Red Flag laws.

[BanjoJohn]

Stolen firearms are different, because they may be needed as evidence to prosecute the thief or a subsequent non-innocent buyer of stolen guns.

But no law enforcement agency should make you prove a gun is "yours" when they got it directly from your holster, your vehicle, your home. They don't demand receipts to return other stuff to citizens, do they? (Other than RX meds-- those have extra proof required also).

Or they may not be needed as evidence, but the "Special Agent" in charge is incompetent and a dick head, until I got his supervisor on dat ass, then his attitude changed.

 

[Jambo]

The constitution already allows for an ARREST of a person, total deprivation of all their rights and liberties (at at least during the arrest in booking process and the time spent in jail prior to bonding out) based on "Probable Cause" to believe you've committed a crime.

So, why do we arrest suspected criminals, rather than just serve them with a notice of a court date? Why do we detain them for more than a couple seconds it takes to hand them the notice? Why do people lose their liberty for hours sometimes days sometimes weeks over an accusation by a single person --with no testimony from any witnesses other than a short statement by a police officer or detective?

The reason is PUBLIC SAFETY. Being arrested physically, being searched, and observed for a little while before being released on bond all serve an important public safety purpose that is more than just a way of telling somebody they had better show up in court later when they get their summons.


There's almost no due process in an arrest. A cop makes the decision to arrest based on his own interpretation of the facts and circumstances. Then some hours or days later, a "neutral and detached magistrate" judge will review the police officer's short written statement explaining why he believed there was probable cause.

And in 999 out of 1000 cases, the judge will agree that there WAS probable cause, and rubberstamp an arrest warrant approving of what the cop has already done.

Unless you fail to make a bond, and are held in jail for a long period of time, you don't get the opportunity to make any statements, or cross-examine the police officer, or introduce any evidence on your behalf. All of those "due process" rights are put off until later, either at your trial or perhaps at a pre-trial hearing. Months in the future.

If the right to challenge the government's evidence against you, and the right to speak and offer evidence in your own behalf, can be put off until long after you're arrested, then I think your 2A and Due Process rights can be put off for a while, and exercised after your guns have already been taken from you for safekeeping, and you have been put on a list of people ineligible to buy guns from a dealership.

But it should happen quickly after the deprivation of your liberty. Maybe within 48 hours.

Yes, YOU can be arrested if it is suspected you COMMITTED A CRIME. You are NOT arrested if they suspect you might commit a crime. That's the difference.

"My uncle Bob is crazy, please take his guns" = they come to the house, search it top to bottom, and take any guns they find. Tomorrow Bob rents a U-haul truck and drives it through a crowd.
How did the red flag law help?
How will the police treat your firearms? Toss them in a water filled bucket for safe keeping? Damage them in some way? Who determines the value of the 1942 M1 your Dad brought back from WWII?

Bottom line: The last large scale Red Flag confiscations in this country were carried out by men wearing red coats. Next they'll be carried out by people who want you to "back their blue" because, after all, they're just following orders.

 

[mm1988]

It’s very important for everyone on this board to contact elected reps and say NO MORE NEW GUN LAWS. Everyone thought trump was the messiah and we could sit back for 8 years wrong. He has already changed the definition of a machine gun by order to atf. His record so far is worse than Obama’s on guns.

If any of you think these red flag laws are the end you’re stupid. Soon we will have an AWB again then mandatory registration and we know what comes next.

What happened to national CCW, repeal the NFA and the hearing protection act? We have gained 0 and lost 1 so far.

Red flag laws will allow your mad ex to call you in and have you’re guns confiscated. Our a mad individual that doesn’t like you. You will be left defenseless until you can prove you’re not crazy in court.

 

[aFarewellToKings]

The constitution already allows for an ARREST of a person, total deprivation of all their rights and liberties (at at least during the arrest in booking process and the time spent in jail prior to bonding out) based on "Probable Cause" to believe you've committed a crime.

So, why do we arrest suspected criminals, rather than just serve them with a notice of a court date? Why do we detain them for more than a couple seconds it takes to hand them the notice? Why do people lose their liberty for hours sometimes days sometimes weeks over an accusation by a single person --with no testimony from any witnesses other than a short statement by a police officer or detective?

The reason is PUBLIC SAFETY. Being arrested physically, being searched, and observed for a little while before being released on bond all serve an important public safety purpose that is more than just a way of telling somebody they had better show up in court later when they get their summons.


There's almost no due process in an arrest. A cop makes the decision to arrest based on his own interpretation of the facts and circumstances. Then some hours or days later, a "neutral and detached magistrate" judge will review the police officer's short written statement explaining why he believed there was probable cause.

And in 999 out of 1000 cases, the judge will agree that there WAS probable cause, and rubberstamp an arrest warrant approving of what the cop has already done.

Unless you fail to make a bond, and are held in jail for a long period of time, you don't get the opportunity to make any statements, or cross-examine the police officer, or introduce any evidence on your behalf. All of those "due process" rights are put off until later, either at your trial or perhaps at a pre-trial hearing. Months in the future.

If the right to challenge the government's evidence against you, and the right to speak and offer evidence in your own behalf, can be put off until long after you're arrested, then I think your 2A and Due Process rights can be put off for a while, and exercised after your guns have already been taken from you for safekeeping, and you have been put on a list of people ineligible to buy guns from a dealership.

But it should happen quickly after the deprivation of your liberty. Maybe within 48 hours.

Problem is, there are protections in place covering the holding and treatment of a person. No such protections for property.
"So, I'm too much a danger to have a single-shot 20 gauge, but I'm fine to have a pocket knife, a hunting knife, kitchen knives, a sword, a U-haul truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel, black powder guns, ... ?"

If someone truly is unstable, possibly the worst thing you can do is take some of their dangerous possessions from them but leave them free!

 

[glock dude]

Ive called, written letters and sent emails urging Senators Isakson and Perdue to not support Red Flag laws and any new gun control. They both respond via email, Isakson has a secretary that will talk to you, Perdue sends you straight to voicemail, and I don't know if they got my letters. Please take 5 minutes out of your day and call the Washington DC switchboard at 202-224-3121 ask for the Senators, one at a time, and tell them to not pass anything new gun legislation. We all need to pressure them.

 

[Lionheart]

The constitution already allows for an ARREST of a person, total deprivation of all their rights and liberties (at at least during the arrest in booking process and the time spent in jail prior to bonding out) based on "Probable Cause" to believe you've committed a crime.

So, why do we arrest suspected criminals, rather than just serve them with a notice of a court date? Why do we detain them for more than a couple seconds it takes to hand them the notice? Why do people lose their liberty for hours sometimes days sometimes weeks over an accusation by a single person --with no testimony from any witnesses other than a short statement by a police officer or detective?

The reason is PUBLIC SAFETY. Being arrested physically, being searched, and observed for a little while before being released on bond all serve an important public safety purpose that is more than just a way of telling somebody they had better show up in court later when they get their summons.


There's almost no due process in an arrest. A cop makes the decision to arrest based on his own interpretation of the facts and circumstances. Then some hours or days later, a "neutral and detached magistrate" judge will review the police officer's short written statement explaining why he believed there was probable cause.

And in 999 out of 1000 cases, the judge will agree that there WAS probable cause, and rubberstamp an arrest warrant approving of what the cop has already done.

Unless you fail to make a bond, and are held in jail for a long period of time, you don't get the opportunity to make any statements, or cross-examine the police officer, or introduce any evidence on your behalf. All of those "due process" rights are put off until later, either at your trial or perhaps at a pre-trial hearing. Months in the future.

If the right to challenge the government's evidence against you, and the right to speak and offer evidence in your own behalf, can be put off until long after you're arrested, then I think your 2A and Due Process rights can be put off for a while, and exercised after your guns have already been taken from you for safekeeping, and you have been put on a list of people ineligible to buy guns from a dealership.

But it should happen quickly after the deprivation of your liberty. Maybe within 48 hours.

Are you serious? Your first sentence explains the difference between RFL and arresting someone suspected of a crime. RFL's are about someone who has NOT committed a crime. And you are a lawyer? I guess RFL's would be good for your business...but I wouldn't count on any business from the ODT.

 

[Lionheart]

I'm against any changes, however,
If, like the Dayton shooter, is mentally ill, bipolar, expresses desires to kill innocents, all short of "being sentenced for a felony" but are much more important than someone that say, committed a white collar fraud, and was sentenced to 2 years. Is that, although a felony, more of a threat than a mentally ill, bipolar person that has written manifesto's of death and destruction and their desire to kill >>
Change my mind,

I really don't understand your post above very well...I wish you would clarify it. You voted for RFL's but the above is not clear...you support them because there are crazy people out there who should not own a gun?
Surely you can see where the RFL's violate the constitution...and you are ok with that? Is that what you are saying?
We have laws on the books now that would allow the authorities to investigate and, if necessary, put the crazy people in a padded room until they are deemed not a danger to themselves or others. How about we just enforce them in a constitutional manner and NOT deprive an innocent gun owner of his rights...based on mere heresay or gossip?

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Lionheart,

To the extent that your reply is just a personal attack on me and my character, see this borrowed image from another regular poster here.

Now, as to the substance of your post, I'll ask you this what is your fascination with focusing on past "criminal" behavior when I want to focus on CURRENTLY dangerous MENTALLY ILL people who haven't actually committed a crime yet but look like they're headed on that path?

Criminals need government intervention to be stopped,


(We all agree, right? Even the ideologues on here that claim that nobody should lose their rights without first getting due process, even though that's exactly what happens when somebody is arrested on one witnesses' statement and a police officer's belief in probable cause. Due process comes later.)

But I say dangerous people also need government intervention to be stopped.

And one form of that intervention should be disarming them, whether or not that is accompanied by hauling them off to the loony bin in a padded wagon wearing a straitjacket.


Like arresting a criminal, who may or may not be a dangerous person, the seizure and loss of liberty comes first, and the due process comes second. You can work it the same way for a crazy-dangerous person (who may or may not be a criminal).

 

[Lionheart]

Lionheart,

To the extent that your reply is just a personal attack on me and my character, see this borrowed image from another regular poster here.

View attachment 2243373

Now, as to the substance of your post, I'll ask you this what is your fascination with focusing on past "criminal" behavior when I want to focus on CURRENTLY dangerous MENTALLY ILL people who haven't actually committed a crime yet but look like they're headed on that path?

Criminals need government intervention to be stopped,


(We all agree, right? Even the ideologues on here that claim that nobody should lose the rates without first getting due process, even though that's exactly what happens when somebody is arrested on one witnesses' statement and a police officer's belief in probable cause. Due process comes later.)

But I say dangerous people also need government intervention to be stopped.

And one form of that intervention should be disarming them, whether or not that is accompanied by hauling them off to the loony bin in a padded wagon wearing a straitjacket.


Like arresting a criminal, who may or may not be a dangerous person, the seizure and loss of liberty comes first, and the due process comes second. You can work it the same way for a crazy-dangerous person (who may or may not be a criminal).

Your deranged behavior in this thread would be more amusing if it was not so dangerous to the liberty of innocent people.

But I did get a chuckle at your your hypocrisy in using the picture that offended you so greatly. Sorry but it just makes me laugh.

All I have said from the beginning was that if someone was proven to dangerous and mentally ill...they need to be in custody.
The RFL's are unconstitutional and besides that...just a really dumb idea. So many bad outcomes are possible.

In one case, an innocent person is subject to a no-knock home invasion putting his family and the LEO's life in danger...and it's all because someone misunderstand a comment made tongue-in-cheek or in jest. Or maybe just an accusation made by someone who is fearful of guns, period. Do you really think the American public can be trusted with the power to disarm by force anyone who makes them nervous?

In the second case, LEO's are being asked to disarm a dangerous, mentally ill person in the most dangerous scenario possible. Far better would be to detain them and get them help...when they are nowhere near a firearm. After they are determined by the courts to actually be a dangerous, mentally ill person...then you can take their guns.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Gets into the questions, what is mentally ill? Who gets to decide the criteria? I believe there are people in this country who shouldn’t be able to possess a firearm, but my criteria for that may be vastly different than others...

Ya know, the more I think about it, I agree with this. The "authorities" are generally anti-gun, anti-2A. They will more easily infringe on gun rights than any other kind of right or liberty. It's a very slippery slope.