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

[laughing dog]

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

Read!

I was talking about a case out of I think Florida. The guy lost his guns because his name matches the person reported. Never mind that his description very much doesn't match. The burden is on him to get her (the woman who reported the guy) to come to court to testify he's not the one she was talking about--but he has no power to compel her to show up.

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

 

[DBT]

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

The guy in the video stood up for himself quite strongly. Not everyone can do that. Nor should he have had police coming to his door in the first place for merely being in the vicinity of a rally.

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?

It's in the narrative of the video. The guy explains his reasons for being there. He took the presence of the police on his doorstep as harassment because he had done nothing wrong, apparently there had been no complaints made about him or his behaviour.

So there was no evidence against him, which is why he ran them off his property: more or less on the basis of ''produce a warrant or get the fuck off my property.''

The talk on the gun forum was that he should not have engaged with them without an attorney present.

 

[laughing dog]

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?

It's in the narrative of the video. The guy explains his reasons for being there. He took the presence of the police on his doorstep as harassment because he had done nothing wrong, apparently there had been no complaints made about him or his behaviour.

So there was no evidence against him, which is why he ran them off his property: more or less on the basis of ''produce a warrant or get the fuck off my property.''

The talk on the gun forum was that he should not have engaged with them without an attorney present.

You are taking the man ‘s story as complete and true.

 

[DBT]

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?

It's in the narrative of the video. The guy explains his reasons for being there. He took the presence of the police on his doorstep as harassment because he had done nothing wrong, apparently there had been no complaints made about him or his behaviour.

So there was no evidence against him, which is why he ran them off his property: more or less on the basis of ''produce a warrant or get the fuck off my property.''

The talk on the gun forum was that he should not have engaged with them without an attorney present.

You are taking the man ‘s story as complete and true.

If, presumably. the police had just cause to be there they would have had a warrant. So instead of arguing with him they would have arrested him and had his firearms seized....instead they withdrew.

The way he argues and their response to him that gives credence to his what he says and his innocence. Of course nothing is absolutely certain, but that is the picture the video paints, which is all we can go on.

 

[laughing dog]

You are taking the man ‘s story as complete and true.

If, presumably. the police had just cause to be there they would have had a warrant. So instead of arguing with him they would have arrested him and had his firearms seized....instead they withdrew.

The way he argues and their response to him that gives credence to his what he says and his innocence. Of course nothing is absolutely certain, but that is the picture the video paints, which is all we can go on.

Since you agree they did not have a warrant (your 2nd sentence), the NJ red flag law is not an issue.

 

[Elixir]

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?

The right to play cowboy with live ammunition in public places.
Get with the program!

 

[ZiprHead]

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?

It's in the narrative of the video. The guy explains his reasons for being there. He took the presence of the police on his doorstep as harassment because he had done nothing wrong, apparently there had been no complaints made about him or his behaviour.

So there was no evidence against him, which is why he ran them off his property: more or less on the basis of ''produce a warrant or get the fuck off my property.''

The talk on the gun forum was that he should not have engaged with them without an attorney present.

So by your description of no complaints, this example has nothing to do with red flag laws.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Pay attention, the law worked because his guns were not confiscated.

And I suppose you're fine with the police coming questioning you about a crime because the perp was identified as a white male.

Oh, get the fuck over yourself.

Cops respond to 'false' complaints thousands of times a day. Just because this one happens to involve guns, doesn't really make it any different.

As a general rule, I don't trust cops. I think they are some of the worst people on the planet. However, gun nuts are quickly getting to the same level.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

When you lose your license, you lose the ability to drive on government roads. The government does not go to your house to take your car.

 

[ZiprHead]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

When you lose your license, you lose the ability to drive on government roads. The government does not go to your house to take your car.

They'll take your car if you're caught using it on those government roads after your license has been revoked.

 

[DBT]

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?

It's in the narrative of the video. The guy explains his reasons for being there. He took the presence of the police on his doorstep as harassment because he had done nothing wrong, apparently there had been no complaints made about him or his behaviour.

So there was no evidence against him, which is why he ran them off his property: more or less on the basis of ''produce a warrant or get the fuck off my property.''

The talk on the gun forum was that he should not have engaged with them without an attorney present.

So by your description of no complaints, this example has nothing to do with red flag laws.

As far as I know the red flag laws may entail not just complaints or reports, but anything that raises concerns for the authorities. It's possible that the group or political movement someone is associated may count as being a concern. If someone is associated with a radical organization, citizen militia, etc, that may be cause to raise a red flag (it probably should.)

However, the issue is seizing someones property without sufficient evidence. A complaint alone is not sufficient evidence to seize someones firearms....malicious intent by the complainant, etc.

I don't think anyone would complain about action taken on good reason based on evidence.

 

[DBT]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

When you lose your license, you lose the ability to drive on government roads. The government does not go to your house to take your car.

They'll take your car if you're caught using it on those government roads after your license has been revoked.

That's right, you are caught breaking the law.

 

[laughing dog]

So by your description of no complaints, this example has nothing to do with red flag laws.

As far as I know the red flag laws may entail not just complaints or reports, but anything that raises concerns for the authorities. It's possible that the group or political movement someone is associated may count as being a concern. If someone is associated with a radical organization, citizen militia, etc, that may be cause to raise a red flag (it probably should.)

However, the issue is seizing someones property without sufficient evidence. A complaint alone is not sufficient evidence to seize someones firearms....malicious intent by the complainant, etc.

I don't think anyone would complain about action taken on good reason based on evidence.

You admit you have no idea what the red flag process entails, yet you continue to complain about it. You have no evidence that a complaint is sufficient to generate a temporary seizure, one that can be reversed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

When you lose your license, you lose the ability to drive on government roads. The government does not go to your house to take your car.

They'll take your car if you're caught using it on those government roads after your license has been revoked.

Those two things are not the same.

 

[DBT]

So by your description of no complaints, this example has nothing to do with red flag laws.

As far as I know the red flag laws may entail not just complaints or reports, but anything that raises concerns for the authorities. It's possible that the group or political movement someone is associated may count as being a concern. If someone is associated with a radical organization, citizen militia, etc, that may be cause to raise a red flag (it probably should.)

However, the issue is seizing someones property without sufficient evidence. A complaint alone is not sufficient evidence to seize someones firearms....malicious intent by the complainant, etc.

I don't think anyone would complain about action taken on good reason based on evidence.

You admit you have no idea what the red flag process entails, yet you continue to complain about it. You have no evidence that a complaint is sufficient to generate a temporary seizure, one that can be reversed.

I know exactly what the red flag laws are in principle, I just don't know the the details, only the concerns that are in fact being raised, hence the discussion.

I have provided evidence of that concern and examples of people who have experienced unjustified harassment.

My concern being the concern that others are raising, that actions may be taken against innocent gun owners without sufficient justification.

That's all.

 

[laughing dog]

You admit you have no idea what the red flag process entails, yet you continue to complain about it. You have no evidence that a complaint is sufficient to generate a temporary seizure, one that can be reversed.

I know exactly what the red flag laws are in principle, I just don't know the the details, only the concerns that are in fact being raised, hence the discussion.

I have provided evidence of that concern and examples of people who have experienced unjustified harassment.

My concern being the concern that others are raising, that actions may be taken against innocent gun owners without sufficient justification.

That's all.

Concerns driven by an admitted clear lack of knowledge and information. The cited example was not an example of the NJ red flag law.
Yet there are people braying about some perceived injustice that has not occurred.

 

[DBT]

You admit you have no idea what the red flag process entails, yet you continue to complain about it. You have no evidence that a complaint is sufficient to generate a temporary seizure, one that can be reversed.

I know exactly what the red flag laws are in principle, I just don't know the the details, only the concerns that are in fact being raised, hence the discussion.

I have provided evidence of that concern and examples of people who have experienced unjustified harassment.

My concern being the concern that others are raising, that actions may be taken against innocent gun owners without sufficient justification.

That's all.

Concerns driven by an admitted clear lack of knowledge and information. The cited example was not an example of the NJ red flag law.
Yet there are people braying about some perceived injustice that has not occurred.

The concerns are that action may be taken against gun owners for unfounded or unjust reasons.....harassing a gun owner in his own home because he was at a rally is a part of that issue, therefore of concern to him, everyone in that position, including observers.

The red flag laws are a concern for the same reason. As the OP says, nearly two hundred people have had their guns seized, perhaps for good reason or perhaps not, you would have to look at it case to case.

 

[laughing dog]

Concerns driven by an admitted clear lack of knowledge and information. The cited example was not an example of the NJ red flag law.
Yet there are people braying about some perceived injustice that has not occurred.

The concerns are that action may be taken against gun owners for unfounded or unjust reasons.....harassing a gun owner in his own home because he was at a rally is a part of that issue, therefore of concern to him, everyone in that position, including observers.

The red flag laws are a concern for the same reason. As the OP says, nearly two hundred people have had their guns seized, perhaps for good reason or perhaps not, you would have to look at it case to case.

What concerns me is that there are gun owners who are so insecure that they jump to hysterical conclusions on what is obviously incomplete information.


There is no evidence that the NJ red flag should be the cause of concern.

 

[ZiprHead]

Concerns driven by an admitted clear lack of knowledge and information. The cited example was not an example of the NJ red flag law.
Yet there are people braying about some perceived injustice that has not occurred.

The concerns are that action may be taken against gun owners for unfounded or unjust reasons.....harassing a gun owner in his own home because he was at a rally is a part of that issue, therefore of concern to him, everyone in that position, including observers.

The red flag laws are a concern for the same reason. As the OP says, nearly two hundred people have had their guns seized, perhaps for good reason or perhaps not, you would have to look at it case to case.

A judge already did that.

 

[DBT]

Concerns driven by an admitted clear lack of knowledge and information. The cited example was not an example of the NJ red flag law.
Yet there are people braying about some perceived injustice that has not occurred.

The concerns are that action may be taken against gun owners for unfounded or unjust reasons.....harassing a gun owner in his own home because he was at a rally is a part of that issue, therefore of concern to him, everyone in that position, including observers.

The red flag laws are a concern for the same reason. As the OP says, nearly two hundred people have had their guns seized, perhaps for good reason or perhaps not, you would have to look at it case to case.

A judge already did that.

Before action was taken against the gun owner or after?