Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red flag laws

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Procedurally not much.

    These are the property equivalent to the emergency orders issued during a DV. The chief difference is there isn’t always (it’s really unknown) a fresh crime like DV where a cop can immediately see a violation.

    So, the basic scenarios posted about an upset neighbor with a political agenda committing perjury in order to get his gun owning neighbor disarmed still stands out as a concern.

    There are also ex parts issues, as stated above that really create a new area of the law. The issue is absent a clear psychiatric concern or a criminal threat, that these can be issued “just because.”

    That has not been my experience. One would think that the NRA or GOA or FPC would have immediately filed an injunction to block the implementation of these laws, but that does not appear to be the case.
    semper destravit

    Comment


    • #17
      I don’t see how the angry neighbor/ex-wife argument is any different than an OP though. I can go to family court, have an ex parte hearing and get OP issued. Then my spouse gets booted out of their home and have their guns taken. They won’t see a judge for a few weeks as a result of that. Anyone can commit perjury or file a false report now if they so choose, and have someone arrested and an OP issued. Yet their isn’t much outcry and everyone seems ok with that system. I don’t see the red flag as being much different.

      Is it perfect? No. Does it fit every situation? No. Do they work? Sometimes.

      I’m a gun owner. I’m pro 2A. But the notion that just because everyone has the right to own a gun, they should, simply isn’t the case.
      I make my living on Irish welfare.

      Comment


      • #18
        I served so many protection orders I lost count. These orders are similar to the proposed red flag laws in this way. The other half of a relationship gets a judge to issue a protection order claiming they were battered or abused. I had to go serve the other party, give him (usually a female filing against a male) a few minutes to grab some clothes, and other necessities and leave the premises until they go to court on the matter. I vividly recall one case of a younger woman trying to get an older man's property. The procedure started with me serving a protection order. These orders do serve a good purpose if the party filing for it was actually abused. As for red flag laws, I am completely against them. I am pro second amendment, and would most likely retire early rather than take a person's gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Red flag laws are fine so long as we have laws passed that coincide with the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately with the loss of the American Lawman, through the Ferguson Effect and retirement, we're losing that flavor. Ask Tanksoldier what that means.
          trust your dog

          Comment


          • Levithane
            Levithane commented
            Editing a comment
            Isn't there also a lot less people applying? In the 2 FED orientations I went to this year, neither was filled to capacity. One had a max capacity of 50 (wasn't filled up entirely), the other there were maybe 12 to 15 of us. Granted I understand what I posted is anecdotal.

        • #20
          Red Flag laws are being used by liberal politicians to attack the rights of citizens without due process. They are using active shooter events to justify an unconstitutional concept. It's just an excuse for gun confiscation. My precinct has initiated 16 ERPO's. None of which really have anything to do with the intent of the law which is to prevent mass shootings.
          Last edited by Punisher1336; 10-08-2019, 11:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #21
            Originally posted by reils49 View Post
            Let me ask a question: How are red flag laws any different than an order of protection/restraining order?
            In Colorado a temporary restraining order requires that the judge find probable cause AND find that no lesser means are sufficient.

            The red flag law recently passed in CO does not require that probable cause be found and does not require that the judge consider lesser means.
            "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

            "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

            Comment


            • #22
              Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

              In Colorado a temporary restraining order requires that the judge find probable cause AND find that no lesser means are sufficient.

              The red flag law recently passed in CO does not require that probable cause be found and does not require that the judge consider lesser means.
              I’m not an expert in the law, but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in “probable cause” and a “preponderance of evidence”, other than one is used in criminal cases and the other is used in civil cases.

              Obviously this is a hot topic, but having gone through it recently in my own state, which is as anti-gun as they get, I was pleasantly surprised at how rigorous the process was.



              I make my living on Irish welfare.

              Comment


              • #23
                Originally posted by reils49 View Post
                I’m not an expert in the law, but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in “probable cause” and a “preponderance of evidence”, other than one is used in criminal cases and the other is used in civil cases.
                There's an enormous difference... the biggest one being "probable cause" is REQUIRED by the Constitution for any warrant to issue.

                If the law doesn't have a probable cause standard, and Colorado's doesn't, it is unconstitutional on it's face.

                ...and the question to ask yourself is: WHY didn't they use it? Why not use that if it's the same and avoid any challenges on that front?

                Liberals are evil but not stupid, absent puppets like AOC and Hussein Obama. There's a REASON it's not there... and it's because "preponderance of the evidence" is an easy standard to meet when only one side is presenting evidence... If I'm the only one in court, the preponderance will be on my side. There IS no other evidence.

                This isn't a civil issue... the court is issuing a warrant ordering me to go kick in a door, search for something and take it. They are suspending a right, as important as the right to vote or speak or worship or assemble or anything else... and ENUMERATED RIGHT... on the say-so of one party, without any response even being possible from the other.

                A protection order is a civil matter and MAY require the subject to surrender his firearms... but does not order police to kick in doors and search. The level of danger to the public and to officers, and the level of intrusion upon enumerated rights, is MUCH higher under red flag laws as currently written.

                People have died over this... and in Colorado people will die on both sides when this starts.

                Obviously this is a hot topic, but having gone through it recently in my own state, which is as anti-gun as they get, I was pleasantly surprised at how rigorous the process was.
                Rigor is irrelevant. Constitutionality is the only standard that matters.
                Last edited by tanksoldier; 10-13-2019, 04:27 PM.
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • #24
                  California’s does not allow for searching. So there is no kicking in doors here. You can knock and talk, or if already at the scene of something... also, you have to a significant pre-existing relationship. Even simple neighbor disagreements are not enough.
                  semper destravit

                  Comment


                  • reils49
                    reils49 commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Same in NY. No doors getting kicked in.

                • #25
                  CA now allows a Judge to ok a SW at the same time, no PC needed apparently...just hearsay.
                  Now go home and get your shine box!

                  Comment


                  • RGDS
                    RGDS commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Can you post a link?

                MR300x250 Tablet

                Collapse

                What's Going On

                Collapse

                There are currently 9388 users online. 438 members and 8950 guests.

                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                Welcome Ad

                Collapse
                Working...
                X