• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Red Flag Laws - Confiscation

Scoop

.30-06
Several states have passed "Red Flag Laws" that allow the issuance of an “extreme risk protective order” against unknowing gun owners. Confiscation follows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 06 November 2018
Link <--- Go to this link if you want to read the comments to the story.
Written by Bob Adelmann
Gary Willis, a resident of Ferndale, Maryland, was awakened Monday morning at 5:17 a.m. when two officers from Anne Arundel County knocked on his door. A law-abiding gun owner, Willis answered the door “with a gun in his hand,” according to a police department spokesman. They were there to serve him with an “extreme risk protective order” and remove his legally owned firearms.

According to the spokesman, Willis put his firearm down to read the ERPO but then, apparently recognizing that it wasn’t a legal search warrant issued by a judge in accordance with protections guaranteed to him by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but instead was issued by a local judge under Maryland’s newly minted “red flag” law, he retrieved his firearm.

The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

Gun grabbers are delighted with the new laws springing up around the country. Jonas Oransky, deputy director of Everytown for Gun Safety, calls the unconstitutional gun-confiscation laws a “new frontier” in his group’s attack on private ownership of firearms: “We think of this is a new frontier. We don’t have a perfect system in this country, and we can’t stop every act of gun violence. [But these “red flag” laws are] a way for states to take some care and be somewhat nimble when there is a dangerous case.”

The point of the Fourth Amendment (“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.”) is to protect private citizens such as Gary Willis from living in a police state where police can be “nimble” and arrive unannounced at 5:17 in the morning with a piece of paper that says they have the right to take his guns.

The point of the “red flag” laws, however, is to do an end run around that Fourth Amendment. As The New American noted back in March when “red flag” laws started popping up in a number of states in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida: “The ‘red flag’ provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”

ERPOs lower the standard in the Fourth Amendment — probable cause — to “reasonable cause.” They allow judges to act quickly (in Gary Willis’ case, overnight) before the victim gets wind of what’s coming and can secure legal counsel to defend himself or make other arrangements to protect himself and his property.

Willis isn’t the first citizen to be caught in the “red flag” web, just the first one to die as a result. In Seattle, an agency called the “Crisis Response Squad” has already pre-identified pre-criminals before they committed atrocities and seized their legally owned firearms. On March 1, one of those identified as a “precriminal” didn’t comply with the court order and made the headlines when police entered his residence and forced him to relinquish his weapons.

KOMONews.com covered the incident, informing its readers that the 31-year-old man hadn’t committed a crime but was guilty of “escalating behavior," whatever that means. Some workers at a local restaurant, according to KOMO News, said the defendant “harassed” them while he was carrying a holstered firearm (which is legal there).

KOMO News added that this man’s “precrimes” included a history of police seizing a shotgun from him “in a different incident.” After entering his residence with the so-called warrant (based not on “probable cause” but on the much lower standard of “reasonable cause”), the police not only retrieved a .25-caliber handgun but then entered the residence of one of the man’s family members, where they hoped to find some other firearms belonging to him.

A teenage girl from Pembroke Pines, Florida, was brought to police headquarters and subjected to more than two hours of questioning about her posts on social media. No attorney was present. None was needed. After all, the right to “lawyer up” isn’t allowed under the state's new law. Said Pembroke Pines Police Captain Al Xiques, his “police department will pursue those Risk Protection Orders in accordance with the new law when we determine that it is necessary in order to protect the public’s safety.”

The girl’s attorney is suing to have the new Florida law overturned.

And then there’s the case of Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s bailiff Franklin Joseph Pinter, age 60, who allegedly made some verbal threats toward other bailiffs and, again allegedly, was seen on the fifth floor of the county courthouse leaning over the railing and pretending to hold a long gun and shooting at people below.

This was all that the judge needed. On Friday, May 25, the sheriff’s office sought the ERPO, which the judge granted that same afternoon. No trial. No defense. No witnesses. No one representing Pinter. In fact, Pinter had no way of knowing about the court order to seize his 67 firearms until deputies showed up at his door.

Where will this end? Repeal isn’t likely, as states, encouraged happily by gun grabbers, are pushing for more “red flag” laws, not fewer. Instead, it will end when a court grows a backbone and declares them unconstitutional. Until then, every citizen legally possessing a firearm in “red flag” states is in danger of having a relative, an acquaintance with whom he has had a disagreement, a disaffected or offended neighbor or co-worker, a mental health “professional,” or as is sometimes the case, the police themselves, petition a judge and obtain an ERPO that enables local police to remove the offending weapons from his possession, by force if necessary.

Resistance, as Gary Willis found out, is not only futile, but fatal.

Family members told Capital Gazette reporters that a distant relative had requested the ERPO the day before, due to an “incident” that occurred at his residence. The details of the “incident” remain unclear at this writing, but the backpedaling by the police chief began almost immediately.

Said Anne Arundel County police chief Timothy Altomare:

If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say, “Well, what did we prevent?” Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented.

What would have happened if we didn’t go there at 5 am?

Probably nothing. Because during his many years as a resident at his home in Ferndale nothing untoward happened. His niece, Michele Willis, said “I’m just dumfounded right now. My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody.”
 

Scoop

.30-06
FL - Red Flag

New Florida Gun-control Bill Contains "Red Flag" Provision

Thursday, 08 March 2018
Written by Bob Adelmann

In their haste to “do something … anything” in response to the Parkland, Florida, high-school shooting, Florida Republicans gave up any pretense of supporting the Bill of Rights. They passed on to Governor Rick Scott’s desk a bill that violates the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and common sense. In a word, it’s the “complete package.”

Here’s how one Republican, Senate President Joe Negron, explained how he justified his support for it:

We can never replace the 17 lives that were lost at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and we can never erase the traumatic experience that lives on in the memories of those who survived this horrific attack. However, we will do everything we can to address the failure of government to effectively address the numerous warning signs that should have identified the perpetrator as a danger to others. We can and we will increase the resources available to identify and treat those suffering from mental illness, improve the safety and security of our schools, and ensure those suffering from mental illness do not have access to firearms.

The bill bans bump stocks (not used in the Parkland attack), raises the age to buy rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21 (as if that would have deterred the Parkland shooter), mandates a three-day wait on most gun transfers (the shooter would likely have waited for the three-day wait to expire), spends $400 million of Floridians’ monies to increase school security, establishes a commission (of course) to investigate the shooting, and creates a $67 million “guardian” program to pay for law-enforcement-trained armed volunteers to secure those schools (teachers and administrators would still be prohibited from carrying firearms on campus to protect themselves and their students).

Most insidious and dangerous of all, however, is the bill’s “red flag” provision that would also violate Floridians’ Fourth Amendment rights that protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Simply put, someone who thinks someone else might be a danger to himself or others can present his arguments to a judge who then, based upon those arguments, is free to decide whether the state (police armed with guns and badges) can forcibly remove privately and legally owned firearms from that person’s possession. The “red flag” provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”

All in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “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.”

These so-called laws are also referred to as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) and permit a family member or a law-enforcement officer to ask a judge to issue the order. The victim doesn’t have to have been charged with a crime and isn’t allowed to challenge his accuser in a court of law.

Arguments from those supporting both the Second and Fourth Amendments fell on deaf ears. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has long held that ERPOs “strip the accused of their Second Amendment rights [and] would be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner.”

Oregon is one of five states with red-flag laws already on the books. During arguments before the Oregon legislature passed its ERPO, the NRA described their danger to liberty: “[A red flag law] would allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent [the victim], to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s [the victim’s] state of mind.”

Not unexpectedly, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety supports ERPOs. Everytown’s deputy “legal director,” William Rosen, told ABC News that “Mass shooters often display warning signs before they carry out their attacks, and [an] ERPO provides an opportunity for family members or law enforcement to intervene before a tragedy occurs.”

The opportunity for abuse is evident which is why the Founders put the Fourth Amendment in place in addition to the Second. But Florida lawmakers were in no mood for such constitutional niceties. Said Republican George Moraitis on the House floor before Wednesday’s vote‚ “We’re voting for school safety. We’re voting to protect children.” Even if he has to violate every Floridian’s precious rights in the process.

The bill now sits on Florida Governor Rick Scott’s desk. Governor Scott said that before he signs the noxious and dangerous bill into law, “I’m going to review [it] line by line.”
---------------------------------------------------
Note: Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law after this article was written. Scoop
 

Scoop

.30-06
FL - Red Flag

Wednesday, 06 June 2018
Written by Bob Adelmann

After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, it didn’t take long for Florida’s “red-flag” law to be implemented. The Florida legislature enacted the law on March 9, apparently deciding that the ends justified the means, i.e., that judicial processes in place since the founding of the Republic were just too cumbersome and took too long. So they did an end run around the Fourth Amendment, and the law now allows a family member or a member of law enforcement to ask a judge to issue a warrant to seize an owner’s firearms, lowering the constitutional bar from “probable cause” to “reasonable cause.” The new law also prevents the intended victim from knowing his accusers, or from confronting them in a court of law. If he is later deemed innocent, he must petition the court to regain possession of his confiscated firearms.

In simple terms, under Florida’s “red flag” law — presently in place or being considered in more than two dozen other states — a person is guilty until proven innocent, and he must bear the costs of proving his innocence.

Consider, for example, the case of Broward County Sheriff’s bailiff Franklin Joseph Pinter, age 60, who allegedly made some verbal threats toward other bailiffs and, again allegedly, was seen on the fifth floor of the county courthouse leaning over the railing and pretending to hold a long gun and shooting at people below.

This was all that the judge needed. On Friday, May 25, the sheriff’s office sought the RPO — risk-protection order — which the judge granted that same afternoon. No trial. No defense. No witnesses. No one representing Pinter. In fact, Pinter had no way of knowing about the court order and the warrant to seize his 67 firearms until deputies showed up at his door.

Broward County is the most aggressive of any Florida county in its use of its new freedom to violate its citizens’ rights and protections granted under the Fourth Amendment. Within six weeks of passage of the law, Broward County had successfully obtained 34 such RPOs.

According to Florida’s Sun-Sentinel, half of those court orders were related to bad behavior on social media. One example will suffice: A Pembroke Pines teenage girl was brought into police headquarters and subjected to more than two hours of questioning about her posts on social media. No attorney was present. None was needed. After all, the right to “lawyer up” isn’t part of the new law. Said Pembroke Pines Police Captain Al Xiques, the “police department will pursue those Risk Protection Orders in accordance with the new law when we determine that it is necessary in order to protect the public’s safety.”

Which is exactly why the new “red-flag” laws are so dangerous to personal liberty. What restraint is placed on Xiques in his quest “to protect the public’s safety”? Does a crime have to be committed, or planned and plotted? Has he proof of a conspiracy to commit an offense? By what standards does he prosecute the innocent in order to protect the innocent?

Kendra Parris, an Orlando attorney who represents the teenage girl in question, is filing suit to demand that the case against her be dismissed and that Florida’s red-flag laws be declared unconstitutional. “This constitutes state action against protected speech — online in public forums.… the legislature needs to … respect individual’s due process rights,” Parris said.

Although red-flag laws vary from state to state, in general they allow law enforcement or a family member to petition a judge for a “gun-violence restraining order” or “extreme risk-protection order” (ERPO) that prohibits the freshly minted victim from possessing firearms. The judge issues an emergency order, without the victim being present or even knowing such a petition is being made, to “prevent immediate danger.” The law often requires a hearing later, where the victim is advised of the rights that were just forfeited and is given a chance to defend him or herself.

Funny thing: The slight difference between “reasonable cause” and “probable cause” is just enough to emasculate the Fourth Amendment. It lowers the bar enough, and removes enough other protections, that every citizen who expresses a view or behavior not in keeping with the standards set by police officials such as Xiques could eventually find law enforcement at his or her door with orders to remove their firearms and related items from their possession, by force if necessary.
 

Scoop

.30-06
Monday, 12 March 2018
Red Flag Warning: States Confiscating Guns by Ignoring Fourth Amendment
Written by Bob Adelmann

An assortment of new restrictions on the Second Amendment in Florida also launched an attack on the Fourth Amendment, as well. As The New Americannoted last week, Florida’s new “red flag” law abrogates the Fourth Amendment on the way to violating the Second Amendment:

Simply put, someone who thinks someone else might be a danger to himself or others can present his arguments to a judge who then, based upon those arguments, is free to decide whether the state (police armed with guns and badges) can forcibly remove privately and legally owned firearms from that person’s possession. The “red flag” provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”

All in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “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.”

Jonas Oransky, deputy director of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, was delighted, calling the adoption of such laws a “new frontier” in the long war against private gun ownership in America:

We think of this as a new frontier. We don’t have a perfect system in this country, and we can’t stop every act of gun violence. This is a way for states to take some care and be somewhat nimble when there is a dangerous case.

Keeping governments from being “somewhat nimble” was the primary reason the Founders added the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, without the Bill of Rights that contains it, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The reason why was perfectly described by Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no man be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

But, goes the argument, there was a chance, perhaps even a good chance, that had local police had such power, they might have been able to head off Nikolas Cruz before he unleashed his attack in Parkland, Florida on February 14. After all, Cruz killed squirrels with a pellet gun, trained his dogs to attack a neighbor’s piglets, posted on Instagram about guns and killing animals, and eventually threatened a local teenager. In addition, he showed signs of depression and had been treated at a mental health clinic.

Joshua Horwitz, executive director of another rabidly anti-gun group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said, “This morning [four days after the massacre] I heard the sheriff [in Parkland] lament the fact that he did not have the tools to remove the firearms from the shooter. Had he [the shooter] lived in one of those states where this law is in place, he [the sheriff] would have had the tools, and this shooting might have been averted.”

Momentum currently favors adoption of such “red flag” laws as pressure from those wanting to confiscate firearms builds on legislators who are increasingly being urged to do something — anything — to curb such violence. Florida is the seventh state to adopt such laws, along with California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon, Washington, and Rhode Island. At least 24 other states are considering such legislation including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

The law in Indiana doesn’t even require a judge. Law-enforcement officers can decide on their own to confiscate weapons from someone guilty only of a “precrime.”

That term is familiar to viewers of the 2002 film Minority Report. Set in Washington, D.C. in 2054, PreCrime, a specialized police department, apprehends potential criminals before they have committed a crime based on “foreknowledge” provided by three psychics called “precogs.” In Seattle, Washington, the group is called the “Crisis Response Squad” — a division of the Seattle Police Department — and has already pre-identified pre-criminals before they committed atrocities and seized their legally owned firearms. On March 1, one of those identified as a “precriminal” didn’t comply with the court order and made the headlines when police entered his residence and forced him to relinquish his weapons. KOMONews.com covered the incident, informing its readers that the 31-year-old man hadn’t committed a crime but was guilty of “escalating behavior," whatever that means. Some workers at a local restaurant, according to KOMO News, said the defendant “harassed” them while he was carrying a holstered firearm (which is legal there). KOMO News added that this man’s “precrimes” included a history of police seizing a shotgun from him “in a different incident.” After entering his residence with the so-called warrant (based not on “probable cause” but on the much lower standard of “reasonable cause”), the police not only retrieved a .25 caliber handgun but then entered the residence of one of the man’s family, where they hoped to find some other firearms belonging to him.

KATU.com in Seattle covered the same incident, shedding additional light on the man’s “precrimes”: "Neighbors said he had been intimidating people for the past year — even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side…. Mental illness is suspected."

KATU unearthed even more incriminating evidence that the man was about to commit a crime. A man living in the suspect’s apartment complex stated, “He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic. And it created a lot of fear [in me] obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up.” When he learned that the police were able to seize the man’s firearms without a “probable cause” warrant, as required under the Fourth Amendment, but instead use an ERPO (Extreme Risk Protection Order) or GVRO (Gun Violence Restraining Order) warrant, he was able to breathe more easily. The precriminal had been deprived of his firearms. Said the neighbor: ”I’m very supportive of this law. This is a perfect case in point where it’s had some efficacy. It was an immediate crisis and law enforcement was able to remove his firearms, so it very well could have save lives.”

It’s “a perfect case in point” that illustrates why there’s a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: to keep police from willy-nilly entering anyone’s dwelling on the thinnest of excuses and confiscating his firearms.

Here’s a summary of ERPO law from Washington State: It may be filed against any “person who poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having firearms.” The petition can be filed “by a law enforcement agency, a law enforcement officer, or a person who is a family or household member of the respondent [the precriminal].” Family members include “dating partners,” “persons who reside or have resided with the respondent within the last year,” and “stepparents or stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.” No crime has been committed. Just suspicion by these honorable folks that said “respondent” might commit one in the future.

The judge makes his ruling without the “respondent” being present, although he will be invited into the judge’s courtroom after the warrant has been issued. At that time the “respondent [will] immediately surrender all firearms and concealed carry license to the [police] officer.” If he resists, he has 48 hours to comply. Otherwise said “officer” will make a visit to the “respondent’s” residence to confiscate them, by force if necessary.

Freedom lovers have been put on notice. These “red flags” are flying all over the country, threatening Second Amendment rights through the deliberate abrogation by states of precious Fourth Amendment rights. For readers who live in one of those 24 states where such bills are pending, it’s past time to let legislators know of your strong opposition to them. Do it now, before an ERPO is issued in your case for being mentally deficient for not knowing in advance what’s good for you.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
There was a guy who was killed when police came to his home to do just this recently. I'll try to find the article.

The short of it is, the guy had a gun when he answered the door, and a scuffle ensued and the gun went off during it because I assume the guy was resisting.

The officers ended up killing him to protect him from his self.

I personally do not condone these types of constitutional over-reach.

If the person is mentally unstable, have a way to evaluate them.

You can't just come to the house and start confiscating stuff.
 

Scoop

.30-06
There was a guy who was killed when police came to his home to do just this recently. I'll try to find the article.

The short of it is, the guy had a gun when he answered the door, and a scuffle ensued and the gun went off during it because I assume the guy was resisting.

The officers ended up killing him to protect him from his self. ...

That sounds very much like the 3rd graph of the OP.
The spokesman said that Willis “became irate.” In the melee that followed, one of the firearms carried either by one of the officers or by Willis went off. One of the officers then pulled his own sidearm and shot Willis dead.
Is there another case like that, John?
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I'm not sure scoop. I haven't been able to find the article again. I was under the impression in the one that I read that multiple officers were involved in the shooting, so I can't say for sure. I'll look more for the article a little later this evening. I think I may can find it again. It may be the same one, I just can't say for sure.

Regardless, just that it has happened once was one time too many in my opinion.

There was a case in KY recently where a woman in NJ had reported the guy to the police/fbi for hate speech and they said he was on his way to shoot up multiple schools here and the police stopped him as he was pulling out of his driveway.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-jersey-mom-helps-thwart-school-shooting-plot-in-kentucky/
 

Tom396

.30-06
This whole "red flag" deal has me on edge. Maybe the vast majority of those who have been targeted for firearm removal have been legitimate. I honestly don't know. However, as with most new laws that restrict rights, the potential for abuse is just too high. And I'm sure as time passes, we are going to see a lot of these abuses. Take care. Tom Worthington
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
Yeah, my ex daughter in law had a protection order against my son at the request of her wormy lawyer when they had first seperated, and then she violated it her self when she made contact with him at the doctors office. Followed him into the building even trying to fuss and fight with him.

My son asked the receptionist to call the police, and the protection order was magically dropped 3 days later.

He was never a threat to her, yet, that's a part of the system that is being royally abused. And that is the main reason why I don't like "pre-emptive" laws.

Hell hath no fury like the scorn of a woman.
 

nitesite

Average Guy
Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Here in my home state any person under a valid protection order must surrender their firearms or keep them somewhere other than their residence.

13A-11-72

(a) No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, violent offense as listed in Section 12-25-32(15) , anyone who is subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse, or anyone of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

I know.
 

Tom396

.30-06
Here in my home state any person under a valid protection order must surrender their firearms or keep them somewhere other than their residence.

13A-11-72

(a) No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, violent offense as listed in Section 12-25-32(15) , anyone who is subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse, or anyone of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

I know.

Well that's not ambiguous at all. :sarcasm: Who gets to make that determination? Take care. Tom Worthington
 

nitesite

Average Guy
Moderator
"Philanthropist"
In order to get a PFA (Protection From Abuse) Order, a complainant must have a credible enough account to get a police report written. Then, armed with that report (and oftentimes there needs to be a second separate one) the accuser can petition the Circuit Judge to issue a TEMPORARY PFA good for 72 hours. Following that 72 hours then the accuser and the accused must appear before the Circuit Judge and state their claim/defense and provide some kind of proof. If the judge rules in favor of the accuser then the PFA is considered VALID and the gun possession kicks in. Once the PFA is lifted the guns can be back in the defendants hands.

Honestly, I RARELY see this clause exercised. But it is on the books.
 

nitesite

Average Guy
Moderator
"Philanthropist"
Well that's not ambiguous at all. :sarcasm: Who gets to make that determination? Take care. Tom Worthington

Normally a Psychiatrist or Mental Health Professional at a hospital. Deputies armed with a Probate Court Order pick up and deliver persons credibly accused of Alzheimers or serious mental illness like psychosis, and the Doctor calls the judge after lengthly examination and advises the judge on the diagnosis. If Doc says they are sufficiently healthy the deputy drives them home. If Doc recommends further evaluation the deputy drives the patient to a mental health hospital for 72-hrs up to one week.

And no one else can just claim a mental defect on another individual unless it is in extreme circumstances so the chance of a vindictive person "claiming" a person is unsound doesn't occur.

I think these "Red Flag" laws are going to require a similar level of protection for the owner of a firearm. Much scrutiny will be performed and not a wayward comment taken as truth.
 
Last edited:

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
In my state, for an emergency protective order (EPO), you just have to notify the court that you are in fear.

Doesn't have to have a credible threat, simply say you're in fear the person may try to harm you.

That's it.

The judge will authorize the EPO and within about 2 weeks, they schedule a court date for all parties to be heard.

It's still a bunch of bunk most of the time.

Men and women both where I live knows that most epo's are often bogus charges. It's that rampantly abused.

https://courts.ky.gov/resources/publicationsresources/Publications/P123ProtectiveOrderBooklet.pdf
 

meanstreak

.30-06
"Philanthropist"
More government overreach. Now they are not only trying to control speech, but also determine what someone else thinks someone else is thinking of doing. Speculative at the least and confusing at the best. I have the utmost respect for most law enforcement officers. But, there are cases, Parkland being the most glaring example, where the shooting could have been prevented, but due to multiple errors and omissions the perpetrator was not stopped. Then you get a sheriff, police chief, or commissioner in front of cameras covering his ass and saying if we only had more laws.

The NRA needs to start using some of the money they take in to file lawsuits against these unconstitutional laws as soon as they are passed, and get injunctions to hold the laws up while the courts take the cases.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I know this is totally off the subject but it was something I was thinking about recently. And probably not real feasible to do, but instead of the NRA or GOA or whoever suing about a law, that's a single lawsuit.

if all the members of the nra or the goa were to sue about a single law individually, that's millions of lawsuits against it.

That's how I think a lot of our rights and stuff has eroded. Death by a thousand cuts. It's time that gun owners and other patriots start giving them a dose of their own medicine.

That's my humble opinion about it. I think it's high time we stop relying on gun right organizations to sue on our behalf. It's time we all start doing it our selves. it's the only way to be sure is to nuke 'em from orbit. Bog it down so bad that there would be no way for them to move under the weight of the lawsuits.

I have decided that if they ban any particular kind of gun either on the state or federal level, that I intend to do just that. No, I am not kidding, yes I am 100% serious.

Could you imagine their reaction to having to respond and reply to a million lawsuits? It would crash their system, guaranteed.

People say that you cant' fight the government? Well, it should be the other way around. Even the gov't that can print its' own money can't fight off a million lawsuits about the same thing. It would grind it all to a halt.
 

meanstreak

.30-06
"Philanthropist"
John, I think that is a much better solution that what I proposed. Turn the tables on the Dems and tie them up in court. Every time they try to pass a new gun law jump on it immediately.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
Understand that I'm not trying to justify the actions of the Parkland shooter here but . . . This kind of stuff is just totally unreasonable:

“This morning [four days after the massacre] I heard the sheriff [in Parkland] lament the fact that he did not have the tools to remove the firearms from the shooter. Had he [the shooter] lived in one of those states where this law is in place, he [the sheriff] would have had the tools, and this shooting might have been averted.”

They totally ignore the fact that they still could have done many things to avert the shooting, and to fix this crazy guy's life; but they will ignore that fact because they want a cheap easy quick solution.

Pass another law and that will fix everything! :brick:

It was obvious that this kid needed some kind of real social help. He probably just needed a real friend and he didn't have one. I don't believe that people are seriously evil, but I do believe they are easily misled. They need to be led back on course by someone who cares about them.

We have this law in California by the way. I expect Gavin Newsom to start stealing guns right away, as soon as they swear him in as governor.

Stealing guns is a really bad start to fixing problems of social anxiety and despair. Once you steal their guns, they will never trust anything you say, and all you will do is Harden their hearts to do any crazy thing that will ease their emotions.

They will go get a knife or build a bomb or rent a truck or steal a plane or do something even crazier than you might earlier have imagined.

Stealing The Guns of a crazy person simply escalates the war between him and Society. All you've done is lit the fuse of an even bigger problem in the future.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
The laws on the books are mostly knee-jerk emotional laws, which do nothing but harass legal gun owners. They have stopped basically no murders. And even if guns were outlawed, and suddenly did actually vanish, people would still find another way to kill people.

If the majority of anti-gunners were to sincerely educate themselves on what is legal and what is not (and also realize what they've been lied to about for years--ie. gun show and internet loophole to name just a few) they'd be surprised.

There are more laws against guns than there are immigration laws. FDA reg's don't even have as many laws and regulations on stuff. It's ludicrous.
 

Bobster

.30-06
After Parkland, that cunt Rick Scott signed that POS bill that was a definite knee jerk and ultimately removed many rights of gunowners here in FL, some of which are noted above. His NRA rating fell to a "C-" I believe. I voted for him for US Senate holding my nose with the taste of bile in my mouth...

With a daughter going off to college next year, I envisioned her having an AR of which she built herself to keep herself safe from assault. But that will be "illegal" now. I wrote Scott and told him he would be personally responsible if anything EVER happened to her because she was unable to skillfully defend herself with a rifle. Gods forbid that it ever happens but if so, I WILL reach out and "touch" him... Handguns were and remain 21yo for ownership.

The bump-stock ban didn't bother me too much. The kids and I got our "yayas out" at the range with the one I had and burned up a bunch of ammo but I concluded it was more of a novelty and ammo waster than anything. It got sold on GB soon after the bill passed and we had "played" with it.

While the school "guardian"/resource officer is a semi-good idea, the money could be much better spent improving many other aspects of our schools, particularly teacher salaries. And there was not one mention of the FREE NRA School Shield program LINK developed after Sandy Hook.

Hopefully our new Governor Ron DeSantis (A rated) will find a way to reverse many of the onerous provisions of the law. The one unknown is the Commissioner of Agriculture, an elected cabinet position, currently a toss-up between an anti-gun Dumpocrap "pretty girl" lawyer and Republican A-rated patriot. As you may have heard, votes are still being counted... :( CoAg office distributes concealed carry permits, among many other natural resource type things.

PS: FL still has the "Baker Act" that can allow a person to be detained in order to "protect themselves or others they may harm". And there is also the "domestic protection" type laws that allow a spouse/significant other to have firearms removed from a home.
 
Last edited:
Top