Have firearm confiscations increased?

Welcome to Minority Report coming true.

The little Ohio freak was living with his Dad. Yep, the son's internet trash got his Dad's guns confiscated.

In reality, I doubt it. I'm going out on a limb, but I think confiscations are being reported more frequently in an effort to support the idea of that red flag laws work. Maybe the tinfoil in my pith helmet is a little tight, but it's not hard for me to imagine that increased reporting may be part of a campaign to get gun owners and shooters to keep our hobby secret for fear of loosing out guns.

I remember reading about seizures in the 80s and 90s. Big difference then was that the guns and ammo, along with cash, were seized as part of a drug bust.

mokin said:

..it's not hard for me to imagine that increased reporting may be part of a campaign to get gun owners and shooters to keep our hobby secret for fear of loosing out guns.

Click to expand...

Yup

Face it.... the big change in the internet age is simply that info of any kind comes at us in greater quantity and much, much faster than it did before the 'net (and the 24 hour a day news cycle). I doubt that there's one bit of increased "firearms confiscations" but I guarantee you're going to hear about it much sooner and much more often - particularly when there's an agenda involved - by the news media, the anti 2nd Amendment types, and those running for office with an anti-gun agenda....

The proof of what I'm talking about is gained by simply watching the news about "possible recession" right now.... Boy oh boy - talk about wishful thinking on one end and a very dedicated drive on the part of politicians to play down or ignore the accomplishments of those they're running against...

My favorite part:
"a federal charge of threatening to threaten"
Is that even a thing?????

KNO3 said:

That is something I'm afraid of. The young man may well be a threat, but what gives the Feds the right to confiscate the firearms and ammo if they belonged to his father?

Click to expand...

He apparently had access to his Dad's firearms.

From the federal indictment:

"Olsen was indicted in federal court this week on one count of threatening to assault and abet others to assault federal law enforcement officers engaged in the performance of official duties and one count of making threatening communications interstate.

"Every law enforcement officer takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman said. "Anyone who threatens those same law enforcement agents is committing a crime, not engaging in some form of protected speech. When those threats are made, especially where someone possesses the means to act on those threats, we take it seriously and will seek criminal charges." "

There is a message here for young government haters: Threatening folks, especially federal law enforcement folks, on the web may have serious consequences.

https://patch.com/ohio/cleveland/ohio-man-threatened-kill-federal-agents-indictment-says

Red Flag laws are just yet another way for those who hate guns to get them out of our hands by going around the Constitution and due process.

Where are the raids on ANTIFA and the various drug gangs that are equally armed and openly defying the laws of the land????

Florida, who is at around 10 months into its RFL has siezed, by its admission, over 1000 arms. The warrants have been granted at a 95% rate.

Almost all of the laws state "all arms in the domicile" without any regard to how safely stored (there's precedent in this involving co-inhabitants).
What is not clear is how the other people in a household are to regain possessions of their lost chattels. Which are siezed by fiat, skipping right over the 4th, the 6th, and the 8th.

How this is to get "troubled" people needful help is entirely unclear, as it looks like your best bet is to pitch them out on the street before you get raided. Even if they are innocent of all charges.

While I cannot find any specific data, I would find it abnormal if they did not increase in absolute terms since there are many more firearms in circulation and several more states enacting red flag laws.

BATF data page:
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics

News articles:

Gun Confiscations Spike Thanks To ‘Red Flag Laws’:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/02/11/gun-confiscations-spike-thanks-red-flag-laws/

California gun confiscations increase sharply under restraining-order law:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politic...ions-increase-sharply-13602566.php?psid=kUglj

jonnyc said:

My favorite part:
"a federal charge of threatening to threaten"
Is that even a thing?????

Click to expand...

Well, it sounds threatening ...

Ohio doesn’t have redflag, and evidently USA doesn’t have free speech either.

huntsman said:

Ohio doesn’t have redflag, and evidently USA doesn’t have free speech either.

Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment never covered violent threats.

CapnMac said:

Florida, who is at around 10 months into its RFL has siezed, by its admission, over 1000 arms. The warrants have been granted at a 95% rate.

Almost all of the laws state "all arms in the domicile" without any regard to how safely stored (there's precedent in this involving co-inhabitants).
What is not clear is how the other people in a household are to regain possessions of their lost chattels. Which are siezed by fiat, skipping right over the 4th, the 6th, and the 8th.

How this is to get "troubled" people needful help is entirely unclear, as it looks like your best bet is to pitch them out on the street before you get raided. Even if they are innocent of all charges.

Click to expand...

So far, every petition filed in the county (Pinellas) has been granted by the Judge.

450 as of July 2018 so it may be more than 1000 by now.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...der-guns-months-after-new-gun-law-took-effect

P5 Guy said:

So far, every petition filed in the county (Pinellas) has been granted by the Judge.

450 as of July 2018 so it may be more than 1000 by now.
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...der-guns-months-after-new-gun-law-took-effect

Click to expand...

And that is the way it will probably be all over the country in states that pass Red Flag Laws. What judge would want to be the one who says there is not enough evidence to take this person's guns and then have something crazy happen.

Absolutely they have gone up.

What makes someone prohibited has increased at state levels and is more enforced.

We went from undeniable right, to right unless convicted of what was primarily violent felonies, to convicted of most felonies, to convicted of a misdemeanor, to conviction of more misdemeanors and mental health things. Now Red flag laws do not even require a conviction of anything.

As stated in post 17 what will qualify to take away someone's guns will vary based on state and location and how friendly they are to firearms, and the status and resources of the individual in society. In some places it will be just about everyone requested.
It was hard enough to try and create fairness and some sort of justice in the court system which still sides with the state more often than not, but they dont even have jury review of red flag laws.
Mental health officials that get most of their income and workload contracting or working directly for the court or government will be given the task of reviewing a persons mental health, and they will understand they are expected to review favorable to what the judge requesting the review desires, which in the case of firearms will be to find that they should be taken most of the time.
In more firearm friendly places you may get a fairer assessment. In anti-gun places, well guns will be taken from all but the most upstanding who are called into question.

Some parts of the nation boys can be boys, in others they are turned into criminals quite readily for similar things, the nation is quite different depending where you are.

Sadly, they will go after more and more law abiding people while doing NOTHING against the criminals. Then, say they need to shaft us more as the CRIMINALS are still doing bad things, and the cycle will repeat till there is nothing but the criminals and them left. If there is any justice, I hope the criminals take them out then.

That is not true they will go after an increasing number of people and make more criminals. They will target the real predators too.
The State goes for absolute control, and protects primarily the large employers they depend on to support the consumer economy.
Governments around the world come together in the UN and can all agree that the regular citizen should be disarmed and only those that take orders from government and are employed by them to use force should have arms.

They are supported by the urbanizing citizen which cares more and more what the people of all different cultures and values they share increasingly reduced space with are doing. So as the citizens become increasingly fearful or controlling of their neighbors who they no longer share a unified culture with the government gladly takes away everyones rights and gives themselves more power while telling you they are protecting you from eachother.

As you lose a unified culture and values and are split into many different ones the only thing taught by the government is they are all equal, well except those that are traditionally American, those are inferior and backward.
The courts and bureaucracies are the government, and expecting the courts to not grab more power for themselves and those that enforce their edicts over time is foolhardy. That was a big part of why people originally had arms to begin with. The less the law enforcement fear the people the more they can get done with fewer resources and the more the courts will order them to do.
But a lot of the legitimacy comes from actually going after predators, so they do go after those criminals, but they make other criminals as well.
The founders feared a standing army for a reason. They didn't have police forces back then, and what we call law enforcement today was more akin to a standing army in their time. The term standing army described more than just what you think of as military today.

Yeah more guns are being confiscated in many states, most of which lack so called "red flag" gun laws. That is due to increased vigilance and surveillance by law enforcement officers and increased reporting of possible miscreants.

i've read stuff on these gun boards from imagined actions by fifth columnists to swatting gun owners by the antis. How many here have actually read a so called "red flag" gun law? 18 states and the DOC have these laws. Contrary to the opinions of self taught sea lawyers on gun boards there is due process. Most of these laws require a court order signed by a judge before guns can be confiscated. The subject of the complaint is allowed to face his accuser in a hearing chaired by a judge.

Most states have had orders of protection for decades. OK lacks a "red flag" gun law by that name. The OK
Victim Protective Order law accomplishes the same thing, going after stalkers and wife/girlfriend beaters. When the judge checks the appropriate block on the order, the subjects guns are confiscated, sometimes by the law enforcement officer delivering the order.

Who can initiate an order of protection:

Jurisdictions that Allow Family or Household Members to Petition
California12
Colorado13
Delaware (Only law enforcement can petition for ex parte orders)14
District of Columbia15
Hawaii (effective January 1, 2020)16
Illinois17
Maryland18
Massachusetts19
Nevada (effective January 1, 2020)20
New Jersey21
New York22
Oregon23
Washington24

Jurisdictions that Allow Individuals Other than Family to Petition
District of Columbia (Mental health professionals)25
Hawaii (Medical professionals, educators, and coworkers)26
Maryland (Certain categories of mental and other health workers)27
New York (School administrators)28

States that Only Allow Law Enforcement Officers or Other State Officials to Petition
Florida29
Rhode Island30
Vermont



https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/victim-protective-orders-vpo-in-oklahoma

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...g-national-attention-but-does-work/355132002/

George P said:

Red Flag laws are just yet another way for those who hate guns to get them out of our hands by going around the Constitution and due process.

Click to expand...

While the cynical side of me agrees, there has never been an absolute right of access to firearms. States with red flag laws have, by definition set up a due process for temporary confiscation. Calling it an end run around the Constitution is sort of like equating being temporarily detained by a cop during an investigation with being jailed for weeks with no charges. I wonder how many people would object if they found out the cops seized ammonium nitrate and fuel oil from their non-farmer neighbor who has electric heat based on comments about blowing up the neighborhood? I’m sure I’m about to get called a commie but I think people who have made credible threats of criminal mass violence deserve what they get. It is well-established there’s no 1st Amendment right to free speech if that speech is intended to incite panic or cause mayhem.

What we need to keep watch on is when/if people get their guns back. And we need to see what happens in the case of teen loudmouths who don’t have access to the parent’s guns. Permanent prohibition still requires criminal conviction of very specific crimes even in states with RFLs. This is a case where the details of each individual situation matter a lot.

The practical side of me knows it might not matter in states with private sales anyway. I own more guns than the state knows about, and if they emptied my safe tomorrow they still wouldn’t have all the guns.

Having your property taken away without just cause is confiscation. You have been deemed guilty until proven innocent before anything has even happened, just like the movie Minority Report; that circumvents your rights.