Red Flag Confiscation

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was taken from a news story in Colorado Springs

“The person seeking the order must sign an affidavit under oath declaring that legitimate concerns exist surrounding a person who has access to a gun; the law was designed to reduce the possibility of a gun being used by someone who may have mental, emotional or behavioral issues.

Under the law, a judge must schedule a temporary hearing on the same day a request is filed or on the next business day after a filing; a second hearing must take place within 14 days afterward, in which a judge decides whether enough evidence exists to seize someone's guns.

If a judge approves an order be granted, the gun owner must surrender his or her weapons -- as well as their concealed-carry permit -- to law enforcement, a federally-licensed firearms dealer, outside relative or licensed owner of the guns if owned by someone else.”
 
When I moved to NYS, a FFL held my handguns until I got the permit. They do that quite a lot they told me. Cost me a buck so I did that only with the best pieces.
 
i ain't a lawyer and never played one.

It would appear that so called "red flag" gun laws are civil procedures as opposed to criminal cases. In criminal law only the government can bring charges. In civil law citizens bring charges.

The burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt". For civil cases the standard is "preponderance of the evidence".

Civil Law vs. Criminal Law: Breaking Down the Differences | Rasmussen University
 
i ain't a lawyer and never played one.

It would appear that so called "red flag" gun laws are civil procedures as opposed to criminal cases. In criminal law only the government can bring charges. In civil law citizens bring charges.

The burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt". For civil cases the standard is "preponderance of the evidence".

Civil Law vs. Criminal Law: Breaking Down the Differences | Rasmussen University
You must have slept at a Holiday Inn last night.
 
How about the fact that no evidence of any crime, anywhere, by anyone, is needed to go forward on a RFL seizure? (to the extent of my knowledge, based on a review of some, but not all, RF laws)

Perhaps not evidence of any crime, but there is a requirement for evidence of a behavior on the part of the subject that warrants a RFL seizure.

AFAIK all 'Red Flag Laws', or extreme risk protection orders, gun violence restraining orders, or whatever name an individual state has given the process, requires that a court be petitioned by either law enforcement or certain others given standing by the state's law to have the firearms removed from an individual due to an imminent threat to the public or to the subject.

Presumably there must be some evidence presented in the petition, such as the subject's actions, threats, or other behaviors, that is considered persuasive enough by the judge to grant a firearms seizure order. I would hope that a simple "judge, please take away my ex's guns" wouldn't suffice.

The danger, of course, is that the process is ripe for abuse by vindictive family members or close acquaintances, in much the same way a traditional temporary restraining order is abused during divorce proceedings.

We are at the mercy of the court attempt to weed out the frivolous petitions from a genuine emergency requiring immediate action on the part of law enforcement to avert a tragedy. And we are also at the mercy of the process to determine how quickly after a seizure of guns the subject is afforded an opportunity to present his side of the case regarding the validity of the original petition.

I personally am not for Red Flag Laws because I believe that if someone has demonstrated such dangerous behavior as to warrant his or her guns to be confiscated, then they should also be dangerous enough to be taken into custody for making threats, or for mental competency evaluation. And if a person's words or deeds do not raise to the level of temporary custody, they do not raise to the level of gun confiscation.

But back to my original question, I wonder what the difference is, legally, between petitioning a judge for a search warrant, and petitioning a judge for a gun confiscation order. Both involve petitioning a judge, both leave the final determination to the judge, and both allow a full due process hearing on behalf of the subject after the fact.
 
Perhaps not evidence of any crime, but there is a requirement for evidence of a behavior on the part of the subject that warrants a RFL seizure.
Absolutely, but "evidence of a crime" is a legally distinct thing, separate from "evidence of a behavior [that justifies an RFL seizure.]"
....The danger, of course, is that the process is ripe for abuse by vindictive family members or close acquaintances, in much the same way a traditional temporary restraining order is abused during divorce proceedings. . . . . We are at the mercy of the court attempt to weed out the frivolous petitions from a genuine emergency requiring immediate action on the part of law enforcement to avert a tragedy. And we are also at the mercy of the process to determine how quickly after a seizure of guns the subject is afforded an opportunity to present his side of the case regarding the validity of the original petition....
You, sir, have correctly identified one of the many problems. I have known a lot of judges over the years, and the ones I have known over the years almost always prefer to err on the side of caution. Perhaps especially because AR judges are elected, none of them wants to be on the news as "the judge that let Mass Shooter Mike keep his guns."
 
I’m more worried about my ammo in such an event. I have enough 22 to cause concern. And it’s worth more than the 22s are. Does anyone know if they confiscate the ammo? I also guess that doesn’t get returned.

I know some folks that split up. Then it was she filed an epo on him “she was afraid of him, he has guns”. Then he filed an epo on her, she “had a gun and was crazy”. I was in the middle of it sorta as I was a friend that was always around. Nothing ever happened to me thankfully. But it woke me up and now I ain’t around folks like that.

Yes ammo would get taken also.
 
Unfortunately vindictive people can and do lie. They also enlist friends or family to support them. Seen this play out with a coworker who’s angry ex who filed a protection order using her friends to back up her claims. Police came to workplace, seized carry weapon and escorted him home to confiscate other firearms. Long story follows without a happy ending.

This type of scenario is what I expect from the majority of red flag reporting. Even though laws may be in place to deter false reporting, I strongly doubt that they will be enforced in any meaningful way.

The potential for saving lives may exist with red flag seizures but the cost to gun owners will be high.
 
Unfortunately vindictive people can and do lie. They also enlist friends or family to support them. Seen this play out with a coworker who’s angry ex who filed a protection order using her friends to back up her claims. Police came to workplace, seized carry weapon and escorted him home to confiscate other firearms. Long story follows without a happy ending.

This type of scenario is what I expect from the majority of red flag reporting. Even though laws may be in place to deter false reporting, I strongly doubt that they will be enforced in any meaningful way.

The potential for saving lives may exist with red flag seizures but the cost to gun owners will be high.

I don't think people realize just how common it is whether it's red flag laws or restraining orders or their equivalent. People lie and weaponize them all the time and when law enforcement shows up there is zero discretion no matter how much they sympathize. The order comes from a judge and they will be leaving with your firearms. It's so common.
 
I am surprised some enterprising pro-2A person/company has not started a secure/off-site temperature controlled firearm storage/holding facility similar to what upscale self storage places do for wine collections, but with better, armed security and secure access. Maybe insurance would be too untenable.

As I get closer to retirement and the thought of spending a lot of it traveling, I worry about what I'll do with my extensive firearm collection. I am not ready to downsize it at this point, but I also don't want to leave it at my empty house for possibly weeks a time as I travel. And others have mentioned the hefty price and hassle of turning it over to an FFL or pawn shop for storage, making that idea a non-starter for me.

I would be greatly interested in some place that I knew was secure and safe to store my firearms. I don't want to be that guy on the news that they pull over for a traffic stop and find 150 firearms in his motor home.

If a red flag alternative was to store the firearms at a facility like this, instead of a county/state storage facility there is also potentially a lot less risk of damage to the firearms. Not that I support the idea of red flags, but if there was a mediator supervising every case that was impartial and the firearms could be held at a neutral facility like these storage facilities, then the risk of malfeasance by the state could be greatly reduced. Of course getting the state to agree to these type requirements is nil, I would imagine.

But I would be willing now to keep the bulk of my collection at such a facility, with only the necessities I am currently working on/using at my house. It the state had no record of my using such a facility it would be hard for them to confiscate what they don't know exists.
 
Last edited:
Even though laws may be in place to deter false reporting, I strongly doubt that they will be enforced in any meaningful way.
This could be argued. One suspects enforcement would have a lot to do with the local culture, demographics (size of the community, preponderance of age groups, level of education in the region), and unfortunately, besides the political bent in the region, the training and funding of local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices.
I don't think people realize just how common it is whether it's red flag laws or restraining orders or their equivalent. People lie and weaponize them all the time and when law enforcement shows up there is zero discretion no matter how much they sympathize. The order comes from a judge and they will be leaving with your firearms. It's so common.
As much as I'm opposed to so-called "red flag laws," it does appear that there's no evidence this state's law has been misused -- yet. Over 90% of orders requested since the law became effective have come from law enforcement, and then only after an episode of serious behavioral disturbance and/or wholly unjustified brandishing, threatening or firing of a firearm. The judges seem to have been pretty restrained thus far, and as yet, no egregious cases have surfaced of disgruntled ex-spouses/partners/lover or family child custody disputes indicating "weaponized" use. None of this excuses the fact that the law exists in the first place.

The potential for misuse of these laws and orders, though, is high; the constitutionality of the laws, of course, should not be in doubt.
 
It is imperative as a safety valve that submitting a false Red Flag complaint should result in punishment that NOBODY would ever wish to endure for essentially "SWATting" an innocent victim. It should involve mandatory imprisonment, punitive fines, restitution, and lengthy community service…following those other punishments.

Make people think long and hard about making a fraudulent complaint that puts many in jeopardy.
 
The potential for saving lives may exist with red flag seizures but the cost to gun owners will be high.

They use that argument, "potential for saving lives," so in the same logic, they should ban automobiles because far more people die in automobile accidents. The potential for saving lives exist in a lot of areas: ban chainsaws, ban Tylenol, ban kitchen knives, ban water (someone might drown).
 
Last I heard, in KY, an epo only revokes your ccdw permit and you only have to remit your carry gun. But your other guns are not confiscated. Now I don’t know if they changed it or not. It may be case to case? But I got my info from someone that had an epo filed against them via an ex. A different person that mentioned previously. It’s a common thing here. Lawyers recommend it during divorce, from what I’m told.
 
In California, that in itself would be criminal (misdemeanor). It also includes ammunition if I'm not mistaken.

edit: link
Well, being single with few close friends that come over to my house to see what firearms I may or may not have, and living in Texas, I don't think I have to worry about red flag confiscations. But if circumstances were different I sure as heck would have some contingency plans should certain events trigger even the possibility of this happening.

I was married for over 20 years, didn't get married until I was 28, and owned and still own several pieces of land that my wife never knew existed. So I'm quite sure it would not be all that difficult with careful pre-planning to outmaneuver those trying to take away my god given rights and property. I've always been a little paranoid, and it looks like there was good reason.
 
Last I heard, in KY, an epo only revokes your ccdw permit and you only have to remit your carry gun. But your other guns are not confiscated. Now I don’t know if they changed it or not. It may be case to case? But I got my info from someone that had an epo filed against them via an ex. A different person that mentioned previously. It’s a common thing here. Lawyers recommend it during divorce, from what I’m told.

There’s no gun listed on your KY permit. How would they know which one is your carry gun?
 
State by state laws are going to vary, but most say that once a complaint is received, there must be a hearing before a judge within 24 hours to determine if probable cause exists before firearms are deemed to be confiscated. Some states allow FFLs to hold them or family members not within same household (I don’t think that would be a safe alternative). Not a perfect answer though. It’s not a case where you’re going to be woke up to a SRT entry into your house. For the most part, you’re going to know about it. Each case will be unique. Now, if you have a history that is “questionable “ or probable cause to think something could happen, then there may be an emergency decision from the courts. And it has to come from the courts, not the police.

Colorado passed their law in 2020 and there have been 5 cases where firearms were ordered to be turned in in El Paso County.
With regards to the # of cases.
Inaccurate. That data was from the first year in effect.
Most recent info I could find on stats.
https://coag.gov/press-releases/8-11-21/


I believe there are more cases at this point in time.
 
The website where I got my information from was a news report from KRDO.com written on June 07, 2022. It was very specific that the law took effect January of 2020 and said:


KRDO NewsChannel 13 is speaking Tuesday with State Sen. Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, and State Rep. Tony Exum, Sr., D-Colorado Springs.

Exum said that since the law was enacted, judges have approved five orders to seize guns in El Paso County.

And this is El Paso county, not the state of Colorado
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top