Abuses of Red Flag Law?

[MarylandTacomaRider]

Two words: Duncan Lemp

 

[Magyars]

 

[KellyinAvon]

7. Amend Indiana's "Red Flag" law to institute clear criminal liabilities for false reporting, including making the reporter liable for all costs incurred by the individual impacted by a false or erroneous "Red Flag" accusation. The criminal penalties must include incarceration.

Jim Lucas had a similar bill a couple years ago. It amended the false reporting statute and made the level of misdemeanor/felony equivalent to the crime which was falsely reported. The Statehouse was on a "don't create more felonies until we review the ones we have" kick and it went nowhere.

In the current false reporting statute (IIRC) there is what you'd expect (and all contain the words "knowingly and willingly",) also specifically names false reporting of wetlands violations.

I'd like to see Laird Law abuse added to the statute.

 

[Ziggidy]

I am sitting here thinking about the potential abuse as we slide down this slope. There are many times we have heard about people calling police about a potential violent marital abuse but the police refuse because noting has happened yet. Other times there are calls about potential child abuse, sometimes the innocent are dragged through the dirt because of an angry divorced partner, grandparent or such. There are times when reported child abuse goes unanswered because unless something is witnessed, noting can be done.

Imagine an angry co-worker who is woked and knows you support 2A, no one can tell me as we get further into this, the woke will not abuse the Red Flag Laws.

Other claim that we have a review board for all reports, maybe so; so what? Who is on the review boards? How will they respond? What are their guidelines and how flexible are the rules? One can only imagine what the Jan 6th Committee would do if they were sitting on a review board.

The Red Flag Law sucks because of the abuse that WILL encounter. Notice I did not say because of the potential abuse. As they push for this, more people will learn about it and it will become a tool.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting to open carry win this woke world that has Red Flag Laws.

Sorry to say, but I am concerned with ALL gun forums. We need to be careful, know who we speak with and who we share with. Times have changed. Ya do know, many here voted for Biden. Ya neverknow who is lurking behind an advatar.

 

[radar8756]

How many "Man with a Gun" have already been reported to 911 for People Legally Open Carrying -

How many Gamers have been "Swatted" due to angry players-

It WILL be abused - I will bet a Dollar on that

 

[KLB]

 

[Amishman44]

While not a direct red flag incident, let me relate what happened to me many years ago as an actual example of the dangers of unintended consequences.

In the mid 1980's, my wife and I were having marital problems. We married young, had 3 kids, 12 years later things just weren't working for us. I made good money in the coal mine, but she spent it all and then some. No abuse, neither of us drank or did drugs, we lived a modest lifestyle and went to church weekly. We didn't even have shouting matches. Tried to make it work, it didn't, and eventually we ended up in divorce court. In court, her lawyer accused me of having mental problems and claimed to have written proof of me dealing with my mental health issues.

Where did his "proof" come from? When our marriage got rocky, I insisted we seek professional counseling. Not with our 80 year old pastor, not one of her family relatives or a church elder, but a professional marriage counselor. So I called a service in a neighboring community, made an appointment, and we went a few times.

It turned out the counselor was a member of the county mental health association. Her office was in a building leased or owned by the association. I didn't question either, why would I?

I made the phone call, I made the appointment, I agreed to pay the bill, and those 3 things made me the "patient". My wife and I met with her in her office, and doing so meant I had "enrolled myself in a mental health facility for the purpose of resolving my mental health problems".

Being stunned by the accusation worked in my favor. I explained to the judge what happened, my lawyer sat calmly, the judge accepted my testimony as a reasonable course of action in seeking to keep our marriage together. But imagine our world if something so simple can be used against you as a red flag, put your name on a public list, and be used to bar you from buying or owning firearms.

Having been a high school biology / health teacher, and having taught the Mental Health part of Health Class, the craziest part about your experience is, and something that most people won't admit to, is that everyone has 'mental-health' issues related to life's activities and events in their lives, at some point in their life! Which would effectively mean or result in no one having a firearm, not even law enforcement or the military, sadly, look at the number of young soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, over the past 20 years who, without proper 'mental health' care, have chosen suicide as the way to deal with it!

The issue isn't whether someone has 'mental-health' issues, the issue is whether they have handled it in a manner that is healthy (aka, mature, responsible, etc.) vs not-healthy response.

There is also a difference between 'mental-health' and 'mental-illness'...and some don't differentiate between those two either.

Mental 'health' is based, mainly, on one's emotional well-being (feeling sad or depressed from a relational break-up or angry because of a wrongful termination from a job, etc.) creates a status where one feels 'wronged' and becomes angry or depressed and, as a result, needs verbal discussion to help alleviate the feeling of negativity or anger and work their way back to a healthy balance (aka, a healthy homeostasis) so they can move forward in life while regaining a positive outlook on life (including acceptance of the issue as placed on them and a resolution that results in being able to put it behind them...not always the outcome they want, but a realistic outcome that they can accept.)

Mental 'illness' by definition, are physiological-based conditions that often have to be treated medically, including things like chemical imbalance in the brain, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, impulse-control disorder, effects of brain-damage, etc.

Understanding the differences between the two often helps with recognition of the issue and aids in seeking the right kind of assistance for someone in need!

In some instances, RFL 'can' be a positive thing, when it's used to protect an individual from, say, self-harm...but the opportunity for 'abuse' is above-and-beyond when it comes to things like 'swatting' or 'false-statements', as in allegations from a scorned spouse or one who is trying to make their (former) spouse look bad so as to make themselves appear 'better' for legal purposes. (Having been a teacher and having had to work with DCS a few times, in relation to students, it was amazing the number of verbal allegations that were made by a spouse, that everyone involved, including the children, refuted!)

What a lot of people (often, the knee-jerk kind) don't want to discuss is the violation of one's due process when it comes to the 'intervention' by law enforcement, based on a one-sided statement.
What a lot of those people are fighting for is 'control' over a possible outcome, based on fear of that outcome. As a result, what a lot of those individuals are displaying is a form of 'mental-health' issues as their desire for 'control' is based on either anger or fear, from a previous experience. And whether one is operating on either anger or fear, neither of which constitutes a healthy or homeostatic balance when it comes to rational decision-making.

And it's only a mentally healthy individual (aka, homeostatically-balanced) who makes rational or objective decisions regarding other individuals or situations.

 

[Gabriel]

 

[JCSR]

What is more likely? #1 above or #2 below?

 

[jwamplerusa]

What is more likely? #1 above or #2 below?

View attachment 206517

Both are unacceptable outcomes, so it doesn't matter. Unconstitutional deprivation of Rights and due process.

 

[DadSmith]

I'm trying to carry on a 'conversation' about current, and proposed, Red Flag Laws with a friend and was asked to provide any instances of their abuse; where was law fraudulently was used to intimidate, accuse, someone.

A search on the internet using words like, abuse, fraudulent, illegal, etc. turns up nothing but 'pro' articles about RFL.

Has anyone heard of any cases where this has occurred? I'm sure they're out there, but how to find them.

SC: Red Flag Laws Ruled Unconstitutional – Nike Insights

nikeinsights.famguardian.org

Read up on this case. Not only was it abusive it was unconstitutional.

 

[Cameramonkey]

SC: Red Flag Laws Ruled Unconstitutional – Nike Insights

nikeinsights.famguardian.org

Read up on this case. Not only was it abusive it was unconstitutional.

But think of the children!

 

[DadSmith]

But think of the children!

I'm hardened against that slogan. I endured Clinton using it for 8 years. I guess they wait a few decades and use it again.

 

[DadSmith]

Now that the SCOTUS has ruled red flag laws unconstitutional does Indiana's red flag law go bye bye? How can we continue to use our red flag law if it's now ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Denny347]

Now that the SCOTUS has ruled red flag laws unconstitutional does Indiana's red flag law go bye bye? How can we continue to use our red flag law if it's now ruled unconstitutional?

I need to look at the ruling but typically, SCOTUS rulings can be laser narrow on their focus and may have no impact on our law if the circumstances are not identical to those in the ruling.

 

[KLB]

Now that the SCOTUS has ruled red flag laws unconstitutional does Indiana's red flag law go bye bye? How can we continue to use our red flag law if it's now ruled unconstitutional?

The case referenced upthread did not rule Red Flag laws were unconstitutional. It wasn't about them at all.

For the most part, Indiana's law would have to be challenged and found to be unconstitutional.

 

[DadSmith]

The case referenced upthread did not rule Red Flag laws were unconstitutional. It wasn't about them at all.

For the most part, Indiana's law would have to be challenged and found to be unconstitutional.

According to Caniglia v Strom, a lower court had previously determined that police confiscating the guns without a warrant fell under the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, but a 9-0 vote from the nation’s top court struck down that ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court, stating that law enforcement can execute “many civic tasks in modern society,” but there is “not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.”

“The very core of the Fourth Amendment,” Thomas wrote, is the “right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable search and seizure.” (Report by Montana Daily Gazette, May 17, 2022).

Hard to get around that opinion by Justice Thomas.

 

[KLB]

Hard to get around that opinion by Justice Thomas.

Which in that case was true. In that case they didn't even pretend there was due process. The police just went in and took the guns.

Red Flag laws are supposed to have some measure of due process. Therefor they will not fit into that ruling. Someone will have to get a case before the court to see if the justices think there is enough due process in the law.

 

[foszoe]

I wonder if a gun owner who recognizes a need for counseling will fail to do so because of red flag laws and fear of confiscation?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I wonder if a gun owner who recognizes a need for counseling will fail to do so because of red flag laws and fear of confiscation?

Good to see you!