Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

[Jarhyn]

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."

So campaign for a strong civil remedy, rather than against the red flag law.

 

[Elixir]

So how exactly do you balance "not having a gun" with "not being killed by someone with a gun".

Scientifically, obviously.

It seems obvious to me where the preponderance of the balance of caution should be. But it seems that you and many others think guns are more important than actual lives.

First you need around 200,000 people who are "red flagged" by the system. Take the guns away from 100,000 of them. Wait 10 years and see how many people the other 100,000 kill, how many guns you've confiscated, and extrapolate those numbers to the entire population. Now you know how many guns a life is worth (or vice versa) so the people's loyal representatives can make informed decisions about "sensible gun laws".

 

[DBT]

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."

So campaign for a strong civil remedy, rather than against the red flag law.

At no point was I campaigning against red flag laws. I stated several times that I support red flag laws.

I stated that my concern was not with the principle of red flag laws, only an aspect of the laws....an aspect which I described and gave quotes and links to articles, including one civil liberties study.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a question.

How many people will be killed because of these red flag laws?

Somewhere near right about zero - or less.

Think of people who kill their ex and then themselves.

Report that the ex threatened you, get their guns taken and now it's much easier for you to carry out your plans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have a link to substantiate your rendition of events?

Here's most of it: https://www.alloutdoor.com/2019/08/20/florida-man-loses-cc-license-guns-mistaken-identity/

Thank you. I googled his name, snd guess what- his guns were restored quickly. I cannot reproduce the link using my phone.

Ok, I was looking at the original reports.

Note, however, that this is not evidence the system works--he didn't get his guns back from the court hearing, but from the sheriff not liking the bad optics.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you. I googled his name, snd guess what- his guns were restored quickly. I cannot reproduce the link using my phone.

Ok, I was looking at the original reports.

Note, however, that this is not evidence the system works--he didn't get his guns back from the court hearing, but from the sheriff not liking the bad optics.

The man got his guns back quickly because someone in the justice system worked to get it right - the man did not need a hearing. Seems to me the system worked just fine.

 

[laughing dog]

So, again, some of the issues being raised..,,

More “some people are saying” about potential issues does not rebut my point that you have no evidence of actual problems.

The problems have been described in every article I provided.

No, those are potential problems. There is no evidence of anyone actually being treated unjustly. Moreover, the idea that if some legal process may not cause someone an injustice, then all legal processes must be eliminated.

The idea is to come up with a process that maximizes the net benefits (benefits - costs). Focusing on theoretical problems while ignoring the benefits of red flag laws and the actual costs plays right into the NRA's hands.

 

[DBT]

No, those are potential problems.

Still early days. There have been a few deaths associated with gun seizures (likely justified) already, but these were preventable had the police went about it better

There is no evidence of anyone actually being treated unjustly.

Depends on how you define unjust. Some have complained about police turning up on their doorstep without good reason, attending a rally, etc.

Moreover, the idea that if some legal process may not cause someone an injustice, then all legal processes must be eliminated.

Crock,you are being overly dramatic. laws can be amended, modified, clauses added, etc. It happens quite regularly. And that's all it would take with red flag laws....make amendments that eliminate potential problems before they begin to accumulate a lot of actual problems.

 

[ZiprHead]

Depends on how you define unjust. Some have complained about police turning up on their doorstep without good reason, attending a rally, etc.

I highly suspect there was a lot more going on with this guy than just attending a rally. No one else who attended the rally reported they were visited. There was something else that brought this guy to the attention of the LEOs. He is not being honest.

 

[laughing dog]

Still early days. There have been a few deaths associated with gun seizures (likely justified) already, but these were preventable had the police went about it better.

Gun seizures from red flag laws? Got any cites?

Depends on how you define unjust. Some have complained about police turning up on their doorstep without good reason, attending a rally, etc.

Police turning up on your doorstep based on a complaint or a suspicion is not unjust under any mature and rational viewpoint.

Moreover, the idea that if some legal process may not cause someone an injustice, then all legal processes must be eliminated.

Crock,you are being overly dramatic.

Coning from someone basing a position on imagined possible outcomes that is ironic. Coming from someone uses inappropriate examples to justify imagined fears, that is incredibly hilarious. Finally, coming from someone who posits that is possibly unjust for the police to come to one's doorstep based on a complaint and then go away, that is just plain stupid.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Depends on how you define unjust. Some have complained about police turning up on their doorstep without good reason, attending a rally, etc.

I highly suspect there was a lot more going on with this guy than just attending a rally. No one else who attended the rally reported they were visited. There was something else that brought this guy to the attention of the LEOs. He is not being honest.

He is a gun owner. He is, therefore by definition a Good Guy (TM) and can do no wrong. Until, of course, he isn't. Then all the hand wringers will once again claim to support reasonable legislation while blocking any effort with a lot of JAQing off, pearl clutching, and hand wringing.

Meanwhile, thoughts and prayers for the dead people's families.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Depends on how you define unjust. Some have complained about police turning up on their doorstep without good reason, attending a rally, etc.

I highly suspect there was a lot more going on with this guy than just attending a rally. No one else who attended the rally reported they were visited. There was something else that brought this guy to the attention of the LEOs. He is not being honest.

Obviously.

 

[DBT]

Gun seizures from red flag laws? Got any cites?

Sure, there have been a few.

Here's one;


''FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) — A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning.

Anne Arundel County Police confirmed the police-involved shooting happened in the 100 block of Linwood Avenue around 5:17 a.m.''

You can argue that it was justified. Perhaps it wouldn't have happened had it been handled better...but it did.

Police turning up on your doorstep based on a complaint or a suspicion is not unjust under any mature and rational viewpoint.

Not if they turn up on your doorstep to confiscate property because someone has a grudge and put in a complaint.....which is the point of the concerns being raised by some, a flaw or weakness in the law. Which I'm sure most people support in principle. Just a matter of amendment.

Moreover, the idea that if some legal process may not cause someone an injustice, then all legal processes must be eliminated.

That is not what I said. I was pointing to a flaw in the red flag law. I have stated that numerous times. I think that any reaonable person would support them in principle.

Once again, the problem is not with the principle of red flag laws, but some of the details. And, perhaps, in some cases how they are carried out.

Coning from someone basing a position on imagined possible outcomes that is ironic. Coming from someone uses inappropriate examples to justify imagined fears, that is incredibly hilarious. Finally, coming from someone who posits that is possibly unjust for the police to come to one's doorstep based on a complaint and then go away, that is just plain stupid.

The flaw, seizing firearms on mere complaint made, is not imagined. It has the potential to cause problems for people who have done no wrong but becomes victims of false or malicious claims and have to face the difficulties and expense of clearing their name.

One comment with examples of problems;

''These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. That’s fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You’ll get your “full due process” hearing, but not until later.

And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the “red flag” order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges.

The initial temporary orders are usually “self-executing.” That means you might get served with a court order that tells you to take your guns and surrender them to the police or a local dealer within the next 24 to 48 hours.

You are, of course, expected to comply. But since you cannot legally possess guns upon being served with the order, how are you supposed to transport your guns to surrender them? Perhaps you could just call the police and tell them you were served with a “red flag” order – marking you a “dangerous and volatile” person (even if you’re not) – and ask them to come pick up your guns.

That kind of situation is ripe for danger. In one situation in Baltimore, police ended up shooting a man when they came to collect his guns under a “red flag” law.

Or perhaps you could take your guns to a local gun dealer and ask them to store them for you – that is, if you can find one that’s willing. In my experience, storage will cost you about $200 per month for a couple of guns. And that might be the best deal you can get. Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.

In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial “offer” of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

Think that’s a fantasy?

Ask Lori Rodriguez, a plaintiff in a case that has been kicking around the California and federal courts for six years. The Ninth Circuit Court recently invented a new exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The court approved the police seizing Rodriguez’s firearm which was owned, registered, and locked in a gun safe , from her, while the police were at the home seizing firearms from a different family member.

Even if you win, the judge isn’t going to just hand your guns back to you at the end of the hearing. It’s probably a good idea to “lawyer up” just to go through the process of recovering your guns, so you don’t go to jail or prison for accidentally breaking an obscure firearm law or regulation. You wouldn’t want to set off a red flag''.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure, there have been a few.

Here's one;


''FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) — A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning.

Anne Arundel County Police confirmed the police-involved shooting happened in the 100 block of Linwood Avenue around 5:17 a.m.''

You can argue that it was justified. Perhaps it wouldn't have happened had it been handled better...but it did.

It happened because the victim picked up his gun and fired it. So when someone resists the police and fires a weapon, it is the fault of the police?

Not if they turn up on your doorstep to confiscate property because someone has a grudge and put in a complaint.....

That was not the result of a red flag law. And we only have one side of story. Yet you continue to bring it up as relevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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."

So campaign for a strong civil remedy, rather than against the red flag law.

I don't think anybody here is opposed to very idea of red flag laws, it's just some of us feel they don't have adequate safeguards.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thank you. I googled his name, snd guess what- his guns were restored quickly. I cannot reproduce the link using my phone.

Ok, I was looking at the original reports.

Note, however, that this is not evidence the system works--he didn't get his guns back from the court hearing, but from the sheriff not liking the bad optics.

The man got his guns back quickly because someone in the justice system worked to get it right - the man did not need a hearing. Seems to me the system worked just fine.

The outrage fixed it. It shouldn't be necessary to drum up outrage to get justice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gun seizures from red flag laws? Got any cites?

Note that he said "likely justified". I'm only recalling one off the top of my head and I don't recall enough to find it. However, the basic thing is the guy got in a gunfight with the cops there after his guns. The red flag was obviously justified and at least he didn't take anyone else with him.

The cases that worry me are when the victim is red-flagged to facilitate an attack. I haven't heard of any yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or perhaps you could take your guns to a local gun dealer and ask them to store them for you – that is, if you can find one that’s willing. In my experience, storage will cost you about $200 per month for a couple of guns. And that might be the best deal you can get. Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.

In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial “offer” of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

I wasn't aware of this bit of nastiness, that's another example of seriously flawed laws.

 

[laughing dog]

The man got his guns back quickly because someone in the justice system worked to get it right - the man did not need a hearing. Seems to me the system worked just fine.

The outrage fixed it. It shouldn't be necessary to drum up outrage to get justice.

It was information. The victim did not have to do anything to receive it. The system worked.

 

[DBT]

Sure, there have been a few.

Here's one;


''FERNADALE, Md. (WJZ) — A 61-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland’s new ‘red flag’ law in Ferndale Monday morning.

Anne Arundel County Police confirmed the police-involved shooting happened in the 100 block of Linwood Avenue around 5:17 a.m.''

You can argue that it was justified. Perhaps it wouldn't have happened had it been handled better...but it did.

It happened because the victim picked up his gun and fired it. So when someone resists the police and fires a weapon, it is the fault of the police?

Depends on how they went about it. He had put his gun down, then something happened to set him off. Exactly what set him off is not explained.

However, that is still not the point. It's only an example of things going wrong. There are other examples and unless the problematic aspect of the law is amended, there will be more.

Just to be clear, red flag laws in principle are not the problem. Any reasonable person would support removing firearms from people who really should not have them in the first place...this dispute is purely and simply about amendments to problematic aspects of these laws.

This shouldn't be so difficult to grasp, or for legislators to tweak the laws in order to eliminate punishing legitimate gun owners in the way that was described.

That was not the result of a red flag law. And we only have one side of story. Yet you continue to bring it up as relevant.

There is a flaw in the red flag laws that I have described, and provided articles and quotes saying the same thing. As it stands, innocent people can punished without adequate recourse or compensation for costs and trouble caused by false accusations, etc.

If this is true, it goes too far:

''Their bills (SB1807/HB1873) are crafted in such a way to make it absolutely clear that these are not simply the result of well-intentioned ignorance on the part of lawmakers. These bills are deliberately malicious.

Aside from the usual family/household member or police, an order may be requested by anyone who ever went on a date with the subject (any “intimate partner”), any time, anywhere.
The petitioner — no matter how spurious their claim — cannot be hit with any court costs.
The ex parte (not present) subject of a “red flag” confiscation order, however, is hit with the court costs, including those normally charged to the petitioner (“all court costs, filing fees, litigation taxes, and attorney fees shall be assessed against the respondent”).
The target of a confiscation order cannot have a hearing for at least five days, and it can be up to thirty days before one takes place.
And the pièce de résistance: An order may be requested by any Tennessee resident against anyone anywhere in the world (the respondent — target — doesn’t have to be a resident of Tennessee, though how they’d enforce those orders in other jurisdictions isn’t quite clear).''