Red Flag laws, and how are they enforced?

[beeenbag]

After reading of some more anti 2A legislation being passed in Washington state, one referred to the red flag laws and how all guns must be surrendered under those circumstances.

My question is, do you also lose your 4th amendment rights under this accusation and they can come in searching for firearms, or is this an honor system?

I admit I have not taken the time to read each state's version and understand the ins and outs, but it seems to me that not only one constitutional right is being violated, but illegal search and seizure as well.

 

[Telekinesis]

My question is, do you also lose your 4th amendment rights under this accusation and they can come in searching for firearms, or is this an honor system?

The judge issuing the order can also issue a search warrant for the guns if they deem it necessary. It would be up to you to later argue in court that the issuance of the warrant was (legally) "unreasonable" if you want to claim a 4th amendment violation.

I think there's a much better argument about the lack of due process than about illegal search and seizure.

 

[beeenbag]

The judge issuing the order can also issue a search warrant for the guns if they deem it necessary. It would be up to you to later argue in court that the issuance of the warrant was (legally) "unreasonable" if you want to claim a 4th amendment violation.

I think there's a much better argument about the lack of due process than about illegal search and seizure.

Right, I agree, I just didn’t know if a search warrant was something that automatically came along with it or if it was something that came after someone say, told the police they didn’t have any firearms, so to speak.

 

[sequins]

Red flag laws are a poison pill that likely won't see enforcement until additional laws get passed. It's an initial mechanism for door to door, though.

 

[doubleh]

Fortunately my state doesn't have one-------yet. There was a bill introduced along with universal background checks this year. The background check made it and was signed into law immediately upon arriving on the desk of our new ultra liberal governor. It takes effect in July. The red flag provision didn'r make it but there is always next year and the same group is waiting with baited breath to try again. The state sherriff's association told them up front that both are basically unenforcable and they weren't going to wast any resources on either if they became law but liberals don't listen. They are busy crowing about how safe we are going to be now that criminals can't easily get guns.

 

[BSA1]

The judge issuing the order can also issue a search warrant for the guns if they deem it necessary. It would be up to you to later argue in court that the issuance of the warrant was (legally) "unreasonable" if you want to claim a 4th amendment violation.

I think there's a much better argument about the lack of due process than about illegal search and seizure.

"Red Flag" laws should fail Constitutional muster on all counts. It is nothing more than the taking way of individuals property (firearms) without due process under the use of color of law.

The accused has not committed a crime. It is merely based on a suspicion that the individual may be intending to commit a crime using a firearm. Once the warrant is issued the property is seized and the individual is given a court date to argue for return of their guns. A big problem is the individual does not know what the evidence is that is being used against him and there is inadequate time to hire a lawyer and prepared a defense. Good lawyers cost money and even if the accused has the money to hire one how many successful lawyers are able to take a case, prepare a defense without knowing the evidence against their client and appear in Court three days later.

Of course extreme cases are used to justify these laws. What is not reported is there are usually plenty of warning signs that are ignored and never acted on.

 

[Telekinesis]

"Red Flag" laws should fail Constitutional muster on all counts. It is nothing more than the taking way of individuals property (firearms) without due process under the use of color of law.

...

I agree completely. No arguments from me about the ultimate constitutionality of these types of laws.

The OP just asked the mechanism that would be used by the police to seize the guns. For better or for worse, our legal system assumes that orders and warrants issued by a court to be valid and legal - until proven otherwise through the legal system. As satisfying as it would be to stand on your front porch and refuse entry to the police acting on an illegal search warrant, they are coming in whether you like it or not.

As difficult as it would be to have this happen, a gun owner's only method of redress is through the courts. Ideally you would be able to fight the initial order AND separately sue for damages against the reporting party. Yes it requires time and resources to fight this correctly, but unfortunately there's no other option until a good test case is appealed and precedent can be set invalidating these laws.

 

[shafter]

Once law enforcement shows up with a warrant in hand there is no amount of arguing or persuading that is going to convince them to just go away and forget the whole thing. Your best recourse is to act as normal as possible so that when it goes to court later there won't be any body camera footage of you looking like an idiot that could be dangerous. Definitely don't make any hostile remarks about who reported you if you think you know who it might be.

 

[SCMikeyP]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryla...ag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/

These laws are unconstitutional on several levels.

 

[doubleh]

Something we all need to understand is that the people that are attempting to pass these red flag laws care nothing for what the constitution says. If they want it they are going to try to make it happen. They are convinced they know best or just want power and the constitution be damned.

 

[sequins]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryla...ag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/

These laws are unconstitutional on several levels.

I'd rather fight 'em in court than in the field, but it's hard to fault the old guy... These laws create a sad situation. "my cold dead hands" comes to mind and sadly that is in fact the outcome, and will be more often than not moving forward I'm afraid.

 

[Dean C]

Someone, that I'm not expecting, comes to my door at 5:00 AM could very well expect to see me armed. Couple that with wanting to take my guns, you are bound get a fight. The "red flag law" is just another step toward stripping constitutional rights. 2nd and 4th amendments.

 

[Ignition Override]

Due process. This is the overall issue.

 

[DoubleMag]

They will most likely be enforced unequally. There will be a ''host'' of problems unique to each individual case. So, it will appear that one person ''got off'' whereas another seemingly in similar circumstance, but not really similar, will ''get the book thrown at them''

In one for instance someone WILL ''get off'' , then, do a violent act. One side of the aisle will cry foul.
In another for instance, the accused will still have their firearms under careful climate controlled storage (yeah RIGHT), and actually have a bonafide need for one, causing risk to life and/or property..

Stay with me....

Therefore.... the federal level types will cry '' see we need Fed gov't oversight'' causing a BIGGER mess.

It seems to NEVER end at less gov't ; whereas it usually ALWAYS ends up at more gov't. Or at a minimum, the gov't ''needs'' to keep the law even if of no effect.

 

[SCMikeyP]

I'd rather fight 'em in court than in the field, but it's hard to fault the old guy... These laws create a sad situation. "my cold dead hands" comes to mind and sadly that is in fact the outcome, and will be more often than not moving forward I'm afraid.

Agreed. Also, the cops served the warrant at some odd early morning hour, which is why the man armed himself. As a law abiding citizen myself, if I hear someone beating on my door in the middle of the night, even if they said "Police" I would suspect it to be some kind of burglary tactic... Terrible situation created by a terrible law.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What part of this are the antis not getting?

 

[alfsauve]

Something we all need to understand is that the people that are attempting to pass these red flag laws care nothing for what the constitution says. If they want it they are going to try to make it happen. They are convinced they know best or just want power and the constitution be damned.

Oh I can't "ditto" that enough. The Constitution is just a piece of paper to statists. They believe firmly in The End Justifies The Means and as such figure they can ignore The Constitution when it suits them.

 

[entropy]

Red flag laws are a poison pill that likely won't see enforcement until additional laws get passed. It's an initial mechanism for door to door, though.

As I've explained in several threads on confiscation, any attempt at 'door to door' confiscation not involving anther countries' armed forces will not happen in the US, at least in our lifetimes.
There are several factors that ensure this, the first being with instant worldwide communication, it couldn't be done (or even planned) in secret. What, simply shut down the 'communications grid', you say? Works two ways, plus you'd have a bigger crisis to manage then, hundreds of millions would be hopping mad! The second, as I alluded to, is who are you going to get to do it? Local Law Enforcement? Yeah, there'll be a few that'd be all for it, until they start taking casualties, and they would.But most would not participate, or collude with owners (tip them off, etc.) Cops own guns too. Door to door confiscation in Germany in the 30's worked because so few (in the cities) owned guns to begin with, those who were not targeted turned theirs in voluntarily, as they believed themselves safe. (And for the most part were) The NSDAP controlled all forms of mass communication at the time, and had a pretty good, though not total, stranglehold on telephone and mail also.
So, now you think you'll get the National Guard to do it, or Active Army. Good luck with that. It won't happen with the current makeup of the Armed Forces, and the people who so desperately want the guns confiscated tend to be hopolophobic, so don't expect a mass enlistment of ANTIFA babies to go on "The Great Gun Confiscation Crusade".
Now we are down to allowing a third party to do it. There aren't enough mercs, er, contractors in the world to do it, and many of them (Thanks to GWOT) are Americans. So you invite China to come in and take all the civilian guns. Guess what? They decide to take the militaries', too, and oh, were staying, and thanks, American so called 'progressives', but you've outlived your usefulness, so up against the wall.

 

[CoalTrain49]

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What part of this are the antis not getting?

These ERPO laws are a clear violation of ones 4th amendment rights. I'm not going to judge if they are effective or not, they may be, but that still doesn't change the fact that these laws are clearly unconstitutional. Rounding up people and jailing them for expressing themselves might also be effective to keep a certain party or person in power but that also goes against the constitution.

This isn't the same country where I was born. There is no way the police should be able to confiscate and hold a persons property without due process. An ERPO is not due process. No crime has been committed.

The really sad part is we have a president and the NRA supporting these laws.

 

[alfsauve]

My question is, do you also lose your 4th amendment rights under this accusation and they can come in searching for firearms, or is this an honor system?

ANSWER: Yes, you loose your 4th amendment rights and they will come with a search warrant.

You assume that everyone, particularly everyone in power, respects and abides by the Constitution. To many, particularly on the left/Democrat side, the Constitution is a nice, old piece of paper that doesn't meet their needs today, so they are free to ignore it. They, after all, know better what's best than some dusty old piece of paper.

 

[shafter]

The door to door confiscations as many envision won't happen. They wouldn't need to do it that way. Pass laws making it a felony with serious penalties to possess whatever type of firearm they want banned. Most gun owners would turn them in rather than risk getting caught in possession. Sure, some people would hide them, but a hidden firearm serves no purpose and by this time the number of gun owners would have dwindled seriously. With the way things are going, by the time another generation or two comes along they'll be able to pass whatever they want.

 

[alfsauve]

The door to door confiscations....

Uh, I don't think the OP was asking about flat out bans, but about Red Flag laws, in which they will issue a search warrant and they will come to your door.

The current situation in LA is an example.

 

[shafter]

Agreed. Also, the cops served the warrant at some odd early morning hour, which is why the man armed himself. As a law abiding citizen myself, if I hear someone beating on my door in the middle of the night, even if they said "Police" I would suspect it to be some kind of burglary tactic... Terrible situation created by a terrible law.

I wouldn't ever recommend someone answer the door with a firearm if someone was knocking on the door saying they were the police at an early hour. If there was any doubt that it was actually law enforcement I would simply not answer the door. I'd call 911 and confirm that it was law enforcement and then go to the door unarmed.

 

[SCMikeyP]

I wouldn't ever recommend someone answer the door with a firearm if someone was knocking on the door saying they were the police at an early hour. If there was any doubt that it was actually law enforcement I would simply not answer the door. I'd call 911 and confirm that it was law enforcement and then go to the door unarmed.

Agreed. I think police should find a more tactful way to serve search warrants to law abiding people since we are living in Crazy World where you can do nothing wrong and be subject to illegal search and seizures based off speculation.

 

[cjwils]

I wouldn't ever recommend someone answer the door with a firearm if someone was knocking on the door saying they were the police at an early hour. If there was any doubt that it was actually law enforcement I would simply not answer the door. I'd call 911 and confirm that it was law enforcement and then go to the door unarmed.

Can we really assume that cops would wait at the door while I call 911?

Also can we assume that the 911 center knows what is going on? In my area the 911 center serves several cities.