Quantcast

"Red Flag" laws..?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Shanghai McCoy, Dec 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paulsj

    paulsj member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    A show of overwhelming force is reqired to dicourage resistance. This is actually designed to minimize casualties as is showing up at 4am.
     
  2. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,655
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The police know this. You and I know this. I would not presume that's the antis' intent, though.
     
  3. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,563
    Location:
    GA
    Unfortunately, it can also lead to suicide by cop and injuries to law enforcement personnel/others. The idea that there is one right way to do something is always problematic and the idea of routinizing red flag type situations and always using a SWAT or similar team will result in a higher civilian casualty count. And the point is that people who are mentally ill are and should treated differently under the law that a drug dealer resisting arrest.

    No one asks to be mentally ill and a lot of police encounters in repeated circumstances have simply applied the same rules to these encounters that they would with a cartel gunman or terrorist. The result is tragedy and diminished respect for the police.

    But my point is that these type laws are coming up for consideration in 2019 and beyond whether you like them or not, maybe not the federal level at this time, but certainly at the state level. Every state that has an initiative process is at risk from billionaires pouring money into their state to force such things.

    Therefore, we should have the gun community, especially the legal beagles, start to come up with statutory language that protects our rights and property. This is especially true as judges are quite used to ex parte hearings on such things as search warrants and arrest warrants without any countervailing arguments. These proposed red flag orders resemble that process which ill serves protected rights.

    The idea behind the search process is that any errors in fact and law can be rectified later during a suppression hearing. The problem comes up when a person is not tried criminally, suffers damages due to an illegitimate search, and then cannot gain recompense because of qualified and absolute immunity. This is what we are facing with red flag type laws.

    For that reason, we need to build in higher evidentiary standards than probable cause into any such law (in jurisdictions that I am aware of, clear and convincing is the usual standard for involuntary commitment for mental treatment), allow recompense for harm caused from malicious actors, apply strict standards for seized weapons storage, chain of custody, and inventory including pictures, no permanent defacing inventory marks, etc., mandate a full court hearing within a short period of time 24-72 hours after such seizures to reverse these with counsel provided (as mental issues are involved, counsel should be provided to indigents just like civil commitment situations), and strictly limit who can report. Any false reports by individuals should be punished with a large civil fine with the money to go to LEO slush funds aka asset forfeiture and possibly jail time if the person anticipated the red flagged individual being harmed by police (just like penalties for Swatting). I am sure that folks can think of additional provisions than these.

    The point is, rather than the firearms community being viewed by the general public as demanding gun rights for demented nutjobs, by offering thoughtful provisions to any such laws that protect our interests, then even if the law goes forward (as in quite a few states), we can drill holes in the law so that it is used as a last resort rather than a common police response. This is the correct response to the common perception that people just "snapped" where in truth, most situations involve people with a lengthy history of threatening violence, actually committing it, exhibiting mental illness, suicide attempts, etc. Yes, most of these could be dealt with by existing laws, but that is just like the three strikes law, laws named for various crime victims, etc., the red flag exercise gives the gun grabbers moral and public support to highlight gun owners as a menace and mentally ill.

    If the gun grabbers realize that our amendments or proposed law will effectively circumvent their policy and propaganda desires, they will oppose it (see the reaction to Title IX reform for example) which will hurt passage chances. Thus, no law passes or one law passes in one house with different provisions in the second, and a conference cmte kills it. Thus the politicians get to be on record for supporting something, the gun grabbers get nothing, and the firearms community looks to be both responsible, willing to compromise, and supporting core values such as fairness in proceedings, due process for the unfortunate individuals, protecting the public safety, and so on.

    I have been involved in politics at the local, state, and national levels--currently only at the local level. The idea that you can simply oppose something without sufficient voter support or any countervailing arguments and proposals means that you will fail. Individuals when dealing with the political process as individuals will fail unless they reflect the majority opinion.

    Far too many libertarians and conservatives argue from principles and ideology, I am susceptible to that as well because I think logically and not with my emotions (unless looking at a firearm I want but do not need). Most of the public (about 80-85 percent) does not think that way--they reason from what they perceive will create a good outcome or bad outcome, not from predicting outcomes via ideology and logic. Thus, gun grabbers manipulate by positing the situation of a crazy person with gun (usually after the latest public shooting), then the general public wants police to take it before they hurt someone. The gungrabbers propose a new redundant law, aka red flag, that does that in a new shiny way. General public and legislators say swell. Let's solve that problem. That is an outcome preference based mostly on emotions with very little logic or consideration.

    Now, our position, is "Hell no" people have constitutional rights which this is trampling on and any Tom, Dick, and Harry, with a grudge will call these in and people will get hurt. Notice, the 2A is abstract in concept and people will nod and say yes, there is a right to have firearms, but mass support starts dropping off when the situation is do you want felons to have firearms or mentally ill people. The risk that people with grudges or that the police will overreact are fighting against emotional conditioning that "most people are good and would never falsely report something--see the whole Kavanaugh hearing for an example" or "the police protect me from the crazies--if they have to take out some enforcing the "law" so be it." Gungrabbers activists (and other groups) rely on this psychological manipulation to get more power for them and government (which they intend to run) repeatedly via laws and regulations. It is in their DNA. They will not hesitate to lie, distort, slander, libel, accuse, doxx, and selectively edit your comments, to make any opponents of their plan as "bad people".

    What they do not do is play the game of compromise very well. Most activists come off to lawmakers as tedious monomaniacs that have holy zeal in the righteousness of their cause. That very righteousness that gives them power gets dissipated in the legislative process if give and take is involved. If your cause involves "Good versus Evil", good can never compromise with evil and that is something a political operator can use to their advantages.

    GeorgiaCarry has done this repeatedly in Georgia and has advanced the cause of firearm rights step by step, a few were legal cases, but mostly through developing personal relationships with legislators, even those on team Blue. Unlike the hired lobbyists at the state level from the NRA, GeorgiaCarry has sent constituents to their individual state legislators to talk legislation with them, and so forth. It is a example of how to effectively build a winning coalition which is necessary to win anything. Sometimes even minor changes work to our advantage as these minor victories can set the stage for more major ones later. If the opponents threaten blood in the streets due to a proposed law, and the legislature passes it. The lack of blood in the streets demoralizes the gungrabbing rank and file, emboldens the 2A advocates, and persuades the general public that there is nothing to be feared here. The moral is that slippery slopes can work both ways in our system. Make it work for us.
     
    Demi-human, George P and Spats McGee like this.
  4. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,655
    Location:
    Arkansas
    ^^^ I nominate boom boom to spearhead something.
     
    Demi-human and George P like this.
  5. kmw1954

    kmw1954 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2018
    Messages:
    945
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Yet we constantly see stories on the nightly news of another felon caught with a gun. Are they not part of the restricted population? Felons with multiple convictions repeatedly found armed. I would think those people are far more dangerous than my wife or daughter with severe PMS or me sleep walking.
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  6. wahsben

    wahsben Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    173
    Deanimator likes this.
  7. Shanghai McCoy

    Shanghai McCoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,073
    Location:
    The,sort of, Free state
  8. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The proponents consider that a feature, not a bug.

    And it's been that way for a LOOOONG time. Anyone who denies that is a LIAR.

    Take it from the horse's... something:

    "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Sen. Howard Metzenbaum - D, OH
     
    Tommygunn and wahsben like this.
  9. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,185
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    Wow, that guy is a dinosaur (I think it's an extinct species) .... that agenda must be almost fossilized by now.

    And they still would have us believe it's about "gun safety.":uhoh:
     
  10. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    All of the unctuous denials of the obvious agenda of gun confiscation remind me of that Monty Python skit where Hitler's living in England. He declares, "I am not a racialist! ...BUT, and it's a very BIG but..."

    "Nobody wants to take your guns! ...BUT, and it's a very BIG but..." - Just about every advocate of racially invidious gun controls
     
  11. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA
    As I said before, once they knock on enough of the wrong doors because of this law, there will either be a re-evaluation of the law or civil war.

    Time will tell...
     
    Deanimator likes this.
  12. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,096
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I think this conversation is more or less irrelevant for one reason. The laws already exist in many states. Police are getting the ERPO orders and weapons are being confiscated as we discuss this. Just about every state will soon have some type of ERPO law. The train has already left the station. That doesn't leave a lot of room to try and convince anyone that the laws are a violation of one's 5th amendment rights. Apparently not too many people care about that, even here on this forum. If someone can convince a judge to issue an ERPO, you have lost your right to possess a firearm. You might as well be a convicted felon.

    If you give anyone a reason to seek an ERPO someone probably will, at least in this state. If someone seeks an ERPO against a person maliciously they will be charged with a gross misdemeanor. In this state that's up to 364 days in jail and up to a $5,000 fine. The law no doubt will save some lives and no doubt will be abused. I just hope those who abuse it get thrown in jail with some MS13 dudes with murder convictions. :D
     
    AlexanderA likes this.
  13. bersaguy

    bersaguy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Just read Florida's bill...the section regarding Risk Protection Orders starts on line 769.
    https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/07026/?Tab=BillText
    Looks like the request must come from law enforcement, and a hearing conducted before the order can be carried out. Also requires the person requesting the order from the law enforcement agency to testify under oath, and bring evidence of a credible threat posed by the person in question. It also makes provisions for training teachers to carry firearms, provides adolescents who may be suffering mental issues a mechanism for getting help, waives firearm purchase waiting period for hunting licence holders, hunter safety certificate holders as well as concealed carry license holders. However, It also bans bump stocks and raises the legal age to purchase any firearm to 21. I don't know, but by the letter of the law, I think there may be more good than bad here. I'm not sure how other states' bills are written, but, its kinda hard for me to disagree with how Florida has written the section regarding the Risk Protection Order.
     
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Anyone who maliciously seeks such an order and any cop who negligently or maliciously executes it needs to be DESTROYED, both in civil court and in the court of public opinion. That is the ONLY way to deter abuse. Absolutely no mercy must be shown. Otherwise innocent people will get killed and their deaths will just be shrugged off by the politicians and the police unions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  15. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    What's the penalty for false reporting? If it's not horrifyingly draconian, it's a green light for abuse.

    How many Kathryn Johnston type horror shows will the public tolerate?
     
  16. paulsj

    paulsj member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    1,085
    I think the "sweeping under the rug" can only be done when the victims are poor, therefore, without adquate representation. Well to do object strongly when someone of equal stature gets "thrown under the bus". Look what happened after shooting at that affluent school in FL. Do you think it would receive same hype or coverage if it took place at fast food establishment in poor neighborhood?
     
  17. bersaguy

    bersaguy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  18. bersaguy

    bersaguy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Being that the petitioner has to swear under oath, I am assuming the penalty would be perjury. From my reading it looks like the petitioner has to make the complaint and provide evidence, then law enforcement requests a hearing where the petitioner has to swear under oath to the veracity of their statements, and then a judge issues an order where the individual can be Baker Acted (involuntary commitment for psychiatric evaluation) and guns and ammunition confiscated. If the individual is cleared, their property must be made available for return within 14 days.
     
  19. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    SWATing and Marjorie Stoneman-Douglas are utterly different legal animals.

    It has LONG been settled law that police have virtually no legal duty to protect individuals.

    On the other hand, EVERYONE has an affirmative legal duty to not make false police reports, just as police have an affirmative duty not to negligently or maliciously violate your rights.

    A cop can stand by and watch you get carved up with a chainsaw without fear of being sued.

    On the other hand, you can't falsely claim that I'm running around killing people with a chainsaw, nor can the cops come to my house and kill me based on your unsubstantiated claim that I am.
     
  20. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,454
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Sorry, that's just not good enough. There's a non-zero chance that if you send armed police to my house, I might end up dead without doing anything wrong, and never knowing why, just like the gamer who got SWATed. If somebody dies, the caller should get the death penalty, and the cop hard time at a minimum.

    This isn't a game. People will die. People have died.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  21. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,873
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    We seem to just going in circles at this point so lets call it a day.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice