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

[HubertGummer]

On the way home yesterday, I was listening to WIBC. I think the show is Kim Kardashian. A sheriff from Indiana called in and shared a story about the red flag law. He doesn't agree with it.
His story, someone called in on a gun owner and said he was a danger. Could have been a disgruntled ex or any Democrat, take your pick. He had to confiscate all his guns. After due process, it was determined he was not a danger. He could have all his guns returned. There's a $100 a day storage fee, so he couldn't afford to 'buy' them back. So this innocent guy had all his guns 'stolen' from him by the government because someone was uncomfortable with him owning them.

Wow. That fee is BS. Guy didn't ask for them to take and store his guns nor could he refuse it. As slow as .gov moves, I'm assuming by the time he could get his guns back the bill would be thousands. This is how they will take our guns away. One person at a time.

 

[actaeon277]

Why is there a "storage" fee?

 

[2A_Tom]

The fellow should call Guy Relford.

 

[thunderchicken]

Wow. That fee is BS. Guy didn't ask for them to take and store his guns nor could he refuse it. As slow as .gov moves, I'm assuming by the time he could get his guns back the bill would be thousands. This is how they will take our guns away. One person at a time.

Yes any kind of fee to have confiscated property returned is ridiculous. I would venture to bet once a court order to return the guns is signed, the agency securing the guns isn't in a hurry to process the court order and actually return the guns. If that is the case I wonder if the fees keep adding up.

Red flag laws IMHO have some merit. I am a firm believer some people have no business owning guns. Finding a way to write a red flag type law with very clear limits is probably the biggest obstacle.
As they are now, it is far too easy to be abused to victimize gun owners in general.

I agree this is how they will take guns away one person at a time. The anti's who have been at it for a while know they can't take them all at once. Kind of like their media tactic of showing how crazy a person must be who owns say 6 or 8 guns and 1k rounds of ammunition in their opinion piece they call a news story. They want to paint the picture all gun owners are nut jobs while stoking fear by encouraging people to say something so they can take guns away. You make an excellent point and as a gun owner its scary that any of us could be the next victim

 

[LP1]

On the way home yesterday, I was listening to WIBC. I think the show is Kim Kardashian. A sheriff from Indiana called in and shared a story about the red flag law. He doesn't agree with it.
His story, someone called in on a gun owner and said he was a danger. Could have been a disgruntled ex or any Democrat, take your pick. He had to confiscate all his guns. After due process, it was determined he was not a danger. He could have all his guns returned. There's a $100 a day storage fee, so he couldn't afford to 'buy' them back. So this innocent guy had all his guns 'stolen' from him by the government because someone was uncomfortable with him owning them.

So on the KIM KARDASHIAN show (geez, really?), someone who identified himself as an Indiana sheriff calls in and makes this claim. Did he give his name, is he really a sheriff, and did anyone actually verify the information?

Only a very low-information, gullible person would swallow this story hook, line, and sinker and then repeat it as if it's the truth. FAKE NEWS without independent verification.

 

[Leadeye]

It's hard for me to believe that these orders can just be handed out with no more evidence than an anonymous phone call. There has to be more required evidence before someones property is seized.

 

[2A_Tom]

And, our legislature is working on making it even more rigorous. Requiring a higher level of due process, actual Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, or Probable Cause.

 

[blue2golf]

And, our legislature is working on making it even more rigorous. Requiring a higher level of due process, actual Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, or Probable Cause.

I sure hope so. It seems our rights and our very existence are subject to who sits in the legislature or who wears the black robe at the strategic moment.

 

[2A_Tom]

That is why we need to pay attention and write letters.

 

[KellyinAvon]

And, our legislature is working on making it even more rigorous. Requiring a higher level of due process, actual Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, or Probable Cause.

Provides for transparency by requiring report available to the public. Defines "dangerous person", strengthens language with more specific wording. Adds time constraints for the officer to be in front of a judge with an affidavit.

 

[amboy49]

Been reading most, but not all, of the comments in this thread and two things come to mind. If I was the subject of this law and law enforcement comes for my guns, those in my safe are of varied value. I have a few lower end firearms that were either bequeathed by family members (father or grandfather) or purchased when I was much younger and funds for “luxuries” were scarce. Then there are my target shotguns. Several over and under shotguns that are each valued well into the five figure range. I cringe thinking of the cops showing up to confiscate these guns and just throwing them all in a big pile to then to be “stored” in the police property room dumped in an open topped 55 gallon drum with careless abandon. Suffering stock nicks and/or rust issues would diminish the value of these guns greatly.

Secondly, what if all my guns are confiscated and I am subsequently robbed, assaulted and seriously injured. Could I file suit against public officials because they took away my ability to defend myself ?

What if I conceal some of my firearms when the police knock on my door. Can I be forced to identify all of the storage locations to law enforcement or face some type of police action for not defining where all my guns are ? Regardless of the Second Amendment, what about the Fourth Amendment - illegal search and seizure ?

 

[2A_Tom]

If you have been determined to be a threat, that would make you"sort of" a criminal.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America, has ruled that criminals do not have to acknowledge their possession of firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

 

[KellyinAvon]

Been reading most, but not all, of the comments in this thread and two things come to mind. If I was the subject of this law and law enforcement comes for my guns, those in my safe are of varied value. I have a few lower end firearms that were either bequeathed by family members (father or grandfather) or purchased when I was much younger and funds for “luxuries” were scarce. Then there are my target shotguns. Several over and under shotguns that are each valued well into the five figure range. I cringe thinking of the cops showing up to confiscate these guns and just throwing them all in a big pile to then to be “stored” in the police property room dumped in an open topped 55 gallon drum with careless abandon. Suffering stock nicks and/or rust issues would diminish the value of these guns greatly.

Secondly, what if all my guns are confiscated and I am subsequently robbed, assaulted and seriously injured. Could I file suit against public officials because they took away my ability to defend myself ?

What if I conceal some of my firearms when the police knock on my door. Can I be forced to identify all of the storage locations to law enforcement or face some type of police action for not defining where all my guns are ? Regardless of the Second Amendment, what about the Fourth Amendment - illegal search and seizure ?

This is straight out of HB 1651 (up for hearing on 3 April) and is in bold in the bill (added to the current law.) More to follow.
c) A law enforcement agency storing a firearm seized under this section shall use reasonable care to ensure that the firearm is not lost or damaged, and the agency is prohibited from marking the firearm for identification or other purposes. A law enforcement agency shall be liable for any damage to or loss of the firearm that results from the agency's negligence in the storage or handling of the firearm.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Been reading most, but not all, of the comments in this thread and two things come to mind. If I was the subject of this law and law enforcement comes for my guns, those in my safe are of varied value. I have a few lower end firearms that were either bequeathed by family members (father or grandfather) or purchased when I was much younger and funds for “luxuries” were scarce. Then there are my target shotguns. Several over and under shotguns that are each valued well into the five figure range. I cringe thinking of the cops showing up to confiscate these guns and just throwing them all in a big pile to then to be “stored” in the police property room dumped in an open topped 55 gallon drum with careless abandon. Suffering stock nicks and/or rust issues would diminish the value of these guns greatly.

Secondly, what if all my guns are confiscated and I am subsequently robbed, assaulted and seriously injured. Could I file suit against public officials because they took away my ability to defend myself ?

What if I conceal some of my firearms when the police knock on my door. Can I be forced to identify all of the storage locations to law enforcement or face some type of police action for not defining where all my guns are ? Regardless of the Second Amendment, what about the Fourth Amendment - illegal search and seizure ?

Your second question is outside my lane. I'll now relay this question (that's a real thing) to any INGO attorneys monitoring this thread.

 

[Sigblitz]

Kim Kardashian show? Working on a perma-ban. I was thinking Kim Komando and auto-filled, but actually it's the Dana show.

So on the KIM KARDASHIAN show (geez, really?), someone who identified himself as an Indiana sheriff calls in and makes this claim. Did he give his name, is he really a sheriff, and did anyone actually verify the information?

Only a very low-information, gullible person would swallow this story hook, line, and sinker and then repeat it as if it's the truth. FAKE NEWS without independent verification.

I'm not a fact checker. Just forget I mentioned it. Probably never happened.

 

[Sigblitz]

Why is there a "storage" fee?

Republican radio station. Dana show is syndicated, not based in Indiana. Caller identified himself as an Indiana sheriff. Said there was a $100 a day storage fee on the guy's guns they confiscated. Just what I heard on a syndicated right wing radio program.

 

[amboy49]

This is straight out of HB 1651 (up for hearing on 3 April) and is in bold in the bill (added to the current law.) More to follow.
c) A law enforcement agency storing a firearm seized under this section shall use reasonable care to ensure that the firearm is not lost or damaged, and the agency is prohibited from marking the firearm for identification or other purposes. A law enforcement agency shall be liable for any damage to or loss of the firearm that results from the agency's negligence in the storage or handling of the firearm.

So if they put a nick in the stock or allow some rust to appear on the receiver - the value is diminished on this gun by a factor of x squared. What are the odds of receiving fair compensation ? I suspect very low.

 

[Hop]

That's a beautiful shotgun!

IMPD illegally held my pistol for ~6 months. No storage fees, no bumps or dings of any kind. I'm just glad to get it home without it costing me any more $ filing lawsuits.

 

[KellyinAvon]

So if they put a nick in the stock or allow some rust to appear on the receiver - the value is diminished on this gun by a factor of x squared. What are the odds of receiving fair compensation ? I suspect very low.

I don't know, but it is more than you have now. When I say more I mean a metric ****-ton more because none of us have jack-**** now and this is an improvement over jack-****.

It's 0143 and kind of late so if I am a bit more grouchy than usual that could be why. Does it move the ball in the right direction? Is it better than what we have now? If you answered yes to both these questions I think that's a pretty good thing. I'm spending pretty much all damn day at 200 W Washington Street (I got the annual leave to burn so I might as well) and some of it will be supporting this bill which ain't perfect but is a damn sight better than what we got now.

Edit: please see next post.

 

[KellyinAvon]

So if they put a nick in the stock or allow some rust to appear on the receiver - the value is diminished on this gun by a factor of x squared. What are the odds of receiving fair compensation ? I suspect very low.

Lord have mercy Amboy49 that is beautiful. Now that I'm less surly than I was on my previous post I see your concerns. This is an investment and puts things in a very different light. If you had a GT500KR Shelby that was hauled off in a raid, that is an investment that you not have for the foreseeable future. If it comes back with a dent in the quarter-panel and the original grill missing your investment has lost value.

While the 2A aspects of HB 1651 get a lot of attention here at INGO, the 4A and 5A parts are just as vital. Thank you for bringing this up. Now to work on getting this in my crib sheet for Wednesday.