Red flag orders - the left has found a magic bullet against guns

[Herr Vogel]

Don't tell anyone what you got. Especially family.

Problem solved.

If you treat firearms ownership like a taboo or a dirty secret to be hidden, it's just going to create a chilling effect; fewer people will choose to exercise the RKBA, and objections to infringements on such will be all that easier to reject out of hand as "just the rantings of a handful of old men".

 

[thunderchicken]

Sounds like they are doing the right thing in trying to get the troubled youth(s) the help needed. And it sounds like they are doing a thorough investigation. But, this is still quite troubling. The article did say that removing the guns is "temporary"....which makes me wonder what exactly that means. We have all heard stories of people who had to wait almost a year or more to get their guns released from police. What makes it more aggregating is I can only imagine the police property room cramming the tagged guns into barrels full of guns or into some crates with no regard to someone's personal property. And that is all just salt in the open wound of the real victim here, which is the gun owner who was wrongfully stripped of his right.

I could be wrong but what makes this scarier is that these laws are at the state level so each state that inacts such will have their own interpretation.
Yes sir scary times we are living when laws can strip a person of due process.

 

[snowwalker]

I'd bet you the cold drink of your choice that he'd sign it, if it came across his desk. This seems to be the answer to the call to "just do something" about mentally troubled people and their access to guns. Republicans are enamored with this just as much as the gun grabbers.

I guess you and most other people don't know,but some states already have this law on the books and Indiana is one of them! It is not !coming it is here.

 

[Ggreen]

I guess you and most other people don't know,but some states already have this law on the books and Indiana is one of them! It is not !coming it is here.

It's hit much closer than most here know. We really need to start speaking up and letting it be known we demand our rights be preserved and expanded rather than removed and weakened.

 

[sidewinder27]

There was a video on youtube of a guy trying to get his guns back and even after a court order the police fought to keep them. Finally they did release half of them and told him they didn't know if they had the other half or not and that he would have to sue them for them because this was all he was getting. They also kept every magazine and all ammo. The guns he did get back were damaged as well and had been shot.

 

[Mongo59]

Meanwhile where do we place our trust? We have ruled out family, friends, government and law enforcement. Most of us shoot at public ranges and the ones who have their own range can still be heard. Do we stop shooting to try and bs our way to continued gun ownership? If we don't then what do we use for ammo? No need to keep it available if you can't have a gun, possibly less constitutional rights to maintain ownership of it than guns.

Who goes forward from here? Do you think it is easier to keep them or to try and get them back after we loose them?

The door has been kicked in by these recent rulings. The constitution is no longer a shield. Your home is no longer your castle.

Who speaks for us? Who do we support and when? These are the questions we had better answer now and get out in front of this.

 

[Onebad06vtx]

Meanwhile where do we place our trust? We have ruled out family, friends, government and law enforcement. Most of us shoot at public ranges and the ones who have their own range can still be heard. Do we stop shooting to try and bs our way to continued gun ownership? If we don't then what do we use for ammo? No need to keep it available if you can't have a gun, possibly less constitutional rights to maintain ownership of it than guns.

Who goes forward from here? Do you think it is easier to keep them or to try and get them back after we loose them?

The door has been kicked in by these recent rulings. The constitution is no longer a shield. Your home is no longer your castle.

Who speaks for us? Who do we support and when? These are the questions we had better answer now and get out in front of this.

Its already here in Indiana
Called The Jake Laird Law
www.in.gov/isp/3484.htm

 

[Lex Concord]

Ok, I read the article. Well, if the details were accurate, I think this is the right move. Even if the firearms were locked and the juvenile has access to them, this was the right thing to do. But the whole process could be polished. My aplogies for jumping conclusion before reading the article. I'm only human.

So, just to be clear, you have a punk-ass ne-er do well making threats at his school. His friend, your nephew (also a punk, apparently), says he'll help by stealing Uncle happygunner's guns (to which he alleges he has access).

You have no knowledge of any of this.

Fellow pupil overhears and squeals (good on him), the cops decide to come and take your guns by "taking advantage of" (their words; after reading the statute, I concur) the law, even after the suspect who alleged he had access is, himself, in custody.

You had no clue of any of this, the police have no clue whether your nephew has access to the weapons or not, but you are totally copacetic with them showing up without a warrant and taking your guns?

A petition filed pursuant to this section shall allege that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.

Source: VT S221 - As Enacted

I'm guessing the cops are hanging their hats on the alleged access to relative's guns as being in punk-ass's "custody or control" even though he was or appears to have been in custody at the time of the seizure.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I would strongly (and peacefully object - most likely through my attorney). This is horse , and you can bet we have more "taking advantage" with thinner and thinner excuses coming.

 

[terrehautian]

I’m alright for a red flag confiscation with due process.

Police receive threat or report
go to judge and present evidence and have them sign order
when it happens, the gun owners get itemized list with law enforcement signing it
within a certain time frame, court hearing has to take place to determine if it the threat is real or if the guns are okay to go back to owner
if they go back, they have to go back within two business days
if returned not in same condition, in the amount of time, or full amount, law enforcement will be required to make it right financially

the Indiana law might have some of these already. It would also protect the gun owners and law enforcement.

 

[miguel]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Unless the local judge disagrees and someone thinks the Arms will be used by a ne'er do well.

Oh man, I forgot about that last part...

 

[Lex Concord]

Despite the misquote, you realize that had nothing to do with red flag laws right? Man, the TDS is strong here.

President Trump’s Administration is calling on every State to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs).

• The President is directing the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to States, at their request, on establishing and implementing ERPOs.
• ERPOs allow law enforcement, with approval from a court, to remove firearms from individuals who are a demonstrated threat to themselves or others and temporarily to prevent individuals from purchasing new firearms.
• ERPOs should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.


"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.

Source: The Hill

So, yes, a slight misquote, if one wishes to be pedantic.

And, no, Trump had nothing to do with the reg flag laws already on the books when he said that. Even the VT statute I previously cited was in process (introduced in VT Senate on January 8, 2018) at the time of the quote above (March 12, 2018).

But if you think he wouldn't support them being enacted in all 50 states (he does; see above) or that he isn't part of the problem when more of these roll out, you're fooling yourself.

 

[Trigger Time]

I’m alright for a red flag confiscation with due process.

Police receive threat or report
go to judge and present evidence and have them sign order
when it happens, the gun owners get itemized list with law enforcement signing it
within a certain time frame, court hearing has to take place to determine if it the threat is real or if the guns are okay to go back to owner
if they go back, they have to go back within two business days
if returned not in same condition, in the amount of time, or full amount, law enforcement will be required to make it right financially

the Indiana law might have some of these already. It would also protect the gun owners and law enforcement.

Ha yeah I rely believe any of that or that they will be held accountable if they screw up or make false statements to get a warrant. I've lost almost all faith in the courts

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[Ark]

I’m alright for a red flag confiscation with due process.

Police receive threat or report
go to judge and present evidence and have them sign order
when it happens, the gun owners get itemized list with law enforcement signing it
within a certain time frame, court hearing has to take place to determine if it the threat is real or if the guns are okay to go back to owner
if they go back, they have to go back within two business days
if returned not in same condition, in the amount of time, or full amount, law enforcement will be required to make it right financially

the Indiana law might have some of these already. It would also protect the gun owners and law enforcement.

The process is bull****. Nobody will ever, ever be denied an order. No judge would ever put his job and reputation on the line for the sake of protecting Cletus' right to keep his guns. Everyone who asks will get a confiscation order, period, because there is ZERO incentive for a judge to ever deny one.

Show me documentation that even one person has been denied a confiscation order where state law made them available. Everywhere that red flag laws have been passed, there has been a FLOOD of confiscation orders with no denials.

Some lady could sit in front of Walmart phoning in red flag orders on every open carrier who walks in the store and every single one would be approved based solely on her claim of being afraid. And that's exactly what will happen. There will be individuals with hundreds of confiscation orders credited to them. It will be a full time job for them.

 

[grunt soldier]

||||||||| You're silly. |||||||| They are denied all the time. Just cause the article says this or that does not mean there was no investigation. You really think this kid said yeah i have access to uncles guns and that was all that was needed to take them? Show me one case where an old lady called in a red flag cause she was scared and it reulted in confiscation of firearms.

I know we all want to be angry. Yell. Say they are coming but unless you live in cali or some other socialist state, that is absolutley not how it works. Have any of you ever written a search warrant for a judge to sign. Which is easier than this. They require very specific information and very detailed information. Judges are less likely to sign something that could cost them their career. Than to just put their name on anything.

I am willing to bet money there is much more to this. They did an investigation. Found out specific details and had info to act on. That info will not be released up front to the public as its still an active case.

I know i know im crazy. The stuff i said is wrong. They are coming for your stuff blah blah blah

 

[warthog]

Yeah, Red Flag laws, what a joke…not going to talk anymore about it though.

 

[snowwalker]

||||||||| You're silly. |||||||| They are denied all the time. Just cause the article says this or that does not mean there was no investigation. You really think this kid said yeah i have access to uncles guns and that was all that was needed to take them? Show me one case where an old lady called in a red flag cause she was scared and it reulted in confiscation of firearms.

I know we all want to be angry. Yell. Say they are coming but unless you live in cali or some other socialist state, that is absolutley not how it works. Have any of you ever written a search warrant for a judge to sign. Which is easier than this. They require very specific information and very detailed information. Judges are less likely to sign something that could cost them their career. Than to just put their name on anything.

I am willing to bet money there is much more to this. They did an investigation. Found out specific details and had info to act on. That info will not be released up front to the public as its still an active case.

I know i know im crazy. The stuff i said is wrong. They are coming for your stuff blah blah blah

So your saying there are no left leaning or anti-gun judges in the state, that attorneys are honest and just want to follow the law, and the police always follow the rules and law. No one has an ax to grind and are for the common good. Somehow I heard the same thing about being added to a no-fly list, yeah that turned out great. If anyone here thinks this is not a problem and has no chance of abuse you should not be allowed to drive a car since your reasoning is so flawed.

 

[snowwalker]

I'm going to put this right here.


"There is no such thing as probable cause or due process during this secret meeting. [/B]The only qualification is that the subject under scrutiny has the potential to commit a violent crime. There doesn't even have to be any proof. Anyone can claim you're a danger which immediately puts you on the list.


Taking any sort of medications? Have Depression? Lost a loved one recently? Watch violent movies? Do your in-laws think your crazy? Then you must be a danger and you must have your guns taken away for your own safety. It's only a matter of time before you find yourself and others like you subject to an unconstitutional gun confiscation.

[h=4]Aftermath of an Unconstitutional Gun Confiscation[/h]
Once you've been placed on that list and your guns have been taken from you, it is nearly impossible to get them back. This article explains it perfectly:
"After a fixed period of time — say, 21 days — the gun owner can ask for a court hearing to restore his or her constitutional rights. But guess what? Few gun owners have the sophistication or the thousands of dollars it would take to hire a lawyer and expert witnesses. And few courts are willing to second-guess themselves and reverse the Gun Confiscation Order which has been issued.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of veterans have lost their gun rights without due process pursuant to a comparable procedure. And recent revelations from the VA suggest that fewer than 50 have successfully invoked this "process" to get their rights back."

[h=4]The Flood Gates[/h]
As of May 2018, 9 states have enacted the Red Flag Law. The bill has also been proposed in 14 other states. Consider the quoted article below:
"So, who gets to decide if someone is “Dangerous”?

The gun grabbers have already said that we are ‘Terrorists’ so it’s not too much of a stretch for them to claim every gun owner is “dangerous” for just having them....These laws flip the Constitutional principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head. Now with these laws, you can be deprived of your liberty on someone’s word in a one-sided hearing without your knowledge."

Which leads one to wonder what happens next? This new law is a flood gate for revoking due process and denying all other constitutional rights."


Article from Tackleberry Solutions

 

[Tanfodude]

So, just to be clear, you have a punk-ass ne-er do well making threats at his school. His friend, your nephew (also a punk, apparently), says he'll help by stealing Uncle happygunner's guns (to which he alleges he has access).

You have no knowledge of any of this.

Fellow pupil overhears and squeals (good on him), the cops decide to come and take your guns by "taking advantage of" (their words; after reading the statute, I concur) the law, even after the suspect who alleged he had access is, himself, in custody.

You had no clue of any of this, the police have no clue whether your nephew has access to the weapons or not, but you are totally copacetic with them showing up without a warrant and taking your guns?



Source: VT S221 - As Enacted

I'm guessing the cops are hanging their hats on the alleged access to relative's guns as being in punk-ass's "custody or control" even though he was or appears to have been in custody at the time of the seizure.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I would strongly (and peacefully object - most likely through my attorney). This is horse , and you can bet we have more "taking advantage" with thinner and thinner excuses coming.

You better read the article and reread my posts. And I already know what I have to do if that ever happens to me.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Source: WhiteHouse.gov



Source: The Hill

So, yes, a slight misquote, if one wishes to be pedantic.

And, no, Trump had nothing to do with the reg flag laws already on the books when he said that. Even the VT statute I previously cited was in process (introduced in VT Senate on January 8, 2018) at the time of the quote above (March 12, 2018).

But if you think he wouldn't support them being enacted in all 50 states (he does; see above) or that he isn't part of the problem when more of these roll out, you're fooling yourself.

Thanks for the correction and I stand corrected somewhat. As you said though, many states had these laws before Trump was ever elected. It wasn't something initiated by Trump. He might agree with expansion of it (to which I would be opposed), but it wasn't his brainchild.