"Red Flag" Laws in Practice

[Fl0und3rz]

What he said.

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Tinmaniac]

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.

[pianoman9701]

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.

[Tinmaniac]

I agree.Lots of talk about the law being abused but not much on when it works as intended.

[Special T]

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

[Tinmaniac]

Maybe someone that thinks the law is useless and has no teeth should falsely accuse someone.Any volunteers?It won't be me.

[rasbo]

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.

[KFhunter]

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.

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.

[KFhunter]

So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 

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]

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!

[Tinmaniac]

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.

[KFhunter]

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.

[Tinmaniac]

Good point,although not one I would risk my life for trying to prove.

[Special T]

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!