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

[DBT]

Well, it has now.
Is there a point there?

Obviously there is, otherwise people would not have raised the concern of wrongful gun seizures based on frivolous or malicious report...or events like the case where a child made a silly comment in school and a police squad turns up at the family home in the night, which is more like something out of Stalinist Russia than the 'Land of the Free.'

For once, try to focus. Red flag laws are compatible and consistent with the relevant part of the 4th amendment "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.'' i

If you care to consider the actual concern you'd understand that it relates to the nature of the report.

A child making a casual remark in school, the story passed on, someone panics the police raid the family home in the night is surely a matter of concern for those who experienced the event and anyone wondering if that could happen to them....that is the point. The interpretation, criteria and application of the bill appears to be a bit loose in some cases.

As is your reading of what I am trying to get at. Which is maintaining a fair balance between personal liberties and public safety.

 

[laughing dog]

For once, try to focus. Red flag laws are compatible and consistent with the relevant part of the 4th amendment "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.'' i

If you care to consider the actual concern you'd understand that it relates to the nature of the report.

A child making a casual remark in school, the story passed on, someone panics the police raid the family home in the night is surely a matter of concern for those who experienced the event and anyone wondering if that could happen to them....that is the point. The interpretation, criteria and application of the bill appears to be a bit loose in some cases.

As is your reading of what I am trying to get at.

When you quote tales to make a point, looseness is to be expected.

Which is maintaining a fair balance between personal liberties and public safety.

You keep repeating that mantra but every example you give is some unsubstantiated story.

 

[DBT]

When you quote tales to make a point, looseness is to be expected.

It is not what I claim but what the amendment says and what people are concerned about when search and seizures are carried out on what may be an unsubstantiated claim, something someone heard said or a misinterpretation of a causal remark.

That is not my claim. It is what what people are concerned about. I have produced enough material to show that this is a concern for many, so don't try to make out that this is my personal claim.

You keep repeating that mantra but every example you give is some unsubstantiated story.

All we have is stories. You seem quite willing to accept stories, words and claims, when it comes to seizure of guns, stories that may or may not be true, yet the system acts upon these claims, yet you reject stories of unjust raids based on frivolous complaints. Kind of a double standard of values I'd say.

Again, this is not what I say, but the concerns that are being raised by others:

Quote:

''Hopefully you’ll never commit a mass shooting, murder, or violent assault. But while you might not have a criminal connection to such individuals, you do share at least one thing in common: you both have unalienable rights. The right to face your accuser. The right to due process. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Every one of these rights are explicitly violated under red flag laws.

Such laws often allow a judge to issue an order of confiscation “ex parte”, meaning without you present. Because it’s a civil process, you aren’t entitled to a public defender, or even afforded the opportunity to defend yourself. Once a protective order is issued, law enforcement are dispatched to search your property and seize your weapons – without criminal charges ever being filed, or even probable cause that an actual crime has been committed.

To make matters worse, Red Flag hearings can be adjudicated based on uncorroborated claims made by a single individual. Perhaps it’s an angry spouse, jealous co-worker, or disgruntled neighbor. All it takes is for someone to make a convincing argument that you are a danger to yourself or others, and your property is taken from you and you lose your right to defend yourself.

You may be thinking that surely the burden of proof to do such a thing must be extremely high. Certainly someone must be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re a danger.

Nope. All that’s required is that “the preponderance of the evidence” suggest you are dangerous. That’s legalese for “more likely than not.” That’s an incredibly low bar to justify any punitive action, let alone something as enormous as disarmament.''

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For once, try to focus. Red flag laws are compatible and consistent with the relevant part of the 4th amendment "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.'' i

If you care to consider the actual concern you'd understand that it relates to the nature of the report.

A child making a casual remark in school, the story passed on, someone panics the police raid the family home in the night is surely a matter of concern for those who experienced the event and anyone wondering if that could happen to them....that is the point. The interpretation, criteria and application of the bill appears to be a bit loose in some cases.

As is your reading of what I am trying to get at. Which is maintaining a fair balance between personal liberties and public safety.

There was a recent case here where an insurance adjuster was at a home and incorrectly identified large greenhouse plants as marijuana. The local Barney Fifes did a nice job on the senior couple, dragged them into their squad cars, cuffed, for hours, no clothes, searching the home, etc. So now the law suit is going through the courts because of their actions.

This was not a case of there being anything wrong with the law and it's intent (if one buys into reefer madness anyway) but rather incompetence on the part of the officers. A couple hicks probably thought they were the next Elliot Ness.

The search warrant they obtained was probably along the lines you mentioned and that brings up the issue of liability and litigation. Doesn't it make sense for a judge to err on the side of caution? If a judge is hearing that someone is in imminent danger or is putting people in imminent danger what would you do if you were that judge? We live in a very litigious society and always get second guessed.

 

[laughing dog]

When you quote tales to make a point, looseness is to be expected.

It is not what I claim but what the amendment says and what people are concerned about when search and seizures are carried out on what may be an unsubstantiated claim, something someone heard said or a misinterpretation of a causal remark.

That is not my claim. It is what what people are concerned about. I have produced enough material to show that this is a concern for many, so don't try to make out that this is my personal claim.

You are the one bringing up this dreck. You brought up the 4th amendment which specifically says ""Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". The story you told is a warrant based on an oath. So that red flag story is consistent with the 4th amendment. If you or the people you are quoting have a problem it is with the 4th amendment.

BTW, this "people are saying" argument what Trump uses when he has no evidence.

All we have is stories. You seem quite willing to accept stories, words and claims, when it comes to seizure of guns, stories that may or may not be true, yet the system acts upon these claims, yet you reject stories of unjust raids based on frivolous complaints. Kind of a double standard of values I'd say.

I tend to believe stories that are reported by multiple and reputable sources and that can be substantiated, not youtube videos or gunnut blogs. If you think accepting substantiated stories while rejecting unsubstantiated stories is a double standard, then you are tacitly saying you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction - another Trumperian affliction.

 

[DBT]

You are the one bringing up this dreck. You brought up the 4th amendment which specifically says ""Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". The story you told is a warrant based on an oath. So that red flag story is consistent with the 4th amendment. If you or the people you are quoting have a problem it is with the 4th amendment.

The problem is with interpretation. The issue as described:

''The standard is not whether there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner has committed a crime, as the Constitution would seem to require. Rather, the standard is some subjective determination about whether the owner represents some "danger."

''The greatest potential for abuse arises when the police or a citizen (“the petitioner”) seeks a temporary order without informing the gun owner. Guns are property, and the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide that people may not be deprived of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that before the government can confiscate or infringe upon property, the owner is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself or herself. He or she is entitled to have a lawyer, cross-examine, and take advantage of other procedural benefits afforded by our Anglo-American legal tradition''

I tend to believe stories that are reported by multiple and reputable sources and that can be substantiated, not youtube videos or gunnut blogs. If you think accepting substantiated stories while rejecting unsubstantiated stories is a double standard, then you are tacitly saying you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction - another Trumperian affliction.

It doesn't require multiple reputable sources to establish 'probable cause' in red flag laws,which is the problem as many see it, only that someone has made a claim/ affirming that it is true.

You accept that much, which may be true or may be mistaken or malicious...yet do not appear to accept stories by people who describe their own experiences with police visits based on frivolous claims, what a child said in school, etc. Which means that you are applying two standards, one to what suits your needs and the other to whatever does not suit your stance.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is with interpretation.

No, the problem is you shifted the goal posts. I showed that the red flag laws are not incompatible with the 4th amendment.

It doesn't require multiple reputable sources to establish 'probable cause' in red flag laws,which is the problem as many see it, only that someone has made a claim/ affirming that it is true.

No one said it did, so why are you bringing it up?

You accept that much, which may be true or may be mistaken or malicious...yet do not appear to accept stories by people who describe their own experiences with police visits based on frivolous claims, what a child said in school, etc. Which means that you are applying two standards, one to what suits your needs and the other to whatever does not suit your stance.

No, I apply one standard - I accept substantiated stories from reputable sources. Please stop with your projection.

 

[DBT]

No, the problem is you shifted the goal posts. I showed that the red flag laws are not incompatible with the 4th amendment.

What you fail to consider is that the issue doesn't just rest on one line of the amendments, hence your interpretation is incomplete and flawed:


''The greatest potential for abuse arises when the police or a citizen (“the petitioner”) seeks a temporary order without informing the gun owner. Guns are property, and the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide that people may not be deprived of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that before the government can confiscate or infringe upon property, the owner is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself or herself. He or she is entitled to have a lawyer, cross-examine, and take advantage of other procedural benefits afforded by our Anglo-American legal tradition''

''In 1969, the Supreme Court held that even freezing property (much less removing it) without a prior hearing violates due process.

Some red flag laws may violate other constitutional rights in addition to due process. They may run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s rule against taking of property without compensation''

The Sixth Amendment mandates certain protections for defendants in criminal prosecutions. Red flag procedures aren’t criminal prosecutions, but they can lead to harsher punishments than some criminal convictions. So it’s fair to test them by Sixth Amendment standards.

Among the protections in the Sixth Amendment is “the right to … trial, by an impartial jury.” Red flag laws generally don’t provide jury trials. Even in the hearing for a permanent order, a single judge decides everything.

The Sixth Amendment also protects the right of a defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” But the Colorado red flag statute doesn’t require the petitioner or his witnesses to show up for the hearing. Instead, the court may hold the hearing by telephone. This can make it much harder to assess the credibility of those testifying. Even worse, the Colorado law doesn’t even require live testimony. The petitioner can present all of his or her evidence by affidavit, where it cannot be cross-examined.''

In other words: Cherry Picking.

No, I apply one standard - I accept substantiated stories from reputable sources. Please stop with your projection.

You obviously do not apply the same standards. According to your comments, you apparently accept reports made about gun owners as reliable regardless of the fact that they may be sincere but mistaken, or malicious, yet dismiss the accounts of those who claim to be the victims of mistaken or malicious reports that resulted in police turning up at their home to confiscate firearms.

Dismissing these in a flippant manner - ''I tend to believe stories that are reported by multiple and reputable sources and that can be substantiated, not youtube videos or gunnut blogs''

What you believe is irrelevant. These are reports made by people who describe their experience.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

''Hopefully you’ll never commit a mass shooting, murder, or violent assault. But while you might not have a criminal connection to such individuals, you do share at least one thing in common: you both have unalienable rights. The right to face your accuser. The right to due process. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Every one of these rights are explicitly violated under red flag laws.

Such laws often allow a judge to issue an order of confiscation “ex parte”, meaning without you present. Because it’s a civil process, you aren’t entitled to a public defender, or even afforded the opportunity to defend yourself. Once a protective order is issued, law enforcement are dispatched to search your property and seize your weapons – without criminal charges ever being filed, or even probable cause that an actual crime has been committed.

To make matters worse, Red Flag hearings can be adjudicated based on uncorroborated claims made by a single individual. Perhaps it’s an angry spouse, jealous co-worker, or disgruntled neighbor. All it takes is for someone to make a convincing argument that you are a danger to yourself or others, and your property is taken from you and you lose your right to defend yourself.

You may be thinking that surely the burden of proof to do such a thing must be extremely high. Certainly someone must be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you’re a danger.

Nope. All that’s required is that “the preponderance of the evidence” suggest you are dangerous. That’s legalese for “more likely than not.” That’s an incredibly low bar to justify any punitive action, let alone something as enormous as disarmament.''

It occurs to me, a local case. In their quest to nail somebody in connection to the Mandalay Bay shooting they're going after a guy who sold him some reloaded ammo. They're trying to claim he was making ammo without a license. Nobody's saying he did it wrong, it's just they're looking for someone to convict. Justice?

 

[DBT]

Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.

You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

 

[laughing dog]

No, the problem is you shifted the goal posts. I showed that the red flag laws are not incompatible with the 4th amendment.

What you fail to consider is that the issue doesn't just rest on one line of the amendments...

You’re the one who brought up the 4th amendment, not me. Your claim that red flags violate that amendment is wrong.

Hell, you introduce the 6th amendment and admit that it is not applicable because red flags ste mit criminal cases.

In other words: Cherry Picking.

That is your MO in this thread.

You obviously do not apply the same standards. According to your comments, you apparently accept reports made about gun owners as reliable regardless of the fact that they may be sincere but mistaken, or malicious, yet dismiss the accounts of those who claim to be the victims of mistaken or malicious reports that resulted in police turning up at their home to confiscate firearms.

Obviously you do not understand what “substantianted” meanss. Unlike you, I do not accept whatever someone says.

 

[DBT]

You’re the one who brought up the 4th amendment, not me. Your claim that red flags violate that amendment is wrong.

The 4th amendment quote is just one part of the issue and it's brevity is open to interpretation that may ignore other factors and rulings. Which is why I also referred to other amendments and other rulings, which you conveniently ignore or brush aside.

Again:

''The standard is not whether there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner has committed a crime, as the Constitution would seem to require. Rather, the standard is some subjective determination about whether the owner represents some "danger."

''The greatest potential for abuse arises when the police or a citizen (“the petitioner”) seeks a temporary order without informing the gun owner. Guns are property, and the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide that people may not be deprived of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that before the government can confiscate or infringe upon property, the owner is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself or herself. He or she is entitled to have a lawyer, cross-examine, and take advantage of other procedural benefits afforded by our Anglo-American legal tradition''

Hell, you introduce the 6th amendment and admit that it is not applicable because red flags ste mit criminal cases.
That is your MO in this thread.

Hardly, seeing that I am looking at the overall picture and the problems with aspects of the red flag laws, acting against gun owners on what may be frivolous or malicious claims. Actions being taken before gun owners can address the claims being made against them.

Obviously you do not understand what “substantianted” meanss. Unlike you, I do not accept whatever someone says.

Obviously it is you who doesn't understand the nature of substantiation because you seem to accept that it is justified to seize someones property on the basis of what someone says.

I am the one pointing out that what someone claims may not be true, that they may be mistaken or making a malicious claim in order to punish a partner when a relationship fails, etc, which is known to happen and need to be accounted for before action is taken.

 

[DBT]

Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.

You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?

No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.

 

[DBT]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.

You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?

Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our system. Without it it would be hard to avoid a descent into tyranny.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

It very well might be permanent--they usually don't store them properly. If they're kept long enough they're likely to come back unserviceable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.

I'd like to see this apply in all criminal cases. If you're not convicted of something they have to cover your reasonable costs and the greater of minimum wage or your salary for any time you can't work because of their actions. (And if you're in jail that minimum wage is for 24 hours/day.)

 

[DBT]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.

I'd like to see this apply in all criminal cases. If you're not convicted of something they have to cover your reasonable costs and the greater of minimum wage or your salary for any time you can't work because of their actions. (And if you're in jail that minimum wage is for 24 hours/day.)

Yes. And of course allowing the accused to address the claims made against them before things go too far and get too complicated. A prompt assessment of the actual threat, not just acting on someones say so, then sorting out the mess, which doesn't do anyone any good and ties up resources that could be put to more productive use elsewhere