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

[laughing dog]

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.

The point is your example backfired because in that case it appears the red flag had a real basis.

You have yet to back a claim of fact with a relevant example of fact, That makes your position apoear weak.

 

[DBT]

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.

The point is your example backfired because in that case it appears the red flag had a real basis.

My example was that of a gun seizure badly handled by the police. Which is what I said.

You have yet to back a claim of fact with a relevant example of fact, That makes your position apoear weak.

I don't think that you have grasped my position regardless of the number of times I have stated it. I think you prefer your own version. I have described the problem with the read flag laws. That is my position. I am pointing to problems with the laws which should be amended in order to make them fairer toward those who may be falsely accused.

The issue yet again:

''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.''

And to repeat yet again, this is a matter of amendment and adjusting the red flag laws in order to make them fairer and not disadvantage the innocent...but not abolishing the laws, which in principle are necessary.

I hope that clarifies the distinction between amending the laws and abolishing them. That it is the former not that latter that I argue for.

 

[Elixir]

....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.

How many lives did killing that guy save? Absent a protracted controlled study such as I described earlier there's no way to know. And in fact, there's no standard for it even if we did know. If it saved 0.72 lives or 0.014 lives would that be worth it? What if it saved 0.9 lives or 1.23 lives? Certainly if it saved 165.4 lives most would agree it's worth it, right?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's very easy to swear out a PFA. I am not familiar with red flag laws but I assume they work similarly. The judge grants the temporary PFA based on your sworn testimony and evidence, and schedules a hearing where both parties are present. If the other party does not show your PFA is granted, and can be amended to your choosing. Until that hearing your PFA is temporarily in effect. At least that's how it worked for me.

Let's consider that in that hearing I told the judge the person threatened me with a firearm. Does it become a red flag issue? Given circumstances, possibly.

 

[laughing dog]

My example was that of a gun seizure badly handled by the police. Which is what I said.

Except you do not know if it was handled badly or not. Your default is to take the gun owner's side regardless of what you actually know.

I don't think that you have grasped my position regardless of the number of times I have stated it. I think you prefer your own version. I have described the problem with the read flag laws. That is my position. I am pointing to problems with the laws which should be amended in order to make them fairer toward those who may be falsely accused.

I understand your position. Your position on red flags laws is based on admitted ignorance of the actual laws, hearsay, and potential problems with no evidence of actual issues. You cite gun nut sites and fear tactics to promote your position.

Unsurprisingly, the result is a proposal amend red flag laws in the name of "reasonableness" to dramatically curtail their effectiveness.

 

[DBT]

....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.

How many lives did killing that guy save? Absent a protracted controlled study such as I described earlier there's no way to know. And in fact, there's no standard for it even if we did know. If it saved 0.72 lives or 0.014 lives would that be worth it? What if it saved 0.9 lives or 1.23 lives? Certainly if it saved 165.4 lives most would agree it's worth it, right?

Again. I am not against red flag laws. The issue here is with some aspects of the law, aspects that are potentially damaging to innocent people, therefore should be amended. They can be amended, but may not be amended unless people are aware and complain about this aspect of the laws. Most people probably don't think past 'safety' because the downside probably won't effect them personally, yet can cause innocent people a whole lot of trouble unnecessarily....so the issue here is amendment not abolishment.

 

[DBT]

My example was that of a gun seizure badly handled by the police. Which is what I said.

Except you do not know if it was handled badly or not. Your default is to take the gun owner's side regardless of what you actually know.

That's ridiculous. The guy got killed in the process or having his guns seized. It was a botched operation. If it had been handled properly nobody would have been hurt, yet alone killed.

The idea is to do things fairly and properly, not take sides. Or stomp all over the rights of innocent people. There has to be a balance. Due diligence.

Unsurprisingly, the result is a proposal amend red flag laws in the name of "reasonableness" to dramatically curtail their effectiveness.

You don't know that. You are just saying whatever suits your needs in the moment. If amendments reduce or eliminate unnecessary trouble for innocent people,yet removes guns form people who should not heve guns makes them better laws.

Here's an example of how silly it can get;

NJ Attempts Confiscation Of My Friend's Guns!!! Red Flag Law Gone Wrong!!!

 

[laughing dog]

That's ridiculous. The guy got killed in the process or having his guns seized. It was a botched operation. If it had been handled properly nobody would have been hurt, yet alone killed.

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

The idea is to do things fairly and properly, not take sides . Or stomp all over the rights of innocent people. There has to be a balance. Due diligence.

I agree there has to balance. But your responses indicate you are no position to make such a judgment.

You don't know that. You are just saying whatever suits your needs in the moment. If amendments reduce or eliminate unnecessary trouble for innocent people,yet removes guns form people who should not have guns makes them better laws.

Once again, you have to resort to hypotheticals. So, to use a phrase, you don't know that.

Here's an example of how silly it can get;

NJ Attempts Confiscation Of My Friend's Guns!!! Red Flag Law Gone Wrong!!!

It is pretty silly to believe an uncorroborated story on the internet, but here you are promoting one as gospel.

 

[bilby]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.
I agree there has to balance. But your responses indicate you are no position to make such a judgment.

You don't know that. You are just saying whatever suits your needs in the moment. If amendments reduce or eliminate unnecessary trouble for innocent people,yet removes guns form people who should not have guns makes them better laws.

Once again, you have to resort to hypotheticals. So, to use a phrase, you don't know that.

Here's an example of how silly it can get;

NJ Attempts Confiscation Of My Friend's Guns!!! Red Flag Law Gone Wrong!!!

It is pretty silly to believe an uncorroborated story on the internet, but here you are promoting one as gospel.

Nobody who uses three exclamation marks in a row, twice in two sentences, should be permitted access to deadly weapons (or even sharp objects).

 

[DBT]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.
I agree there has to balance. But your responses indicate you are no position to make such a judgment.

Once again, you have to resort to hypotheticals. So, to use a phrase, you don't know that.
It is pretty silly to believe an uncorroborated story on the internet, but here you are promoting one as gospel.

Nobody who uses three exclamation marks in a row, twice in two sentences, should be permitted access to deadly weapons (or even sharp objects).

He may have been upset. Being upset excuses the overuse of exclamation marks. It's the third clause in the first law of human emotion.....there may be amendments forthcoming.

 

[DBT]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

 

[DBT]

....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.

How many lives did killing that guy save? Absent a protracted controlled study such as I described earlier there's no way to know. And in fact, there's no standard for it even if we did know. If it saved 0.72 lives or 0.014 lives would that be worth it? What if it saved 0.9 lives or 1.23 lives? Certainly if it saved 165.4 lives most would agree it's worth it, right?

There is no way to know whether that guy would have killed anyone or not. The point was that the operation resulted in his death because it was not handled properly. If a seizure is carried out correctly nobody should get hurt.

In this instance the seizure was justified, Willis should not have had guns in his possession, but the way the seizure was carried out resulted in his death.

 

[laughing dog]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

You cannot know that. I noticed you omitted the part where he fired his gun.
I wonder why.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

That's absolutely true. It's certainly a case that will be reviewed. And even after it is reviewed and changes are made it will happen again, though hopefully less often.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It was not information--the outrage didn't introduce any new facts, it just alerted them that people were upset about his rights being trampled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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).''

That's bad! However, nitpick: going on a date doesn't automatically make one an intimate partner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

We don't know. It seems like he preferred to shoot it out with the cops than let his guns be taken. Sometimes the cops don't have a choice and barring a specific thing they should have done differently I'm inclined to say it's the best attainable outcome. I do not believe in this garbage that the side with the power always had a better answer.

 

[DBT]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

You cannot know that. I noticed you omitted the part where he fired his gun.
I wonder why.

The point was that he had [put the gun down until the point where he was given the seizure, at which point he became agitated and picked up his gun again and it all went south.

So the point of failure was between the time he had put his gun down and the notice was served. That was the point where it went south, at that point he picked up his gun and shots were fired. At which stage its too late.

 

[DBT]

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).''

That's bad! However, nitpick: going on a date doesn't automatically make one an intimate partner.

I'm just pointing out that some of the red law flags are flawed and need amendments to prevent these things from happening, yet remove guns from the hands of people who should not have guns.

Some folks seem to having difficulty grasping that its not a case of one or the other, which I find surprising.

 

[DBT]

You cannot possibly know that. According to your own link, the victim initiated the shooting.

No, as the story goes, the guy had put the gun down but became agitated for some reason, at which point a struggle ensued.

From the report.
''Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun. Willis then placed the gun next to the door. When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun''

This was preventable had it been handled differently.

We don't know. It seems like he preferred to shoot it out with the cops than let his guns be taken. Sometimes the cops don't have a choice and barring a specific thing they should have done differently I'm inclined to say it's the best attainable outcome. I do not believe in this garbage that the side with the power always had a better answer.

That case seems to be a spur of the moment reaction. He had put his gun down but only became agitated when served with the seizure notice. It looks like it was over in moments.