-
Features
Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
This isn't the police responding to a false complaint, the police initiated this.
Haven't you noticed that our problem is with the process, not the basic idea? Doesn't that suggest we aren't being gun nuts, but rather objecting to specific problems?
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you. I googled his name, snd guess what- his guns were restored quickly. I cannot reproduce the link using my phone.
laughing dog
Contributor
No, because you are imagining problems.
DBT
Contributor
No, we are not. And not surprising, there isn't one set of red flag laws. They vary from state to state, some being more reasonable than others but many if not most still have the potential for misapplication and injustice.
''Indiana’s law allows police to seize firearms without first obtaining a judicial order. However, they must then submit a statement to a judge, who can overturn the officer’s decision and refuse to issue a preliminary order, according to Giffords. Similar to other states, that preliminary order requires a hearing on a final order be held within 14 days.''
''The "red flag" law allows police to temporarily confiscate firearms from people who are threatening to harm themselves or others. No warrant or judge's signature is necessary.''
More;
''Most red flag laws are vague on what constitutes a “significant danger,” which gives courts broad discretion to seize firearms, Parris said. And in some states, respondents are not guaranteed representation in court, since these are civil and not criminal matters.
Many defense lawyers say respondents fare much better with legal representation. Of Parris’ seven cases that have gone to a hearing, she has won five — which she said is a “vastly higher” success record than when someone represents themselves.
Due Process Concerns
Seventeen states and D.C. have laws on the books that allow law enforcement or family members to petition courts to remove weapons from people who may be dangerous and prevent them from buying other weapons for up to a year. In many of these states, bipartisan groups of lawmakers led the drive to pass the legislation.
States define “red flags” differently, but they largely follow the same process for taking away somebody’s guns.''
In many cases, the subject of a petition can’t present a defense until the final hearing. But that’s where the process gets legally dubious to some critics.
Dave Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, a Denver-based libertarian think tank, said states have taken the same approach President Donald Trump spoke in favor of in March 2018: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
When it comes to seizing guns through a temporary order, the standards that a judge uses should be high, Kopel said. Vermont, he believes, has a fair system, which requires “specific facts” that show “an imminent and extreme risk.”
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
I have a question.
How many people will be killed because of these red flag laws?
Now compare that to the number killed now.
How many people will be killed because of these red flag laws?
Now compare that to the number killed now.
DBT
Contributor
I'm not against red flag laws. I support red flag laws. I am merely expressing concerns about how they are defined and implemented. Some states appear to have a reasonable balance between public safety and the individual, others not. The concern is that innocent people may be punished because of malicious or frivolous claims, which a judge may approve on the basis of better safe than sorry. Meanwhile the victim of the malicious or frivolous claim faces court, paying lawyers, reputation questioned...which may be the very result a malicious claimant was looking to get.
In other words, the potential problems with red flag laws if they do not have sufficient safeguards in place. And as mentioned, these vary from state to state.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Somewhere near right about zero - or less.
Worldtraveler said:
I don't think pragmatism matters to a purist. All that matters is perfection. That people will die because guns were not perfectly confiscated is irrelevant. The constitution is holy and inviolate and finished. The constitution is not an ongoing human process, it is something like a god. We all need to be as perfect as the constitution. Hail the constitution!
I think police officers should have to obtain a writ before they can handcuff anyone, anywhere, anytime.
/snarky point making.
laughing dog
Contributor
DBT
Contributor
Potential issues are there. They have been described in relation to the red flag laws. Did you not read the articles provided?
LP's example is probably not the only mistake to have happened. A mistake is not as bad as wrongful or malicious accusation, perhaps a vindictive ex partner, which is not so easy to rectify.
DBT
Contributor
So, again, some of the issues being raised.
Pretty much what I have been saying:
Quote:
''In a 14-page analysis, the organization (the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island), last year took issue with “the breadth of this legislation, its impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals, not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”
Possible violation of due process is the primary concern of this paper, which likens this law to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.
The paper also argues that an ERPO “could be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others, and without any evidence that he or she ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
It also points out that a respondent is not automatically appointed counsel for a court hearing, and that ultimately the burden of regaining possession of confiscated guns is placed on the respondent.
The paper questions whether “overblown political rhetoric” on social media might constitute grounds for a judge to issue one these orders. Also, it expresses concern that police might someday use this law “as a shortcut to seize lawfully owned weapons” from suspected gang members, or “as a general search warrant that could conveniently allow police to ‘stumble across’ evidence of unrelated illegal activity.”
Finally, there’s the unintentional social damage that such an order might do to a respondent, since the law could allow police “to warn potentially hundreds of people that the individual might pose a significant danger to them.”
The national ACLU has taken a more ambiguous stance on red flag laws, saying only that these laws “must at a minimum have clear, nondiscriminatory criteria for defining persons as dangerous and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court,” but without going into further specifics.
Many of the concerns raised by the Rhode Island ACLU are shared by the Rutherford Institute, a legal defense nonprofit generally viewed as the ACLU’s conservative mirror-image. “The major due process concern with ERPOs is that they allow a person to be deprived of property (a gun) and liberty (their Second Amendment right) before they are granted an opportunity to be heard,” John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute...''
Pretty much what I have been saying:
Quote:
''In a 14-page analysis, the organization (the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island), last year took issue with “the breadth of this legislation, its impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals, not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”
Possible violation of due process is the primary concern of this paper, which likens this law to the science fiction scenario of The Minority Report, in which precognitive police try to stop crimes before they’re committed.
The paper also argues that an ERPO “could be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others, and without any evidence that he or she ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
It also points out that a respondent is not automatically appointed counsel for a court hearing, and that ultimately the burden of regaining possession of confiscated guns is placed on the respondent.
The paper questions whether “overblown political rhetoric” on social media might constitute grounds for a judge to issue one these orders. Also, it expresses concern that police might someday use this law “as a shortcut to seize lawfully owned weapons” from suspected gang members, or “as a general search warrant that could conveniently allow police to ‘stumble across’ evidence of unrelated illegal activity.”
Finally, there’s the unintentional social damage that such an order might do to a respondent, since the law could allow police “to warn potentially hundreds of people that the individual might pose a significant danger to them.”
The national ACLU has taken a more ambiguous stance on red flag laws, saying only that these laws “must at a minimum have clear, nondiscriminatory criteria for defining persons as dangerous and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court,” but without going into further specifics.
Many of the concerns raised by the Rhode Island ACLU are shared by the Rutherford Institute, a legal defense nonprofit generally viewed as the ACLU’s conservative mirror-image. “The major due process concern with ERPOs is that they allow a person to be deprived of property (a gun) and liberty (their Second Amendment right) before they are granted an opportunity to be heard,” John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute...''
laughing dog
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,240
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
why is it that the "WELL REGULATED" part is always ignored?
DBT
Contributor
That is a concern. I have said that I support red flag laws. The only issue being not to trample on civil rights and punish innocent gun owners.
There is always a trade off between liberties and rights and safety. Most people are prepared to take the risk of driving on the roads...where more people are probably killed or injured than by guns.
The concern is achieving a balance between civil rights and public safety. Total control or confiscation of all firearms is not going to happen, so a balance has to be found.
The problem here is people being punished for no good reason, perhaps a subjective assessment based on someones claim, a claim that may have malicious intent.
DBT
Contributor
The problems have been described in every article I provided.
Once again:
''The process of issuing a GVRO in most states starts with someone petitioning the court for it. States vary on who can bring these petitions. In some states, only direct family members and dating partners can petition the court for a GVRO. In others, though, this list is expanded to former dating partners, co‐workers, friends, et al.
The problem here is that the petition speeds through the court, often without giving the subject person actual notice or an opportunity to defend against the accusation. The bare minimum should be for a hearing ahead of the issuance of a GVRO, with the subject present.
This type of framework, while it may enable people close to a troubled person some opportunity to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation, sets up a system of perverse incentives. The term “red flag” is something of a misnomer, too, as the “suspicious” activity that can be the basis of a petition includes the simple act of buying a gun, or just being interested in weapons. This turns constitutionally protected First and Second Amendment activity into the basis of a seizure of property. Where the orders are granted with relaxed evidentiary burdens, and the petitions can be brought by an ex‐boyfriend or girlfriend, GVROs can become an instrument for malicious individuals to harass and endanger. This concern is far from baseless, as the forensic psychology journal “Behavioral Science & the Law” observed that about a third of GVROs were issued against innocent people.
When a confiscation order is issued “ex parte” (without the subject person present or even informed), due process is but one of many serious issues. Confrontations between police and unknowing individual’s subject to seizure can be tense interactions for both parties. This has already claimed at least one life, when officers shot a 61‐year‐old man to death last year while serving a confiscation order. In a country plagued with needless violence as a result of no‐knock raids and a heavily militarized police, the potential benefits of red flag laws pale in comparison to the certain damage they will bring to community relationships with police.
In addition to worsening police relationships and violating due process, GVROs, as they stand, disproportionately harm the poor. Imagine police officers arriving at your door to seize your car, because it had been independently determined, without any opportunity for you to plead your case, that you were no longer safe to drive. Your only recourse is now to hire an expensive lawyer to fight for the return of your property. That’s exactly what happens after a GVRO is issued.''
DBT
Contributor
The problem in a nutshell;
''Notably, judges may consider "any evidence," and respondents have no right to legal representation if they cannot afford it. Nor do they have a civil cause of action against petitioners who lie, a potentially significant problem in light of all the people who are allowed to file a petition. What is to stop an in-law, cousin, ex-spouse, ex-girlfriend, or former housemate with a grudge from abusing this process by seeking to take away someone's constitutional rights?
Theoretically, they could be prosecuted for lying, but that almost never happens. "The odds of criminal prosecut[ion] are low, even if an affidavit is sworn under
penalty of perjury," David Kopel, a gun policy expert at Denver's Independence Institute, noted in Senate testimony last March. "Perjury prosecutions are rare, and rarer still from civil cases….Without a strong civil remedy, there is little practical deterrent to malicious reports."
''Notably, judges may consider "any evidence," and respondents have no right to legal representation if they cannot afford it. Nor do they have a civil cause of action against petitioners who lie, a potentially significant problem in light of all the people who are allowed to file a petition. What is to stop an in-law, cousin, ex-spouse, ex-girlfriend, or former housemate with a grudge from abusing this process by seeking to take away someone's constitutional rights?
Theoretically, they could be prosecuted for lying, but that almost never happens. "The odds of criminal prosecut[ion] are low, even if an affidavit is sworn under
penalty of perjury," David Kopel, a gun policy expert at Denver's Independence Institute, noted in Senate testimony last March. "Perjury prosecutions are rare, and rarer still from civil cases….Without a strong civil remedy, there is little practical deterrent to malicious reports."