Would they be Constitutional? Is it profiling? Is that illegal? Wouldn't they work similar to how the sexual assault and rape laws work where lots of young men are accused and few are guilty, but their lives are ruined? Something bothers me about these when a crime has not been committed and a Constitutional right is taken away. What's your opinion? Can you answer any of my questions with proof for your opinions?
Red flag laws are the anti-gun left's wettest dream: 1: Take someone's guns based on a 'report' from someone 2: Get a judge to agree taking the guns was proper, under the law 3: Force the owner to take the state to court to get the guns back.
Very similar to the current practice of the Civil Forfeiture policies abused by many law enforcement agencies... carry lot of cash, be prepared to have it confiscated in a traffic stop forcing you to prove it’s from legitimate sources and not intended for nefarious purposes.
Google ‘Civil Forfeiture abuse’. You will find a lot written on it, including a considerable amount from the ACLU, which, in this case, opines on both the abuse as well as the unconstitutionality of the practice. Do the same one you tube and you may encounter some videos in LE bragging about the abuses bringing revenue into their coffers...basically, legal stealing. Civil Forfeiture abuse, likely violating one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, right to property as well as rights protected by the 4th and 5th amendments, is one of those things that should be, but hasn’t been adjudicated by SCOTUS. It is also one of my major criticisms of Sessions when he endorsed continuation of the policy as a tool of law enforcement.
I get the premise behind Red Flag laws but this whole policy just seems RIPE for abuse. Just look at the current climate in society, gun owners are often referred to as "gun nuts" on this very forum and all over the media. Folks who don't understand anything about the sport often paint the guy with thousands of rounds of ammo in his house as a lunatic. A person who just enjoys shooting often? Ammo can be expensive and buying in bulk is always cheaper? Nope, the guy is a psychopath there is no reason why anybody needs 1000rds horded in their basement. That is what I am hearing in the mainstream media and also from folks all over the internet. "Only a psycho would think they need an AR15", I read that comment yesterday on a different site. I am being told by many in the mainstream media that if I support the President of the United States then I am automatically a racist and I endorse mass murder. I have been told that anyone who owns a semi-auto rifle should be monitored by law enforcement, etc. I've heard from elected officials that if I support Donald Trump then anything bad that happens is partially my fault. I, as a taxpaying US citizen with no criminal record whatsoever, am being told I am "crazy" and "part of a problem" by hundreds of thousands of people including elected officials and even Presidential Candidates. Please explain to me why I should trust someone to call the cops on me and say I'm crazy and allow the cops to suspend my right as a US citizen to own firearms until I can prove that I am deserving of my inherit rights? Especially when the aforementioned is the definition of crazy in the eyes of millions of other Americans? This is a dangerously slippery slope and a NASTY weapon that I believe will be greatly abused. I foresee this having good intentions but very quickly devolving into "I don't like the fact that my neighbor has a different ideology than I do so I'm calling the cops on him and saying I believe he wishes to do harm to someone". Picture that stupid prank of "SWATTING" (google it) on a massive scale with something like this.
the individual responsible for the shooting in the city of Dayton demonstrated many so-called red flags in his behavior in the years leading up to the incident, but absolutely no one who was in a position to actually do anything about it, actually did anything about it. Despite the clear and present warning signs, they chose to merely ignore the problem and do nothing about it. As a direct result, seven individuals have been murdered, and many others have been seriously wounded.
Perhaps the best course of action is to weaponize such a proposal in a preemptive manner. Submit numerous reports on certain specific political individuals and their allies. Find out their names, the names of their families, their addresses, their staffers, leave no stone unturned in educating them of the consequences of their own actions and ideologies.
Red flag laws on removing fire arms from those suspected as mentally improper to have fire arms would be legal if due process was done very quickly after the items were removed from the protected person.
Except such would not be done. Due process would not be had for a minimum of six months due to how backlogged the court systems in the united states are. All the while the targeted individual would be legally required to be unarmed, unable to exercise their constitutional rights because they have been accused but not convicted. Due process must come before the physical act, not after the fact.
Stabbing incidents have gone up in cities that have banned firearms within their limits. Story today in the news of two being stabbed today not far from me. Policeman was talking with her when it happened. She died at the hospital. He stabbed her in the neck. He stabbed another right after at the same bus stop, though that person lived. It's more than the firearms. A woman interviewed said LE was brave and saved other lives. Took control of the situation and made a difference for the good. She praised his actions.
From what I understand from the proposal the accused must be taken before a judge BEFORE their guns can be confiscated and then the accused returns to court at a later date to argue their case. Is this accurate or is it as simple as I start pointing my finger at my neighbor and the cops can then legally confiscate their firearms on the spot? How does it work in the states that currently have this law?
They are working out that the guns can be seized on probable cause, and then the owner will have a chance during due process. One has to do more than point a finger. If your neighbors beats his wife or children, if your neighbor threatens violence on another, if your neighbor threatens to kill anyone if they come for his guns, then, yes, they will come, with a loony net if necessary
This case deal with civil forfeiture as a means of collecting fines after a conviction. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...ices/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset However, the practice and abuse I refer to is cash/property seizure without due process and often without anyone being charged with a criminal offense. “Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to seize cash, cars, real estate, or other property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is never arrested for a crime. In a staggering 80% of civil asset forfeitures, criminal charges are never filed against property owners.” https://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/civil-asset-forfeiture-police-abuse-clarence-thomas/P Then, of course, there are the abuses of the IRS... https://wreg.com/2017/04/06/the-irs...ng-millions-from-small-business-owners-tmwsp/ In these cases, both LE and IRS, the standard isn’t a conviction for a crime, but suspicion of wrong doing. [video]
We are talking about red flags for getting weapons away from people who may hurt themselves not civil forfeitures, which deserves its own thread, I agree.
In Colorado (my state), the law creates the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO). The petitioner (family or law enforcement officer) must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO and a reasonable basis for believing they exist. After issuance of a temporary ERPO, the court must schedule a second hearing no later than 14 days following the issuance to determine whether the issuance of a continuing ERPO is warranted. The court shall appoint counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing The ERPO then prohibits the respondent from possessing, controlling, purchasing, or receiving a firearm for 364 days.
Sort of like child and spousal support. No, seriously, I get it and it is wrong. I don't know why they passed such a law. The IRS got involved because some damn busy body that didn't have enough to worry about in their own life decided to turn them in. This is an example of the Red Flag Law. I guess that's your point? They are all examples of these red flag laws?
That sounds fair to me and sounds like enough procedures are in place to at least combat abuse of the ERPO. I'm sure some may still weaponize it but I think the steps required such as having to petition to the court and provide evidence is enough to deter most of those who would be thinking of abusing the system. Many right wing media outlets were making it seem as though it was as simple as picking up the phone and saying my neighbor owns guns and I think he's dangerous and that gave law enforcement the green light to just confiscate the firearms. Glad to know that is not the case. What you have described here is something that I am more comfortable supporting. I'm still hesitant about it though, something about this whole idea just seems fishy to me. I think that if such a thing were to made federal then the penalty for making a false accusation should be dire. Sure that will cause folks to think twice about reporting suspicions for fear of reprisal, however, it will also make it to where your evidence BETTER be good or else you're paying the price. Many don't really see the difference between this and other laws like this but the key difference here is that we are talking about the ability to revoke someones Constitutional Rights before they have actually done anything wrong or illegal. The penalty for playing around with that needs to be severe.
For your amusement: https://www.rallyforourrights.com/colorado-counties-say-we-will-not-comply-to-red-flag-law/ Also, the gun owner would have to prove he or she no longer poses a risk in order to get the firearms back, which is a due process violation.
I like it. I am always in favor of handling things at the lowest level especially when it comes to Constitutional grey areas like this. As I always say, if America wasn't America then we'd at the very least be like 7 or 8 different countries with multiple different states within them. The lower the level of government the more personal of a relationship there is with the citizens and community. And in Colorado's case it seems like the state government has done something that the folks didn't like and are refusing to comply en masse. Good for you.
Chester Murphy and Nightmare15 are both right: the lower the government, "the more personal the relationship" between agent (agency) and the client, as well as easier to "pay off someone."
