Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Outdoor Advocacy & Agencies => Topic started by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2018, 05:31:33 PM

Title: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2018, 05:31:33 PM
Quote
Maryland Cops Descend on Man's Homes to Confiscate His Guns Under New "Red Flag" Law; When Man Scuffles to Keep Possession of Guns, He's Shot Dead
—Ace of Spades

Wonderful.

It seems like a member of his family filed the "red flag" complaint, so it's possible this guy was behaving strangely or threateningly enough to justify some kind of an intervention.

He also seems to have opened the door with a gun in hand, which is legal, but also seems provocative.

This doesn't bode well for "red flag" laws going forward.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/378085.php


It will be interesting to see what predicate factors were determinant in this person being identified as subject to the Red Flag confiscation.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 12, 2018, 07:04:11 PM
I find this fraught with abuse potential. Women making false claims of DV and abuse, folks "swatting" other people, and now this potentially.

Since very few people are charged with making false accusations  I find this troubling.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 12, 2018, 07:44:09 PM
 :yeah:

very troubling, suspending constitutional rights above and beyond what's laid out in the constitution.  I hope it gets challenged. 

There's a big red flag element in our new gun law


being shot by the police is the ultimate 4th amendment seizure, they seized that persons life, by all accounts he's done nothing wrong, not charged with any crimes, yet he's been shot dead.


The Fourth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause.


Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant.  Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search).  Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure.  Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.

having your guns seized under red flag laws isn't a crime, thus there is no habeas corpus, no redress to the courts for unlawful detention. There's nothing you can do. 

It seems like a messed up and illegal law to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 12, 2018, 08:42:18 PM
I find this fraught with abuse potential. Women making false claims of DV and abuse, folks "swatting" other people, and now this potentially.

Since very few people are charged with making false accusations  I find this troubling.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk



Agreed. The lack of due process protections in WA's law is also troubling
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: BigGoonTuna on November 13, 2018, 04:23:38 AM
why on earth would they come knocking at 5am?  i could totally understand someone coming to the door with a gun at that hour.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: fastdam on November 13, 2018, 07:23:39 AM
why on earth would they come knocking at 5am?  i could totally understand someone coming to the door with a gun at that hour.


Swat raids are designed to be disorienting.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 13, 2018, 10:47:35 AM
The guy has committed no crimes, and is now dead.  Courts won't release the name/s of who reported the poor guy.  This is legal court approved "swatting".


remember, it doesn't take much to scare a snowflake.  Post a scary gun on facebook...I don't know where the bar is, neither does the court, there is no bar.


Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 13, 2018, 10:52:26 AM
...coming to a front door near you.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 13, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
...coming to a front door near you.

NOT ME!  My family doesn't have any snowflakes...they're coming to YOUR door!
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 11:30:05 AM
Sounds like the red flag was spot on to me.Guy fights with the cops and gets shot.It's pretty simple,the guy with the gun and the badge makes the rules,do what he tells you to do.Learn how to behave and respect law and order and you won't end up dead.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 13, 2018, 11:42:22 AM
If the cops hadn't been there, he wouldn't be shot....but I agree the place to resist is the courtroom, not when the cops are at the door, but that option isn't really available is it? 
And at what cost to the former gun owner?
Does the court pay for psych evaluations and Dr. visits so he can restore his rights?  or must he be unable to defend himself until the court order expires?   
The guy has done nothing wrong.  Just wait until a gun owner complies, looses his/her guns and is robbed and killed, the court took away his ability to defend him/herself.


This has the potential to go to feces in a hand basket.

https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/372596006-Civilian-self-defense-vs-police-excessive-force-Its-not-that-simple/
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 11:59:41 AM
Obviously this guy should not have had a gun in the first place.If he fought with the cops he is nuts.Anyone that wants to defend people that fight with the cops should have their gun rights looked at too.Cops don't show up at your door looking like robbers.They announce who they are and knock real LOUD.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 13, 2018, 12:05:22 PM
Obviously this guy should not have had a gun in the first place.If he fought with the cops he is nuts.Anyone that wants to defend people that fight with the cops should have their gun rights looked at too.Cops don't show up at your door looking like robbers.They announce who they are and knock real LOUD.

I'm a real and staunch defender of the thin blue line. And we have no idea what happened here. There have doubtlessly been many cases where the police have shot people without cause and had they been civilians, would've rotted in jail for it. Do you know for a fact that they had cause to shoot him? No, you don't. None of us do. Do you know he didn't obey their commands? No, none of us do. Blindly supporting either side in this case is ignorance personified. I'd like to see bodycam footage before I give anyone a pass here. And if they don't have any, especially on this kind of operation, that stinks.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 12:43:08 PM
It's much more likely that this guy was nuts,which is why the cops were there to take his guns.I would like to believe that most cops don't get out of bed in the morning and say "today I am going to kill someone ".For anyone that thinks he was shot without reason try pulling your gun on a cop and see what happens.Farewell to thee....
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 13, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
Sounds like you've made up your mind. If you have details about this killing that the rest of us don't please share. Thanks.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 13, 2018, 01:03:18 PM
We are ALL guilty in this country until proven innocent.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 01:07:11 PM
Further details are not really needed.Common sense tells me all I need to know.Cops don't just show up somewhere and open fire,if they did there would be dead people everywhere.The red flag laws don't just get put into play on a phone call.Ever try to get a restraining order?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 13, 2018, 01:14:49 PM
I hope you're right. I just don't have the information to confirm it. You assume an awful lot.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 13, 2018, 01:48:25 PM
Quote
Sgt. Davis said the man put the gun down. But then, according to a police press release, Willis "became irate" when officers attempted to serve the order. Willis picked the weapon up again, "a fight ensued over the gun," and a shot was fired, Davis said. The first shot didn't strike anyone, but the officers then fatally shot the man, Sgt. Davis said.

Could have gone a lot better if he had just left the gun down.

Quote
It wasn't clear why the "red flag" order was issued.

Deal with the legal issues in court, not with a gun against two police officers who are just doing their job.  They want to go home that night.

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: trapp01 on November 13, 2018, 03:14:09 PM
Sounds like the red flag was spot on to me.Guy fights with the cops and gets shot.It's pretty simple,the guy with the gun and the badge makes the rules,do what he tells you to do.Learn how to behave and respect law and order and you won't end up dead.

The Jews circa 1940 had the same mentality towards an SS officer with a badge.

So comply or die. I don't have much respect for bs laws that strip our rights or people who enforce them.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 13, 2018, 03:22:06 PM
Sounds like the red flag was spot on to me.Guy fights with the cops and gets shot.It's pretty simple,the guy with the gun and the badge makes the rules,do what he tells you to do.Learn how to behave and respect law and order and you won't end up dead.

The Jews had the same mentality towards an SS officer with a badge.

So comply or die. I don't have much respect for bs laws that strip our rights or people who enforce them.

I wouldn't compare a police officer who is scared for his life to a Nazi SS officer.

I haven't heard a lot of stories where law abiding citizens had their guns taken away, and were not able to get them back.  I'm sure there are a few outliers out there (@BuckCanyonLodge to name one), but it's just not consistent at all.   Unacceptable, but certainly not normal.

The reality is that we don't know why this guy's guns were taken.  For all we know, he made threats to kill someone.  We don't know.  But we do know that he could still be alive today if he didn't pick up a gun in front of police officers and start a fight.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2018, 03:53:01 PM
Sounds like the red flag was spot on to me.Guy fights with the cops and gets shot.It's pretty simple,the guy with the gun and the badge makes the rules,do what he tells you to do.Learn how to behave and respect law and order and you won't end up dead.

The Jews had the same mentality towards an SS officer with a badge.

So comply or die. I don't have much respect for bs laws that strip our rights or people who enforce them.

I wouldn't compare a police officer who is scared for his life to a Nazi SS officer.

I haven't heard a lot of stories where law abiding citizens had their guns taken away, and were not able to get them back.  I'm sure there are a few outliers out there (@BuckCanyonLodge to name one), but it's just not consistent at all.   Unacceptable, but certainly not normal.

The reality is that we don't know why this guy's guns were taken.  For all we know, he made threats to kill someone.  We don't know.  But we do know that he could still be alive today if he didn't pick up a gun in front of police officers and start a fight.

IMO this becomes a burden of proof issue to exorcise your rights. It would have made a better test case if he had complied... How much time and $ do you think is should cost to Prove you innocence? What kind of recompense should you receive if the person who turned you in was not truthful?

This isnt a snide retort but a real question. It has huge implications if all of a sudden this is expanded.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 13, 2018, 04:16:30 PM
Who knows if he was crazy or not. Complaints could be set against anyone, a supposed friend, neighbor, family member, ex... can make a claim they fear for your safety and feel you're a danger to yourself and the community. Zero proof needed. No due process. Not good
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Badhabit on November 13, 2018, 04:26:29 PM
Very troubling story. The caller could have set him for the deadly encounter with the police. Now just wait the caller will hire an attorney and claim wrongful death and get a big payout. If it happened in Washington the officer involved in the shooting could face criminal charges with the passing of the latest initiative 940.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 04:32:05 PM
You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Badhabit on November 13, 2018, 04:41:36 PM
my bad.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 13, 2018, 05:21:31 PM
You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.

Probable cause based on what exactly? Because someone says so?

Common sense in short supply? Cops are Nazis? You must be a real joy to be around with your opinion of others.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 05:24:07 PM
You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.
Did you show up late?

Probable cause based on what exactly? Because someone says so?

Common sense in short supply? Cops are Nazis? You must be a real joy to be around with your opinion of others.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 05:59:51 PM
Just to be clear,I am the only one so far actually defending the cops shooting this moron.Also the last person that would call cops Nazis.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2018, 06:01:39 PM
You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.

Please provide the legaleeze link Id be happy to read it.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 06:09:44 PM
Google Red Flag laws.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 13, 2018, 06:17:57 PM
It's much more likely that this guy was nuts,which is why the cops were there to take his guns.I would like to believe that most cops don't get out of bed in the morning and say "today I am going to kill someone ".For anyone that thinks he was shot without reason try pulling your gun on a cop and see what happens.Farewell to thee....

I don't disagree, one shouldn't ever fight with the cops, the courts are for that. 

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2018, 06:20:06 PM
Could Face Perjury... is what it says in most articles on the Marryland article. If the batting record is better than DV, abuse or other issues currently rampant with fraud I might be ok with it... Better yet if we adopted the same kinds of requirements for those other issues i mentioned I might become a cheerleader.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 13, 2018, 06:24:34 PM
You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.

I know red flag laws are difficult to get now, we're still in the honey moon test phase. 

After it becomes more "mainstream" and commonplace years down the road it won't be so difficult. As time progresses people get conditioned to it, getting a red flag on someone will become easier. 

If they resist and get shot....the ends have justified the means.  Don't you have a problem with that?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 06:36:55 PM
I have no problem with law enforcement doing whatever they deem necessary when a person CHOOSES to not follow their commands.They do a job that I would not be good at.They have my utmost respect.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Badhabit on November 13, 2018, 07:30:11 PM
Tinmaniac,
I have  read plenty of SIRs and can tell you there are officers with agenda's that write the PC request for a warrant without a factual basis. Which I personally find loathsome. I wonder why Indiana allows citizens to shoot LEO's when they are trying to do unlawful actions. Making a statement that there's a lack of common sense is a two way street.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2018, 08:00:32 PM
The Castle Doctrine does not allow citizens to shoot police.It allows for a self defense argument to be made and is very narrow in scope.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 07:02:09 AM
Very troubling story. The caller could have set him for the deadly encounter with the police. Now just wait the caller will hire an attorney and claim wrongful death and get a big payout. If it happened in Washington the officer involved in the shooting could face criminal charges with the passing of the latest initiative 940.

Have you actually read I940?  Not the voters pamphlet summary, but the actual text?  I don't like it as a law, but I don't think what you're saying has a grain of accuracy. 

Just to be clear,I am the only one so far actually defending the cops shooting this moron.Also the last person that would call cops Nazis.

Did you not read what I posted yesterday?   :dunno:


You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.

I know red flag laws are difficult to get now, we're still in the honey moon test phase. 

After it becomes more "mainstream" and commonplace years down the road it won't be so difficult. As time progresses people get conditioned to it, getting a red flag on someone will become easier. 

If they resist and get shot....the ends have justified the means.  Don't you have a problem with that?

Yes and no.  I don't like someone losing their guns, but at the same time I do think that we need to recognize there are people out there (and not just felons) who shouldn't own guns.  It's a slippery slope for sure, but it's something that needs to be addressed.  I don't like the category of "mental health", because that could be a catch-all.  Shoot, every single human is expected to experience depression in their lifetime.  That doesn't mean every single human is suicidal.  If, however, they found that certain diagnoses were far more likely to be involved in violent crimes or suicide, I'd lean a little more toward temporary removal of firearms.

I can tell you this with full certainty - if uniformed police officers show up at my house and tell me they are there to take my guns, I am going to work with them and get a complete, itemized inventory of everything they are taking.  It will be non violent and fully compliant.  I will demonstrate to my kids and the people around me that the police officers are doing their jobs and we will still show them respect, despite the frustrating circumstances.

After that, I'm going to bankrupt every person involved in court.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2018, 08:42:38 AM
When cops came door to door in The Katrina aftermath there were plenty of folks that didn't get thier guns back, and those were "orders" given by the police.

The lack of prosecutions of other liers and purjurors doesnt give me confidence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 08:44:29 AM
When cops came door to door in The Katrina aftermath there were plenty of folks that didn't get thier guns back, and those were "orders" given by the police.

The lack of prosecutions of other liers and purjurors doesnt give me confidence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Would you pull a gun on a cop?

I sure won't. 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: fastdam on November 14, 2018, 08:50:23 AM
Cops who enforce unconstitutional "laws" are not good guys. They are oppressors. The purpose of government i's to protect our rights.  If they instead violate your rights, then they are the bad guys. Not the good guys.     I hope people start shooting back and don't let these pirates get awY withgun confiscation.
 Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere. It doesn't matter if he wears a badge or if he wears a black dress.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 09:40:55 AM
Very troubling story. The caller could have set him for the deadly encounter with the police. Now just wait the caller will hire an attorney and claim wrongful death and get a big payout. If it happened in Washington the officer involved in the shooting could face criminal charges with the passing of the latest initiative 940.

Have you actually read I940?  Not the voters pamphlet summary, but the actual text?  I don't like it as a law, but I don't think what you're saying has a grain of accuracy. 

Just to be clear,I am the only one so far actually defending the cops shooting this moron.Also the last person that would call cops Nazis.

Did you not read what I posted yesterday?   :dunno:


You guys should read up on how a red flag order is granted.It goes in front of a judge and he decides if there is probable cause to carry out the order.Do you think the judges and prosecutors don't remind the person making the complaint that they will be prosecuted for making false complaints.?Common sense seems to be in short supply,but then the cops are Nazis so why am I surprised.

I know red flag laws are difficult to get now, we're still in the honey moon test phase. 

After it becomes more "mainstream" and commonplace years down the road it won't be so difficult. As time progresses people get conditioned to it, getting a red flag on someone will become easier. 

If they resist and get shot....the ends have justified the means.  Don't you have a problem with that?

Yes and no.  I don't like someone losing their guns, but at the same time I do think that we need to recognize there are people out there (and not just felons) who shouldn't own guns.  It's a slippery slope for sure, but it's something that needs to be addressed.  I don't like the category of "mental health", because that could be a catch-all.  Shoot, every single human is expected to experience depression in their lifetime.  That doesn't mean every single human is suicidal.  If, however, they found that certain diagnoses were far more likely to be involved in violent crimes or suicide, I'd lean a little more toward temporary removal of firearms.

I can tell you this with full certainty - if uniformed police officers show up at my house and tell me they are there to take my guns, I am going to work with them and get a complete, itemized inventory of everything they are taking.  It will be non violent and fully compliant.  I will demonstrate to my kids and the people around me that the police officers are doing their jobs and we will still show them respect, despite the frustrating circumstances.

After that, I'm going to bankrupt every person involved in court.



I guarantee there're folks out there that are good decent law abiding people that just happen to have a deep mistrust for the government, and will fight anyone who comes for their guns.   

How many Molon labe's meme's have you seen splashed across FB? What do you think that means?  "come and take"  it means they'll fight, just like this guy did who got shot. 

This law is going to kill police, and those targeted by the courts under this red flag law.  The first time or two the police get killed serving this illegal court order and the cops will start using SWAT teams to take guns because it's dangerous.  We all know that entering people's houses with a SWAT team is risky, then it'll evolve into serving a no knock court order to take guns...this isn't going to end well. 



EDIT:  read the post just above mine for an example of a melon labe type,  I know of more more extreme examples. 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 09:47:15 AM
PSA:  Anyone living in a red flag state had better be very careful what they say on social media, and what they say to family members, work staff, schools ect ect. 

"red flag" is a censorship on free speech,  talk too much......*knock* *knock*
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 10:11:59 AM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns? 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 10:24:06 AM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 10:33:30 AM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 :dunno:

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement? 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
What about free speech?No limit?There are laws on yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire.Should those be thrown out based on free speech?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 10:53:05 AM
What about free speech?No limit?There are laws on yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire.Should those be thrown out based on free speech?

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: singleshot12 on November 14, 2018, 11:00:54 AM
Common sense laws for the common good "if enforced" is all we really need to get society back on track. Crazy times we're living in. Blame it on the snow-flakes and the Libs I guess :dunno:
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 11:14:55 AM
Common sense laws for the common good "if enforced" is all we really need to get society back on track. Crazy times we're living in. Blame it on the snow-flakes and the Libs I guess :dunno:

The median voter age is over 50.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 11:19:23 AM
Define common sense please.Would you say that someone that advocates the fighting and shooting law enforcement has good common sense?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ghosthunter on November 14, 2018, 11:27:03 AM
The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ghosthunter on November 14, 2018, 11:29:56 AM
Sooner or later some sheeple will be on a hiking trail out of the high country and see some regular guys with a gun. They might even have words, because the mere sight of a gun offends the sheeple.

Than the knock comes and you pay thousands to defend yourself for nothing.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: singleshot12 on November 14, 2018, 11:30:40 AM
Define common sense please.Would you say that someone that advocates the fighting and shooting law enforcement has good common sense?

Nope!  I guess most of those laws originally set in place would be defined as common sense. But new laws that would tend to instigate could escalate into a whole other lot of problems for everyone involved.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 11:49:59 AM
The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???
So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 01:20:28 PM
The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???
So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

I am guessing you have not read the law either.


https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94

Everyone should familiarize themselves with WA's and determine whether ex parte orders, service by mail or publication, relative lack of criminal or civil liability for false reporting or use as harassment, and lack of reimbursement for persons disenfranchised and seeking to regain their rights under this RCW constitutes sufficient due process to deprive someone of a right that shall not be infringed and the right of life.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: rasbo on November 14, 2018, 01:39:09 PM
So at what point do we fight the police? I'm truly a guy that wants to follow laws and obey commands when approached by LE. So as the left slowly take rights away using any tool necessary, when do you say enough..
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 01:41:10 PM
The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???
So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

I don't believe this is accurate in this case.  There was an incident Sunday, a report filed that night, and the police were on the doorstep at 5AM the next morning.

I am not sure that Maryland due process really is that good here.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2018, 02:05:25 PM
I do see the need  for better monitoring of mentally ill/dangerous people but you have to understand that those laws are going to be used as a tool against people who have done nothing to deserve losing their 2nd Amendment rights. Do I think you should resist the police? Not with a gun in your hands, no. Do I think the police departments should be trained better in serving these warrants (and others) and using alternatives to lethal force? Yes. Do I think the courts should undertake and order these seizures with the understanding that reports of people unfit to own guns will be made falsely? Yes, and I think it should be a serious crime to falsely accuse someone in an attempt to deprive them of their Constitutional rights. It should be written as part of the law and a felony, and the accuser should be forced to pay any legal costs and associated expenses for the accused to be exonerated, fines, and possible prison time. Do I think the government should be held liable for wrongly depriving someone of their Constitutional rights and be forced to return firearms, repay legal fees and related expenses to someone whose rights are reinstated, as well as restitution or further compensation? Absolutely. It would help keep the government from being overzealous in its pursuits. Do I think there are "common sense" gun laws? Maybe, but far more laws that are called "common sense" are nothing of the sort. 1639 was touted as such and that's far from the truth. Do I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is still valid today. Absolutely and maybe more than when the Constitution was ratified.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 02:08:06 PM
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 02:09:37 PM


:yeah:

What he said.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2018, 02:18:28 PM
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.

Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 03:05:07 PM
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.

Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.
Did I read what you posted before my post?No.Have I read what you posted yes and I agree with most of it.As the law is written now a person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor for filing a false complaint.If they are found guilty of filing a false complaint a judge can and probably would impose a fine and restitution plus lawyer fees to be awarded to the falsely accused person.The claims that there is no accountability to the accuser or petitioner is not true.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.

Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.
Did I read what you posted before my post?No.Have I read what you posted yes and I agree with most of it.As the law is written now a person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor for filing a false complaint.If they are found guilty of filing a false complaint a judge can and probably would impose a fine and restitution plus lawyer fees to be awarded to the falsely accused person.The claims that there is no accountability to the accuser or petitioner is not true.

In my opinion, a gross misdemeanor is not enough for falsely depriving someone of their Constitutional rights. It should hurt big and it should deprive them of theirs.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 03:24:37 PM
I agree.Lots of talk about the law being abused but not much on when it works as intended.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2018, 03:31:01 PM
Right now it's illegal to make false accusations and statements... Why should we expect a different outcome?

Remeber this becomes an issue of the will of the prosecutors office to pursue charges. We see this not only with DV, & rape  which are quite serious, but also with all manner of other laws. How many times do we raise hell because the habitual wildlife offender is treated with padded gloves. Just because it's Illegal doesnt mean it has teeth unless its enforced.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 03:37:03 PM
Maybe someone that thinks the law is useless and has no teeth should falsely accuse someone.Any volunteers?It won't be me.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: rasbo on November 14, 2018, 03:44:14 PM
Maybe someone that thinks the law is useless and has no teeth should falsely accuse someone.Any volunteers?It won't be me.
yeah,them kavanaugh accusers outcome will tell.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 04:22:36 PM
So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

Your argument suggests that the courts are infallible.  Nearly 80% of the 9th Circuits rulings are unconstitutional and vacated or overruled by the Supreme Court.  This doesn't give me much confidence that our lower courts adhere to the constitution or rule of law, if so, this wouldn't even be a consideration.

Quote
The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit placed third.

6th Circuit - 87 percent;

11th Circuit - 85 percent;

9th Circuit - 79 percent;

3rd Circuit - 78 percent;

2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;

8th Circuit - 67 percent;

5th Circuit - 66 percent;

7th Circuit - 48 percent;

DC Circuit - 45 percent;

1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;

10th Circuit - 42 percent.

The 9th Circuit overturned rate is similar to the findings of a 2010 analysis by Roy E. Hofer, a former president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association.

Hofer found that from 1999 to 2008, the Supreme Court reversed or vacated (ruled null or void) 80 percent of the cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 04:25:10 PM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 :dunno:

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement?

Because removing rights from a felon is constitutional.  The person who got red flagged and shot was not a felon nor was under indictment nor was there PC to arrest.  He'd done nothing wrong.   He was seized under the 4th amendment for the possibility of a future crime. 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 04:49:59 PM
I do see the need  for better monitoring of mentally ill/dangerous people but you have to understand that those laws are going to be used as a tool against people who have done nothing to deserve losing their 2nd Amendment rights. Do I think you should resist the police? Not with a gun in your hands, no. Do I think the police departments should be trained better in serving these warrants (and others) and using alternatives to lethal force? Yes. Do I think the courts should undertake and order these seizures with the understanding that reports of people unfit to own guns will be made falsely? Yes, and I think it should be a serious crime to falsely accuse someone in an attempt to deprive them of their Constitutional rights. It should be written as part of the law and a felony, and the accuser should be forced to pay any legal costs and associated expenses for the accused to be exonerated, fines, and possible prison time. Do I think the government should be held liable for wrongly depriving someone of their Constitutional rights and be forced to return firearms, repay legal fees and related expenses to someone whose rights are reinstated, as well as restitution or further compensation? Absolutely. It would help keep the government from being overzealous in its pursuits. Do I think there are "common sense" gun laws? Maybe, but far more laws that are called "common sense" are nothing of the sort. 1639 was touted as such and that's far from the truth. Do I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is still valid today. Absolutely and maybe more than when the Constitution was ratified.

Pie in the sky thinking.  Beyond the initial evidence presented before a Judge in trying to flag someone, how is a false charge going to be enforced, proved or fought against? 
It's purely subjective and emotional unless some idiot forged some screenshots or something. 

Do we even have a standard threshold this must meet before the order is given? or is it up to individual judges feelings?  IAs far as I know there's no standard threshold or specific set of conditions that must be met, it's all up to the judge sitting behind the bench...those same judges that #resist Trump. 

Anyone involved in the judicial system has their favorite (or most hated) judges for certain things. 

Judge "A" is really good for getting DV restraining orders while Judge "B" is a great judge to get in divorce proceedings for the mens side....on and on and on.

Each judge is known for being good or bad or whatever on different issues...no two judges are the same or rule the same.   

Say your name comes up for a red flag hearing and you happen to get Judge "X" who issues red flag orders like they give out halloween candy. 

Another activist judge weeeee!  we got plenty of those!

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 04:51:20 PM
Serving a red flag order is not an arrest.Fighting with the cops on the cops will definitely get you arrested or in this case shot.The amount of paranoia here is surprising.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
Serving a red flag order is not an arrest.

That's my point. It's an order to seize a persons property with no crime having been committed.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 05:03:28 PM
Good point,although not one I would risk my life for trying to prove.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2018, 05:09:45 PM
Serving a red flag order is not an arrest.

That's my point. It's an order to seize a persons property with no crime having been committed.


Kind of the like the asset forfiture laws where carrying too much cash is illegal. Dont get pulled over for speeding while heading out to buy that 10k truck for cash!
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 05:15:30 PM
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.

Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.
Did I read what you posted before my post?No.Have I read what you posted yes and I agree with most of it.As the law is written now a person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor for filing a false complaint.If they are found guilty of filing a false complaint a judge can and probably would impose a fine and restitution plus lawyer fees to be awarded to the falsely accused person.The claims that there is no accountability to the accuser or petitioner is not true.

Irony of ironies, the false accuser has full due process protections and the presumption of innocence not afforded to the wrongly disenfranchised. 

The law requires no attorney fees or restitution, and, in fact specifies that there is no criminal or civil liabilty for reporting.

So there a gap so wide you can drive a bus through, between simple mistake and being found guilty of a gross misdemeanor of false reporting, whereas the law protects the accuser, but not the accused.

Let's hope you are not victim of the "due process protections" that you make apologies for.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 05:30:00 PM
I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.They may save an innocent girl or womans life from being taken by a violent angry psychopath and that is ok with me.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Okanagan on November 14, 2018, 05:54:51 PM
I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.

Thy naivety passeth all understanding.

  According to Solzhenitsyn, millions who went to the gulag felt the same way.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 06:03:25 PM
Save us from the terrible fate that awaits!
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 14, 2018, 06:09:09 PM
I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.They may save an innocent girl or womans life from being taken by a violent angry psychopath and that is ok with me.

Because nobody has ever been wrongfully accused, right? And it's okay to violate someone's constitutional rights, just in case...
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 06:19:07 PM
I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.They may save an innocent girl or womans life from being taken by a violent angry psychopath and that is ok with me.


At who's cost?  You would sacrifice others' rights for a mere possibility?  It is possible that, if we deprive you of your 2A rights, or other rights, it may save someone's life.

Getting the picture, yet?

May your circumstances treat you more kindly. 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 06:34:44 PM
If I thought that one of my sons was crazy enough to kill people without reason or just because he was mad I would turn him in without question.Leadship in my home comes from the top and thats me.We respect the law and the democracy that creates it.We don't fear the dark or the boogeyman or the zombie apocalypse.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 06:44:43 PM
"May your chains set lightly upon you."


People have fought and died to ensure due process protections are here for future generations.

Are you seriously suggesting that people who revere such and question the wisdom of such weak "protections" are equivalent to being afraid of dark or the boogeyman or the zombie apocalypse.  Because we can have a discussion without personal attacks.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 06:46:39 PM
If I thought that one of my sons was crazy enough to kill people without reason or just because he was mad I would turn him in without question.Leadship in my home comes from the top and thats me.We respect the law and the democracy that creates it.We don't fear the dark or the boogeyman or the zombie apocalypse.

Who said it had to be you turning in your son?  It could be a teacher, his auntie, a friend...or it could be a scorned ex-girl friend.

I praise that you raise your son to respect law and order, but I think you're missing something if you don't also teach them civics. 
Our history is chock full of civil injustices and the suppression of freedoms clearly spelled out in our bill of rights.

You ought to include in your education basic civil rights, (our public schools won't do it)

Don't teach sheeple 101.  Think.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 14, 2018, 06:47:58 PM
If I thought that one of my sons was crazy enough to kill people without reason or just because he was mad I would turn him in without question.Leadship in my home comes from the top and thats me.We respect the law and the democracy that creates it.We don't fear the dark or the boogeyman or the zombie apocalypse.

You are entirely missing the point and have a very narrow field of view. I guess some people just don't get it.  :dunno:
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 07:04:18 PM
Funny,I was thinking the same thing about many that have posted on this topic.The reality is if the government comes to take your guns it will end one of two ways.You surrender your guns or die defending them,either way the guns will be taken.I choose not to let it drive me mad worrying about it.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 07:21:11 PM
"You surrender your guns or die defending them,either way the guns will be taken."

Which is kind of the point about advocating for strong, real due process protections and statutory civil liability and restitution provisions.  This is so that it doesn't become just another tool in family law cases as has alleging DV and receiving a TRO, etc.

If you look back, you are likely to find support for extreme risk protection orders, myself included, in the abstract.  The battleground is whether mickey mouse "due process protections" and provisions avoidance of abuse is sufficient.  It is no secret that WA and King County takes a dim view of 2A rights.  Add 4A and 5A rights to that, now, to thunderous applause.

SMH.

You gain no allies with ERPOs, if the rights of the accused are not properly balanced with the hypothetical rights of a potential future victim, who may never otherwise materialize, as with WA's implementation.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2018, 07:34:04 PM
Tinmaniac I agree that in the current state of society if the man with a badge and gun show up discretion is the better part of decision making.

If you've ever had some one you know had false accusations made against them you will quickly find out why caution and skepticism is well earned. Perhaps everything will work out the way you believe in Maryland. I think those your disagreeing with would likely relocate.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 08:18:06 PM
Like it or not the writing is on the wall for gun control.The pile of bodies has gotten to big and the current system is broken.It won't matter where you live it's just a matter of time.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 09:07:01 PM
Like it or not the writing is on the wall for gun control.The pile of bodies has gotten to big and the current system is broken.It won't matter where you live it's just a matter of time.

That pile of bodies is deepest in the states with the most gun laws, coincidently.  Now that WA has some of the toughest gun laws of any state, does that mean we'll see a big uptick in our own pile of bodies?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 14, 2018, 10:05:51 PM
Like it or not the writing is on the wall for gun control.The pile of bodies has gotten to big and the current system is broken.It won't matter where you live it's just a matter of time.

It's a matter forgetting history, now, isn't it.  Or of letting yhe emotional override the rational.

The biggest piles of bodies, by far, are owned by state actors who first disarmed their people.  History is remarkably consistent on this point.

Death by Gun Control.   See the genocide chart.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

We should take a lesson from history and not let those who died from gun control die in vain.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 15, 2018, 05:10:17 AM
I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.They may save an innocent girl or womans life from being taken by a violent angry psychopath and that is ok with me.

You are either incredibly naive and obviously not a student of history, or you know what you're saying is complete BS. "If only one life is saved..." This is the byline of the Left's anti-gun movement and it never proves true anywhere gun control is implemented. Always, the heavier the gun control, the heavier the body count. By the time gun confiscation is complete in this country, many tens of thousands will have died. I'm not looking forward to it and it's going to happen. And then after, say goodbye to the rest of our rights.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Igor on November 15, 2018, 06:21:09 AM
If the government doesn’t care about rights, and our state of Washington has shown a total disregard of some, then it is just a matter of time before you will have none.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 15, 2018, 06:49:20 AM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 :dunno:

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement?

Because removing rights from a felon is constitutional.  The person who got red flagged and shot was not a felon nor was under indictment nor was there PC to arrest.  He'd done nothing wrong.   He was seized under the 4th amendment for the possibility of a future crime.

@KFHunter can you point out where that is in the US Constitution?  Because I just don't see it.

I think it's been given legal precedent by legislation and case law. 

So since this has nothing to do with what's written in the constitution, and everything to do with what legislation and case law have determined are satisfactory requirements for the due process clause in the 14th amendment, I ask again:  Where do you draw the line? 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 15, 2018, 07:36:00 AM
Seems plain as day here, unless I am misunderstanding your point.

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There is no affirmation of a crime that has been committed in typical ERPOs.  There is an affirmation about the possibility of a hypothetical future crime.


An analogue is that of restraining orders, where typically and in WA, IIRC, a firearm surrender order is issued.  There, there are particular allegations about a particular person and allegations of particular past conduct, that if it is not charged, it may be chargeable, such as threatening, stalking, harassment, assault, battery, etc.


I draw the line at proper actual notice and actual opportunity to be heard, with representation financed by the jurisdiction seeking to deprive an individual - just as with actual charged crimes - and with strict protections against frivolous and abusive use of the process to legal harass an individual, with statutory liability and damages provisions that pays more than lip service to an individual's 2A, 4A, and 5A rights.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on November 15, 2018, 12:03:23 PM
So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 :dunno:

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement?

Because removing rights from a felon is constitutional.  The person who got red flagged and shot was not a felon nor was under indictment nor was there PC to arrest.  He'd done nothing wrong.   He was seized under the 4th amendment for the possibility of a future crime.

@KFhunter can you point out where that is in the US Constitution?  Because I just don't see it.

I think it's been given legal precedent by legislation and case law. 

So since this has nothing to do with what's written in the constitution, and everything to do with what legislation and case law have determined are satisfactory requirements for the due process clause in the 14th amendment, I ask again:  Where do you draw the line?



Article the seventh... 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 offence 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.

giving ex-felons back their guns is a foggy subject when discussing the constitution, this thread is about non-felons loosing their gun rights. 

Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 15, 2018, 01:21:55 PM
Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Okanagan on November 15, 2018, 01:30:55 PM
Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.

Have you ever tried to get a firearm back from authorities?  :chuckle:
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 15, 2018, 01:58:27 PM
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 15, 2018, 02:08:54 PM
Irrelevant in what way?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Taco280AI on November 15, 2018, 02:12:32 PM
Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.

I guess because it's a temporary violation of constitutional rights, it makes it all okay  :chuckle:
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2018, 03:05:57 PM
There is a story on here about some one voluntarily surrendering his weapon to prove he wasn't a poacher. He wasn't, and had to buy his gun back... Just saying...
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Okanagan on November 16, 2018, 06:32:04 AM
Irrelevant.

You chose this topic that you now call irrelevant.  You used the word temporary.  Temporary indicates a length of time.  How long is acceptable for the authorities to keep private property from an uncharged owner?  Two years of hassle and stalling?  Six months?  Two weeks?
 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2018, 06:39:34 AM
This is why gun owners/pro 2A advocates are so reluctant to give any ground at all; because the gun grabbers call their concerns irrelevant. They don't want to listen to the concerns and they don't care about the concerns. And with this attitude, they make it clear that there's only one end game - the end of legal guns in the US. Good luck with that kind of rhetoric trying to find middle ground.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on November 16, 2018, 06:56:54 AM
Irrelevant.

You're doing exactly what KFHunter did.  Just because you don't like someone's response to your argument doesn't mean that their response is irrelevant.

Want to know how hard it is to get guns back once they are wrongfully seized?  Ask @BuckCanyonLodge to tell you a story.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2018, 12:14:17 PM
This is why gun owners/pro 2A advocates are so reluctant to give any ground at all; because the gun grabbers call their concerns irrelevant. They don't want to listen to the concerns and they don't care about the concerns. And with this attitude, they make it clear that there's only one end game - the end of legal guns in the US. Good luck with that kind of rhetoric trying to find middle ground.

Part of the reason why 2A advocates have little incentive to give in, is because the laws that seem to pass around the country dont work.  The states are incubators for ideas.  I always ask this question " Can you show me where XYZ law has been enacted  and show me proof that it worked?" I want less violence and im willing to explore other ideas. When you are married to the "got to do/try something" disease that is divorced from any real statistcs Why would I compromise? BTW I think there have been several compromises by legal gun owners that have earned us jack squat.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2018, 12:19:40 PM
I agree that they've not only not yielded squat, but that there's always another new law waiting in the wings. And when a pro 2A says he has concerns, they tell his concerns are irrelevant. As I said a few posts ago, there's an end game for these people and it's the end of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing less will satisfy them and they've said so openly.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 16, 2018, 07:52:26 PM
It seems there is no line for some.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/democrat-eric-swalwell-calls-for-confiscation-of-semi-automatic-weapons-in-us-nuke-those-who-resist/
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: rasbo on November 16, 2018, 08:43:46 PM
I agree that they've not only not yielded squat, but that there's always another new law waiting in the wings. And when a pro 2A says he has concerns, they tell his concerns are irrelevant. As I said a few posts ago, there's an end game for these people and it's the end of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing less will satisfy them and they've said so openly.
the ol Johnny cash song comes to mind, I took it one piece at a time.. ever time I hear someone say ,well that's not taking this or that,it makes me cringe, we must  fight every little bit they try to take
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Lucky1 on November 20, 2018, 07:32:55 PM
https://conservative-daily.com/2018/11/06/breaking-first-gun-confiscation-killing-reported-maryland/

I just post this here.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: wolfbait on November 25, 2018, 01:54:21 PM
Prosecutors push for legally-owned firearms to be confiscated from parents if minors are red flagged


https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/11/25/prosecutors-push-for-legally-owned-firearms-to-be-confiscated-from-parents-if-minors-are-red-flagged-696649?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 01, 2019, 08:03:50 AM
https://www.weaselzippers.us/431216-remarks-against-antifa-prompt-fbi-seizure-of-former-marines-weapons-under-oregons-red-flag-law/

WA has a red flag law.  AKA Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on September 01, 2019, 08:23:08 AM
Prosecutors push for legally-owned firearms to be confiscated from parents if minors are red flagged


https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/11/25/prosecutors-push-for-legally-owned-firearms-to-be-confiscated-from-parents-if-minors-are-red-flagged-696649?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS

"It’s not the first time that the ACLU has taken stances antithetical to actual civil liberties. Earlier this month the group officially came out against due process, shocking many."

I always though it was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not the court of social media.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 01, 2019, 01:48:50 PM
https://www.weaselzippers.us/431216-remarks-against-antifa-prompt-fbi-seizure-of-former-marines-weapons-under-oregons-red-flag-law/

WA has a red flag law.  AKA Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

At the risk of sounding in favor of red flag laws, which I'm not, this guy's receiving disability for being bi-polar, lives with his parents because he can't hold a job due to his illness, and admitted that what he said was off the charts. I live with bi-polar family members. Depending on their match to the right medication for their specific disease, unpredictability and volatility can contraindicate bi-polar people from safely using or owning firearms.

The use of our first amendment rights to threaten to "slaughter" a group of people will lead to losing our 2nd amendment rights, as it should, IMHO.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on September 01, 2019, 02:25:40 PM
https://www.weaselzippers.us/431216-remarks-against-antifa-prompt-fbi-seizure-of-former-marines-weapons-under-oregons-red-flag-law/

WA has a red flag law.  AKA Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

At the risk of sounding in favor of red flag laws, which I'm not, this guy's receiving disability for being bi-polar, lives with his parents because he can't hold a job due to his illness, and admitted that what he said was off the charts. I live with bi-polar family members. Depending on their match to the right medication for their specific disease, unpredictability and volatility can contraindicate bi-polar people from safely using or owning firearms.

The use of our first amendment rights to threaten to "slaughter" a group of people will lead to losing our 2nd amendment rights, as it should, IMHO.

I too am familiar with bi-polar in my family. And I agree that there are people who should not own firearms becauseof mental health issues. Red flag laws jump the shark and allow lay persons to diagnose and restrict people because they don't like their behavior. It is a slippery slope as you inferred by stating you don't support them either.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Windwalker on September 01, 2019, 04:28:45 PM
Former Marine said he’d ‘slaughter’ antifa. The FBI, using Oregon’s new red flag law, took his guns away

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 01, 2019, 04:43:08 PM
https://www.weaselzippers.us/431216-remarks-against-antifa-prompt-fbi-seizure-of-former-marines-weapons-under-oregons-red-flag-law/

WA has a red flag law.  AKA Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

At the risk of sounding in favor of red flag laws, which I'm not, this guy's receiving disability for being bi-polar, lives with his parents because he can't hold a job due to his illness, and admitted that what he said was off the charts. I live with bi-polar family members. Depending on their match to the right medication for their specific disease, unpredictability and volatility can contraindicate bi-polar people from safely using or owning firearms.

The use of our first amendment rights to threaten to "slaughter" a group of people will lead to losing our 2nd amendment rights, as it should, IMHO.
For
I too am familiar with bi-polar in my family. And I agree that there are people who should not own firearms becauseof mental health issues. Red flag laws jump the shark and allow lay persons to diagnose and restrict people because they don't like their behavior. It is a slippery slope as you inferred by stating you don't support then either.

I agree, as I said in my first sentence.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Alchase on September 01, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
When will people learn, never tip your hand to your enemies. Speaking about your plans never works in your favor.

Especially if you are suffering from bipolar living with your parents and you have a history of mental illness.

As for Red flag laws, well they kind of forget one very important right, and do process.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 02, 2019, 05:49:14 AM
It sounded more like he said he'd slaughter, in a hypothetical matchup, rather than, he was planning to slaughter, next Tuesday.  One is first Amendment protected, and should be due process protected. The other isn't and shouldn't be.

Once your words are mangled by those who have an interest in using them against you, it appears it does not matter.  And would we expect more or fewer people to seek mental health treatment, if it checks a box that they would not enjoy the full rights of American citizenship?


And to be sure, there will be some successes with red flag laws.  There will be failures used to justify more laws and confiscation.  And there will be many who are deprived of their 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights, without probable cause.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 02, 2019, 01:32:13 PM
After 1-2 mass shootings per week all year avg., if someone doesn't watch their words, they're going to come under scrutiny. Again, I don't believe in eliminating due process. A great many do and are apparently going to get their way.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 03, 2019, 10:03:09 AM
Yeah, it seems that more than a few are willing to give up liberty - or at least of others - for the promise of security, or at least the false sense of security. 

As an interesting aside, here is a bit of historical background on Franklin's oft-quoted remark about liberty and security.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said


And finally, it is time we had a national discussion about my proposal of common sense millennial control.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/seth-ator/
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 03, 2019, 10:08:58 AM
I actually wouldn't mind red flag laws... If there was a clear path to quickly getting your rights restored and your record expunged.  Seems like this could be the next SWATting trend.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 03, 2019, 11:10:50 AM
If there was a clear path to quickly getting your rights restored and your record expunged.

That is an impossible "if."  I made this same argument after Parkland, and what resulted were slipshod, feel good, versions of "do something."  In the face of reality, I am compelled to reverse course and assume the proven position that nothing will stop an evil person intent on committing evil, except a good person armed with the most appropriate tool to end that attempt as early as possible.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 03, 2019, 11:14:48 AM
I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder. 
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 04, 2019, 05:13:51 AM
To your point, Curtis.

https://spectator.org/red-flag-laws-are-lethal-leftist-weapons/

Quote
It’s fairly obvious that violent convicted felons and people who are seriously mentally ill with violent tendencies should never have firearms. Yet people like this are turned loose by prisons and jails every day to wreak havoc on our streets, with or without guns. In spite of this reality, “progressives” want the law-abiding citizens disarmed. They want ordinary Americans to depend on government to protect our lives — that’s the same government that can’t keep Jeffrey Epstein alive while locked up in a 10-by-10-foot cell.

Red flag laws attack the liberties of American gun owners, one person at a time. Not a fan of your firearm-owning ex-spouse, sister-in-law, or neighbor? All you need do is fabricate an accusation that she is a danger to herself or others. All it will take is one person who holds a grudge and is willing to make a phone call articulating a credible story.

Red flag laws empower agenda-driven psychologists, police, politicians, and attorneys to move quickly against gun owners with court orders to seize firearms with virtually no due process for those accused. If such laws keep getting passed, gun confiscation could happen to anyone. Red flag laws place law-abiding gun owners at the mercy of social justice “do-gooders” and timid judges who will rubber-stamp confiscation orders simply because an accuser’s allegations meet the “straight face” test.

To the point about BPD and other mental health challenges, perhaps it is time to focus less on the tool and more on the person needing identification and care. If a person should not be trusted with firearms for self-defense, should they be trusted with access to vehicles, poisons, gasoline, and matches.

Before 2019, I was aware of mechanisms for involuntary committal and judicial processes for ensuring due process.  I have not followed these laws closely, but it seems that these laws have received some recent attention.  For example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.05.150


I sympathize with families struggling with mental health challenges.  I am not so removed from the same. 

However, I fail to see how branding marginal or otherwise law-abiding people and depriving them from full rights of citizenship without rigorous due process, restoration and compensation provisions, and punitive measures that discourage abuse of the process can be anything other than a kneejerk, do-something bandaid, whose future all but certain failure will be used to justify further erosion of law-abiding firearm owners rights.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 04, 2019, 06:50:52 AM
I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 04, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

I think you're saying you agree with me here  :chuckle:
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: ctwiggs1 on September 04, 2019, 07:24:47 AM
To your point, Curtis.

https://spectator.org/red-flag-laws-are-lethal-leftist-weapons/

Quote
It’s fairly obvious that violent convicted felons and people who are seriously mentally ill with violent tendencies should never have firearms. Yet people like this are turned loose by prisons and jails every day to wreak havoc on our streets, with or without guns. In spite of this reality, “progressives” want the law-abiding citizens disarmed. They want ordinary Americans to depend on government to protect our lives — that’s the same government that can’t keep Jeffrey Epstein alive while locked up in a 10-by-10-foot cell.

Red flag laws attack the liberties of American gun owners, one person at a time. Not a fan of your firearm-owning ex-spouse, sister-in-law, or neighbor? All you need do is fabricate an accusation that she is a danger to herself or others. All it will take is one person who holds a grudge and is willing to make a phone call articulating a credible story.

Red flag laws empower agenda-driven psychologists, police, politicians, and attorneys to move quickly against gun owners with court orders to seize firearms with virtually no due process for those accused. If such laws keep getting passed, gun confiscation could happen to anyone. Red flag laws place law-abiding gun owners at the mercy of social justice “do-gooders” and timid judges who will rubber-stamp confiscation orders simply because an accuser’s allegations meet the “straight face” test.

To the point about BPD and other mental health challenges, perhaps it is time to focus less on the tool and more on the person needing identification and care. If a person should not be trusted with firearms for self-defense, should they be trusted with access to vehicles, poisons, gasoline, and matches.

Before 2019, I was aware of mechanisms for involuntary committal and judicial processes for ensuring due process.  I have not followed these laws closely, but it seems that these laws have received some recent attention.  For example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.05.150


I sympathize with families struggling with mental health challenges.  I am not so removed from the same. 

However, I fail to see how branding marginal or otherwise law-abiding people and depriving them from full rights of citizenship without rigorous due process, restoration and compensation provisions, and punitive measures that discourage abuse of the process can be anything other than a kneejerk, do-something bandaid, whose future all but certain failure will be used to justify further erosion of law-abiding firearm owners rights.

So I think you and I are more in agreement than disagreement... The concept isn't a terrible idea, but so far the execution has been dismal.  If someone told me our current red flag laws were only a liberal weapon against our 2A rights, I wouldn't necessarily disagree at this point.

It should be a very open and clear process to get to the point of taking someone's guns, and there should be a very quick, clear process for getting those guns back (I would go so far as to say a compensation process as well for people whose rights were wrongfully violated).
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 04, 2019, 08:23:13 AM
I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

I think you're saying you agree with me here  :chuckle:

I've agreed with you from the start.  :tup: I'm against red flag laws because of the potential for abuse and the elimination of due process. If there were a vehicle in place for immediate review which affirms our rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments and puts the burden of proof of wrongdoing on the courts, AND if there were very substantial felony penalties for false accusations which result in gun confiscation, I might be more amenable to such a law. However, I don't see any such requirements being called for by the people wanting these laws in-place. They're looking for anything they can dig up to take guns away and I'll stay opposed to that.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Cougartail on September 04, 2019, 09:37:52 AM
I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

If they were even handed at using the "Red Flag" laws, every gangbanger and drug dealer in Chicago (and every other big city.) would be paid a visit and stripped of their guns and gun rights. This isn't going to happen as they are targeting certain sectors of society where there will be no voter backlash.. More feel good BS. :twocents:

I think you're saying you agree with me here  :chuckle:

I've agreed with you from the start.  :tup: I'm against red flag laws because of the potential for abuse and the elimination of due process. If there were a vehicle in place for immediate review which affirms our rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments and puts the burden of proof of wrongdoing on the courts, AND if there were very substantial felony penalties for false accusations which result in gun confiscation, I might be more amenable to such a law. However, I don't see any such requirements being called for by the people wanting these laws in-place. They're looking for anything they can dig up to take guns away and I'll stay opposed to that.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: optic2 on September 05, 2019, 03:35:01 PM
Regardless of your political views it is imperative that Trump be re-elected for the sole reason of replacing Ruth Bader-Ginsberg with Amy Coney Barret. I don't really like the guy but if a democrat is elected there will be a left leaning justice put in, almost definitely one that has ruled against the 2nd amendment in the past. That is our only hope in terms of running these ridiculous laws up to the US Supreme Court and getting them overturned.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 12, 2019, 11:28:04 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/red-flag-candidate-alyssa-milana-owns-two-guns-and-has-self-admitted-mental-illness-but-leads-charge-to-take-way-your-guns/

You, first.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: 724wd on September 16, 2019, 12:47:38 PM
So say I have a few guns and get one of these red flag thingies levied against me. cops show up to take my personal items and once they have them, they need to do their photo op for the paper, so my $120,000 Purdy and $10,000 handmade custom 98 mauser and my $5000 Stag arms rifles are piled on the concrete driveway with the Ruger 10/22s and "hundreds" of rounds of ammunition... who's responsible for the damage to my property?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 18, 2019, 08:49:56 AM
Quote
Rep. Buck said Democrats want to use the laws to take guns from rural Americans but that Democrats voted down his amendment to include gang members in the legislation.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member. According to JPFO.org 80% of gun homicides are committed by gang members.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/shocking-democrats-red-flag-laws-meant-to-weapons-from-rural-gun-owners-but-not-gang-members-who-commit-80-of-gun-homicides-video/


Got that?  They don't want to solve 80% of the actual gun homicides.  Why?  Because it's just brown people?  One wonders.


In the business, we used the concepts of Pareto principle or Pareto efficiency to troubleshoot and optimize allocation of resources including manpower to the solution of a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Quote
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1][2] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Quote
A Pareto improvement is a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual or preference criterion better off without making any other individual or preference criterion worse off, given a certain initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made, in which case we are assumed to have reached Pareto optimality.


Colloquially, these principles might combine and you would say to focus your attention where you get "the most bang for your buck."


In any event, it is antithetical to the notion that dems want to "solve" the problem of "gun violence" that they ignore the 80% instances of homicide attributable to a small subset of America's population, while going straight for law-abiding gun owners in a dystopian pre-crime gun grab.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on September 18, 2019, 09:26:34 AM
How would a red flag law help take away guns from people that don't buy their guns legally in the first place?Most "gang members"have probably lost their right to own a gun.Red flag laws don't apply to people that have lost their gun rights.There are already many laws that deal with this.The first would be a new charge of felony gun possession,which leads directly to jail not a temporary suspension of legal gun possession.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on September 18, 2019, 09:41:04 AM
As I understand the proposal above, being labeled a "gang member" would activate police powers to arbitrarily raid your home and collect any firearms, and I suppose, as well as other contraband identified in the raid.  And that is leaving aside the possible disarmament of other law-abiding owners in the premises and the problem of proof of "gang member."   How do you prove one is a "gang member" and how do you prove you have unbecome a "gang member."

However, even taking this premise as true ("Most 'gang members' have probably lost their right to own a gun."), you still have the baseline issue that - even if they are "gang members" - they are afforded the same due process rights as so-called "law-abiding citizens."
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: buckfvr on September 18, 2019, 09:59:11 AM
I actually wouldn't mind red flag laws... If there was a clear path to quickly getting your rights restored and your record expunged.  Seems like this could be the next SWATting trend.

This would only come with great expense to the accused.

Its honest law abiding gun owners that are feared by the government.......
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 12, 2019, 08:57:43 AM
Yesterday, family and LE.

Today, a vengeful co-worker.


Quote
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

The bill was vetoed twice by former governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and goes beyond a measure that he signed allowing only law enforcement officers and immediate family members to ask judges to temporarily take away peoples’ guns when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others
.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/435027-california-adopts-broadest-us-rules-for-seizing-guns/


Tomorrow, angry crybully troll on the internet.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Cougartail on October 14, 2019, 09:26:34 AM
Yesterday, family and LE.

Today, a vengeful co-worker.


Quote
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

The bill was vetoed twice by former governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and goes beyond a measure that he signed allowing only law enforcement officers and immediate family members to ask judges to temporarily take away peoples’ guns when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others
.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/435027-california-adopts-broadest-us-rules-for-seizing-guns/


Tomorrow, angry crybully troll on the internet.

Another tactic to stop free speech by threatening to take your firearms. You are seeing the rise of the American Democratic Socialist Party with similar tactics of Nazi's.
The power brokers of the new far left party love watching Hong Kong play out as this is their dream. Shoving their views onto others with nothing more than a few rocks and bottles thrown at the enforcers. Imagine if the Hong Kong people had AR-15s. Personal freedom would easily win and is why gun confiscation is popular with tyrants.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 14, 2019, 10:05:26 AM
:yeah:

That is why I started the 4 year descent into liberal fascism thread.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Tinmaniac on October 14, 2019, 11:46:56 AM
Yesterday, family and LE.

Today, a vengeful co-worker.


Quote
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

The bill was vetoed twice by former governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and goes beyond a measure that he signed allowing only law enforcement officers and immediate family members to ask judges to temporarily take away peoples’ guns when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others
.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/435027-california-adopts-broadest-us-rules-for-seizing-guns/


Tomorrow, angry crybully troll on the internet.

Another tactic to stop free speech by threatening to take your firearms. You are seeing the rise of the American Democratic Socialist Party with similar tactics of Nazi's.
The power brokers of the new far left party love watching Hong Kong play out as this is their dream. Shoving their views onto others with nothing more than a few rocks and bottles thrown at the enforcers. Imagine if the Hong Kong people had AR-15s. Personal freedom would easily win and is why gun confiscation is popular with tyrants.
Not sure I understand your statement.The protesters would win their freedom if they had AR-15's?The only reason they are still alive is that they are not shooting guns.Hong Kong is going to stand up against the Chinese military?Remember when China had our airmen for 6 months?They sent the plane they were on back in pieces 18 months later?Even Bush wasn't stupid enough to start anything with the Chinese.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 14, 2019, 02:04:23 PM
What is to prevent China from launching nukes at the U.S.?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 14, 2019, 02:11:59 PM
Yesterday, family and LE.

Today, a vengeful co-worker.


Quote
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

The bill was vetoed twice by former governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and goes beyond a measure that he signed allowing only law enforcement officers and immediate family members to ask judges to temporarily take away peoples’ guns when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others
.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/435027-california-adopts-broadest-us-rules-for-seizing-guns/


Tomorrow, angry crybully troll on the internet.

Another tactic to stop free speech by threatening to take your firearms. You are seeing the rise of the American Democratic Socialist Party with similar tactics of Nazi's.
The power brokers of the new far left party love watching Hong Kong play out as this is their dream. Shoving their views onto others with nothing more than a few rocks and bottles thrown at the enforcers. Imagine if the Hong Kong people had AR-15s. Personal freedom would easily win and is why gun confiscation is popular with tyrants.
Not sure I understand your statement.The protesters would win their freedom if they had AR-15's?The only reason they are still alive is that they are not shooting guns.Hong Kong is going to stand up against the Chinese military?Remember when China had our airmen for 6 months?They sent the plane they were on back in pieces 18 months later?Even Bush wasn't stupid enough to start anything with the Chinese.

You're missing Cougar's overall point. Control the media, control the guns, and you control the people. What's missing from Cougar's posit is that the communists disarmed their people after the 1949 revolution and before they "cleansed" their population of probably 60 million. CA's new red flag law makes it really easy for anyone to cause the confiscation of anyone's firearms. They already control the media, they now have the means to control the firearms. Unless this is stopped, they'll soon control the people.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on October 14, 2019, 08:21:16 PM
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/10/14/84-year-old-retired-cop-guns-seized-school-safety-comment/



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Cougartail on October 15, 2019, 02:56:36 PM
Yesterday, family and LE.

Today, a vengeful co-worker.


Quote
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.

The bill was vetoed twice by former governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, and goes beyond a measure that he signed allowing only law enforcement officers and immediate family members to ask judges to temporarily take away peoples’ guns when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others
.

https://www.weaselzippers.us/435027-california-adopts-broadest-us-rules-for-seizing-guns/


Tomorrow, angry crybully troll on the internet.

Another tactic to stop free speech by threatening to take your firearms. You are seeing the rise of the American Democratic Socialist Party with similar tactics of Nazi's.
The power brokers of the new far left party love watching Hong Kong play out as this is their dream. Shoving their views onto others with nothing more than a few rocks and bottles thrown at the enforcers. Imagine if the Hong Kong people had AR-15s. Personal freedom would easily win and is why gun confiscation is popular with tyrants.
Not sure I understand your statement.The protesters would win their freedom if they had AR-15's?The only reason they are still alive is that they are not shooting guns.Hong Kong is going to stand up against the Chinese military?Remember when China had our airmen for 6 months?They sent the plane they were on back in pieces 18 months later?Even Bush wasn't stupid enough to start anything with the Chinese.

Bush cared more about his and his buddies portfolios than American interests. I'd of turned all ships from China around and sent them back. The Chinese would have come "licking our boots". Without economic power conventional armies are worthless..
Notice how easy it is For Trump to push them around? Imagine if he played hardball risking this hot economy?
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: KFhunter on October 15, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
It takes a long time to wean a crack addict, and if you go cold turkey you can actually harm them.


I like this slow wean thing we're doing now..and I've bought my share of China crap but self weaned a number of years ago.   I might still get a hit of china now and then, but I try to avoid it if possible!
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 23, 2019, 10:40:52 AM
The ACLU wakes up.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/10/even-the-aclu-opposes-californias-gun-confiscation-legislation/
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 01, 2019, 05:29:25 PM
American citizen killed in Red Flag raid:

https://twitter.com/MikeWJZ/status/1059418477965049856
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 02, 2019, 10:27:45 AM
I believe this is the incident from upstate NY last August.
Title: Re: "Red Flag" Laws in Practice
Post by: Fl0und3rz on December 02, 2019, 10:30:38 AM
I think you are right. 

https://thinkamericana.com/red-flag-law-police-kill-man-who-refuses-to-give-up-gun/

Apologies.