thank you, Counselor!

Am I the only one who has a HUGE problem with Ch. 13, Sec. 1, line #2?:

Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "dangerous" means:
(1) ...;
(2) a person may present a risk of personal injury to the person or to another person in the future

Excuse me? ANYONE and EVERYONE may present a risk of personal injury to another person in the future.

So now (as of 2005, anyway) we're saying that because of something that hasn't happened and may not, it might, so we are giving ourselves the power to act on supposition and deny the lawful exercise of natural, fundamental rights?

"Preventative justice" does not work because it is anything but just.

How can this be Constitutional?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Bill, you'll never get anywhere by insisting on all this pesky "reality" here.... You gotta go with the politically correct FLOW... man!!! Remember! "It takes a village!" "Change you can believe in!" "We're from the government and we're here to help!"
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[public servant]

As long as the person is given due process to prove otherwise... I'm sure there are some people who back it 100%. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head.

I do believe, however, that we have to assure it's not abused.

 

[fpdshooter]

I know we have used this law twice. The first guy was a suicidal person who led me on a pursuit, then pointed his gun at another officer during a later encounter. I won't comment any further on the second encounter.

After my pursuit we confiscated the handgun he had on him at the time and he was taken to the Community North Psych pavilion for a evualation. He was very clearly suicidal and definately a danger to him, his family, and the public at large. Suicidal thoughts + excessive meth use (coupled with increasing schznophrenia and paranoria) = a lot of destruction about the happen.

 

[PatMcGroyne]

+1 !! Best post on the site.

BTW,

Sited: located, placed at

Sighted: able to see

Cited: to quote as authority

Sighted in: what Kirk's M14 was not at an Appleseed

And BTW, there is NO such thing as ""Preventative justice"". PrevenTAtive justice was eliminated in Grammar-school english class. It's PreVENTIVe justice. Let's get back to normality here. Pat

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I do believe, however, that we have to assure it's not abused

That is my biggest concern. Obviously there needs to be som mechanism as law enforcement will tell you that some of their greatest headaches (and actual safety concerns) come from EDPs. However, the HB1776 modifications were done in the "heat of the moment".

I had several modifications to the modifications that I wish to have added. So far no one has looked at them. I shall continue to try to bring them to the attention of the General Assembly.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And BTW, there is NO such thing as ""Preventative justice"". PrevenTAtive justice was eliminated in Grammar-school english class. It's PreVENTIVe justice. Let's get back to normality here. Pat

While you are correct in re: "normality" vs. "normalcy" (Thank you, Tom Griswold), it appears that the dictionary disagrees with you in re: "preventative":

Preventitive Definition | Definition of Preventitive at Dictionary.com

Did you perhaps mean "preventive"?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

As long as the person is given due process to prove otherwise... I'm sure there are some people who back it 100%. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head.

I do believe, however, that we have to assure it's not abused.

No disrespect to Officer Laird or his family from me. The issue I have is not the removal of the dangerous person from the presence of weapons (of all types, not just firearms). Rather, the problem I have with it is the phrasing. Let's face it, we all know that no LEO worth his (or her) salt is going to enforce it this way, and that is a given, however,

As used in this chapter, "dangerous" means:
(1) ...;
(2) a person may present a risk of personal injury to the person or to another person in the future

can be construed in any number of ways. Every single person on the planet has the capacity for anger. We all have a breaking point at which we will accept no further outrage of whatever type. Once that "line in the sand" is crossed, any given person will go to whatever lengths he or she must to resolve the problem that raised his or her ire. By that logic, no one may ever be permitted to possess firearms. No one, and that includes LEOs and legislators as well. I reiterate that no LEO who is upholding his/her oath will abuse this law in this fashion, and my problem is not with the LEOs, but rather with the legislators who cobbled together some ill-thought-out piece of garbage that they likely harrumphed and patted each other on the back in congratulations when they passed.

It's not the apparent intent that is the problem, it's the horrible, overreaching, insidious phrasing that has such enormous potential for abuse and misuse.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[public servant]

Rather, the problem I have with it is the phrasing.

Agreed...there was probably a better way to word that section of the HB 1776.

The last thing I would want would be for it to be abused or otherwise implemented in a manner other than how it was intended.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The last thing I would want would be for it to be abused or otherwise implemented in a manner other than how it was intended.

Hmmm , I wonder how many innocent Mars Hillians have been made to suffer by such abuses ?

 

[public servant]

Hmmm , I wonder how many innocent Mars Hillians have been made to suffer by such abuses ?

Mars Hillians are tough...they don't suffer.

 

[GuyRelford]

Kirk Freeman has already given the link to the correct House Bill. Here is the statute as it appears in the Indiana Code, with section numbers:

IC 35-47-14
Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm

<A name=IC35-47-14-1>IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.


IC 35-47-14-2
Warrant to search for firearm in possession of dangerous individual
Sec. 2. A circuit or superior court may issue a warrant to search for and seize a firearm in the possession of an individual who is dangerous if:
(1) a law enforcement officer provides the court a sworn affidavit that:
(A) states why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm; and
(B) describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
(i) the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
(ii) another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
that have led the law enforcement officer to believe that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm;
(2) the affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm; and
(3) the circuit or superior court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is:
(A) dangerous; and
(B) in possession of a firearm. As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-3>IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.


<A name=IC35-47-14-4>IC 35-47-14-4
Filing of return after warrant is served
Sec. 4. If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm under this chapter, the law enforcement officer who served the warrant shall, not later than forty-eight (48) hours after the warrant was served, file a return with the court that:
(1) states that the warrant was served; and
(2) sets forth:
(A) the time and date on which the warrant was served;
(B) the name and address of the individual named in the warrant; and
(C) the quantity and identity of any firearms seized by the law enforcement officer.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-5>IC 35-47-14-5
Requirement of hearing on whether firearm should be returned or retained
Sec. 5. (a) Not later than fourteen (14) days after a return is filed under section 4 of this chapter or a written statement is submitted under section 3 of this chapter, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the seized firearm should be:
(1) returned to the individual from whom the firearm was seized; or
(2) retained by the law enforcement agency having custody of
the firearm.
(b) The court shall set the hearing date as soon as possible after the return is filed under section 4 of this chapter. The court shall inform:
(1) the prosecuting attorney; and
(2) the individual from whom the firearm was seized;
of the date, time, and location of the hearing. The court may conduct the hearing at a facility or other suitable place not likely to have a harmful effect upon the individual's health or well-being.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-6>IC 35-47-14-6
Burden of proof at hearing; court orders
Sec. 6. (a) In a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, the state has the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence.
(b) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, determines that the state has proved by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous, the court may order that the law enforcement agency having custody of the seized firearm retain the firearm. In addition, if the individual has received a license to carry a handgun, the court shall suspend the individual's license to carry a handgun. If the court determines that the state has failed to prove that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual from whom it was seized.
(c) If the court, in a hearing under section 5 of this chapter, orders a law enforcement agency to retain a firearm, the law enforcement agency shall retain the firearm until the court orders the firearm returned or otherwise disposed of.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-7>IC 35-47-14-7
If firearm seized is owned by another individual
Sec. 7. If the court, in a hearing conducted under section 5 of this chapter, determines that:
(1) the individual from whom a firearm was seized is dangerous; and
(2) the firearm seized from the individual is owned by another individual;
the court may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the owner of the firearm.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-8>IC 35-47-14-8
Petition for return of a firearm
Sec. 8. (a) At least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which a court orders a law enforcement agency to retain an individual's firearm under section 6(b) of this chapter, the individual may petition the court for return of the firearm. (b) Upon receipt of a petition described in subsection (a), the court shall:
(1) enter an order setting a date for a hearing on the petition; and
(2) inform the prosecuting attorney of the date, time, and location of the hearing.
(c) The prosecuting attorney shall represent the state at the hearing on a petition under this section.
(d) In a hearing on a petition under this section, the individual:
(1) may be represented by an attorney; and
(2) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual is not dangerous.
(e) If, upon the completion of the hearing and consideration of the record, the court finds that the individual is not dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(f) If the court denies an individual's petition under this section, the individual may not file a subsequent petition until at least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date on which the court denied the petition.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

<A name=IC35-47-14-9>IC 35-47-14-9
When law enforcement agency may be ordered to destroy firearm
Sec. 9. If at least five (5) years have passed since a court conducted the first hearing to retain a firearm under this chapter, the court, after giving notice to the parties and conducting a hearing, may order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to destroy or otherwise permanently dispose of the firearm.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.