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

[ZiprHead]

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

Nearly 200 people in New Jersey have had their guns seized under a “red flag” law that went effect last year, according to data obtained by NJ Advance Media.

The Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, which went into effect Sept. 1, allows a law enforcement officer, family or household member to submit a petition to state Superior Court showing why a judge should issue an order to keep guns away from someone who potentially poses a danger of causing bodily injury to themselves or to others.

If the judge determines there is “good cause” to remove the guns, the judge will initially issue a temporary extreme risk protection order and a search warrant is executed to recover the guns, ammunition and firearms identification card from the person.

So far, 186 temporary extreme risk protective orders have been granted as of Jan. 22, according to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning more than one person a day has had their guns taken away — at least temporarily — in New Jersey since the law went into effect. In 25 cases, a petition was made but the temporary order was denied by a judge, according to court data.

After a temporary order is granted and the firearms are seized, the individual is entitled to a hearing within 10 days in front of the judge before a final order is issued.

If a final order is granted by a judge, it lasts indefinitely, but the person can also seek to have the order terminated at any time after the order goes into effect.

There have been a total of 88 final orders granted since the law went into effect, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Judges have denied 29 final orders, according to the courts.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's a start.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's tax people like Jason Harvestdancer to fund adequate mental health care to mitigate against such as Red Flag law need.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated.

what, the right to be part of a well regulated militia?

 

[TV and credit cards]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

Yeah. How many children have had their right to life violated by the gun? Bad guy with gun. Good guy with gun. Child with gun. There's one common factor here. Can you spot it?

When's the last time you read in your local news about a child accidentally shooting himself or a sibling? For me it was today. And before that it was two days ago. I wish all these Second Amendment types would stop leaving their rights laying around where children can access them.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

All those people who get arrested, handcuffed, put into jail, have to post bail, have to get lawyers, have to get fingerprinted, and they haven't been convicted of anything.

Mercy, but the gulags must be overflowing with people.

 

[DBT]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

To be fair, the government doesn't take your drivers licence because they suspect you have bad vision.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

I can lose my job for legally purchasing and using marijuana in my own home. None of the other three people at this address have that risk, as they don't have a federal security clearance. Odd that the right to even purchase a state-taxed commodity is denied me, but Trump isn't promising to fix this injustice.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

To be fair, the government doesn't take your drivers licence because they suspect you have bad vision.

OTOH, they don't need a warrant for my eye doctor's records, either, and that judgmental woman at the 'Read line three' machine doesn't have an ophthalmology license on the wall behind her.

 

[DBT]

To be fair, the government doesn't take your drivers licence because they suspect you have bad vision.

OTOH, they don't need a warrant for my eye doctor's records, either, and that judgmental woman at the 'Read line three' machine doesn't have an ophthalmology license on the wall behind her.

In which case they have evidence, not seizure on the basis of suspicion. Even then it smacks of excessive regulation. Freedom entails degrees of risk. Wrap us up and keep us in padded rooms and we'll be as safe as safe can be....

Mild sarcasm aside, that is not to say that a reasonable degree of regulation is not a good thing. It's only a question of how far it goes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To be fair, the government doesn't take your drivers licence because they suspect you have bad vision.

OTOH, they don't need a warrant for my eye doctor's records, either, and that judgmental woman at the 'Read line three' machine doesn't have an ophthalmology license on the wall behind her.

In which case they have evidence, not seizure on the basis of suspicion. Even then it smacks of excessive regulation. Freedom entails degrees of risk. Wrap us up and keep us in padded rooms and we'll be as safe as safe can be....

Mild sarcasm aside, that is not to say that a reasonable degree of regulation is not a good thing. It's only a question of how far it goes.

I support a reasonable degree of regulation, but the OP isn't that reasonable degree.

 

[DBT]

In which case they have evidence, not seizure on the basis of suspicion. Even then it smacks of excessive regulation. Freedom entails degrees of risk. Wrap us up and keep us in padded rooms and we'll be as safe as safe can be....

Mild sarcasm aside, that is not to say that a reasonable degree of regulation is not a good thing. It's only a question of how far it goes.

I support a reasonable degree of regulation, but the OP isn't that reasonable degree.

It can easily go too far.

 

[Rhea]

It can easily go too far.

Yeah someone could get shot and die... oh, wait...

 

[Keith&Co.]

In which case they have evidence, not seizure on the basis of suspicion. Even then it smacks of excessive regulation. Freedom entails degrees of risk. Wrap us up and keep us in padded rooms and we'll be as safe as safe can be....

Mild sarcasm aside, that is not to say that a reasonable degree of regulation is not a good thing. It's only a question of how far it goes.

I support a reasonable degree of regulation, but the OP isn't that reasonable degree.

I think the problem is, children kept dying while a 'reasonable degree' was never defined. Or suggested. Or made allowed as a possibility by The NRA.
So, it'll probably swing back and forth like every other attempt at crackdowns on harm. The pendulum will overcorrect, and eventually stabilize.

 

[DBT]

It can easily go too far.

Yeah someone could get shot and die... oh, wait...

.....It could easily go to far in the balance between reasonable control and being heavy handed on citizen rights and freedoms.

The complaint here is not about reasonable controls, just exactly where the line is drawn...how far we go in the balance between security and freedom.

Where that line is drawn may be a point of contention.

Some advocate banning ownership of firearms altogether, for example.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It can easily go too far.

Yeah someone could get shot and die... oh, wait...

There are a lot more deaths that can be attributed to government than to civilians, so yeah.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It can easily go too far.

Yeah someone could get shot and die... oh, wait...

There are a lot more deaths that can be attributed to government than to civilians, so yeah.

Death from over-regulation?

 

[DBT]

At what point does state regulation tip from being desirable and beneficial to an unnecessary imposition on our rights and liberties, privacy and persuit of interests?