What Does Red Flag Law ‘Rapid Due Process’ Mean?

red flag law

Bigstock

We’ve been writing about the civil rights dangers inherent in so-called red flag laws — gun violence restraining orders, extreme risk protection orders, whatever — since they were first enacted in California. They’re a due process nightmare in which someone (virtually anyone in some states) can petition a court to have an individual’s firearms confiscated.

In most instances, the first indication that someone is the subject of a confiscation order is when they get a knock at their door from the local police with a court order to collect their guns. Only after the fact can the targeted gun owner appear at a hearing to argue why his or her guns should be returned. It’s the worst kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent legal bizarro world.

Red flag laws have already had deadly consequences in one instance and that will probably not be the last such tragic case.

On Monday the President expressed support for a red flag law with “rapid due process.”

[W]e must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.

Exactly what “rapid due process” means is anyone’s guess. No such protections have been included by any of the states that have enacted the laws so far.

Dana Loesch has a good take on the subject at The Federalist, bringing up a number of concerns we’ve expressed here. Never mind the potential for abuse of these laws by vindictive ex-spouses, or those who would want to trigger the equivalent of a legal SWATing.

Loesch brings up the laws’ reliance on government bureaucrats and agencies to administer them..the same people who failed in cases like the Charleston shooting, the Washington Navy Yard shooting, the Sutherland Springs shooting, the Parkland shooting, among others.

There is nuance to be had here, for sure, but realize that it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of “innocent until proven guilty” to “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.” The question isn’t whether these laws do this, the question is whether you feel comfortable giving up a cornerstone of our republic for a safety dependent upon enforcement by a government that has failed at this before.

The murderers in Parkland, Florida and Dayton, Ohio, are two recent examples. These two monsters were walking red flags with access to firearms and yet, with all of the laws available to adjudicate them ineligible to carry or purchase guns, they continued unabated until the unthinkable. They weren’t stopped.

In fact, the Parkland murderer was coddled by a school district that pretended a refusal to report crime (thereby suppressing their criminal statistics) was the same thing as reducing crime, and they received federal dollars for it. That murderer’s violent behavior (beating his adoptive mother, sending death threats to fellow students, and putting a gun to another person’s head, to list a few offenses) was so well known, teachers had a backup plan in case he decided to become threatening, and he was searched every morning after arriving at school.

We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes. According to numerous local reports, had the previous Broward County sheriff performed his duties, case number 18-1958 would not have been able to legally purchase the rifle he used to carry out his evil. From everything reported on the Dayton murderer, it seems barring him from legal purchase or possession of firearms by adjudicating him mentally unfit was entirely possible.

But in the future, they’ll totally be able to tell — with unerring accuracy — who presents a danger sufficient to have their Second Amendment rights suspended or revoked.

Read the whole thing.

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Technology will.allow them to classify scores of people as threats. The constitution is the only thing in the way. The law will merge lists and grudges together to punish enemies.

    1. avatar Political gristle says:

      Trump is betraying his base.
      Benedict Judas Trump.
      Before Serge gets butt hurt.
      Do you want to be the frog boiled slowly; incrementally, a little gun control here, all the there, with just enough time between to become normalized (gotten used to being in place) with Trump?
      Or do you want to be the frog thrown into the boiling water which jumps out because it was hot and had a rapid painful experience like with a Bolshevik leftist.
      I think we’re more apt to act with the Bolsheviks in charge.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The only thing you would do with Bolsheviks in charge is hide under your bed until the NKVD kicks down your door and drags you off to Lubyanka.

        1. avatar Political gristle says:

          Maybe…..
          I like you Serge, but brother, wake up and smell the coffee. We’ve been betrayed.
          It’s ok to admit we fell for flimflam man’s con.
          It’s time to shake it off and regroup, no use holding on to the past.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… I’d like to see something I can verify and actually give a shit about. A politician doesn’t have to be a PwrSerge clone to get my approval. Trump has been doing loads and loads of things I approve of.

        3. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

          Who in the Republican party isn’t stabbing us in the back? International business and Israel get real representation of their wants from our government. Conservative voters get lip service if an election is coming up.

        4. avatar George says:

          I have more trust in a Yugo, than a Politician. They will be the first to stab one in the back whenever the wind changes. That’s why we must always watch them, scrutinize when necessary, & let them know were watching.

      2. avatar SGT Preston says:

        Absolutely right. Trump is betraying his base that elected him. Total gun confiscation by the government begins with little bites here and there, then bigger bites until finally all firearms are forbidden. Then citizens become “subjects”

    2. avatar Thixotropic says:

      “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
      -ADOLF HITLER

      “Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” ~ Heinrich Himmler.

      1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million German Jews and 7million Gentiles

      1. avatar EndDangerEd says:

        Hitler actually said that in 1935…. and a clown named Chamberlain (British PM) bought into it hook line and Stinker. Looks to me like Trump has been sampling the Kool-Aid. Get on The White House Comment net and express your displeasure… If he passes this RedFlag crap I’m voting Fascist… A’La Frogs and HHHHOT water.

      2. avatar guest says:

        Germany enacted gun control before Hitler was ever in charge of anything.

      3. avatar jonhaul says:

        Dont spread the fake hitler quote as it is a lie.

    3. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Next step: harvest data from your medical records to determine whether you MAY be a danger to someone. With Red Flag laws in place, how long will it be before prosecutors make subpoenas for you medical records a standard practice in Red Flag cases?

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Miner, one thing neglected to mention. If you are under an injunction for protection and you found in possession of a firearm it is a federal offense and they will burn your world down. Depends on your level of commitment.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Gaddy, I’m wondering how many of the subjects of the TROs resisted either service of the TRO or confiscation of the firearms once it became clear they were in possession of firearms.

          Did 5%, 10%, etc, resist turning over their weapons? Did any physically resist confiscation of their firearms?

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          GF, not just any order of protection; it’s only for domestic violence, IIRC.
          On the 4473, it’s worded thusly: “Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?”

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    I’d like to see the federal bill they come up with before I comment. At this point… It COULD be written in such a way as to provide adequate due process protections. Until we see the bill, we can’t say one way or the other…

    Despite the never-Trumpers running around like their asses are on fire.

    What I’m crossing my fingers on is the possibility that…
    1. It includes guidelines for proper due process protections. (Such as a mandatory hearing with legal counsel before anything is taken.)
    2. That the bill REQUIRES states that want federal funding to implements such protections in existing “red flag” laws.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Bulshit. They already have protection order laws that deem somebody worthy of not owning a firearm. It’s the same exact process.

      the only difference with these ones is anything that the government feels is a threat, or some idiot on Facebook trying to turn a patriot into a domestic terrorist, and I’ll serve you papers specifically targeting your right to own firearms.

      This is fucking tyranny.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        *they will serve you papers.

        Talk to text.

      2. avatar Biatec says:

        Exactly even if they made you go to court for a trial and stuff first and did do due process first which is unlikely. It would still be a massive abusive system for targeting people.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Depends on the mandatory penalties for false reporting. I would love an opportunity to get civil damages from a rabid lefty. You want the system to work? Include statutory damages paid by the accuser.

          The reality is that a “red flag” law changes nothing. Anybody can swear out a TRO and the police are already required to confiscate your guns everywhere in the country. (Under federal law, it is illegal for the subject of a TRO to own firearms.)

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Exactly even if they made you go to court for a trial and stuff first and did do due process first which is unlikely. It would still be a massive abusive system for targeting people.”

          How so?

          Requiring accusers to present in court would be a good filter. Having judges throw out frivolous cases, with a fine for false reporting, would be another good filter. The non-sense just might be removed quickly.

        3. avatar Biatec says:

          pwrserge All of that stuff is terrible. I’m not okay with going to court even if I win nor should anyone else have to. If you are a danger to people and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt you should not be on the streets. That should be it.

          It just shouldn’t exist. I don’t want to have to want damages or penalties. It shouldn’t happen to begin with. Same with restraining orders and all of that.

          I’m not okay with more pointless laws that just abuse people.

        4. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

          “I would love an opportunity to get civil damages from a rabid lefty. You want the system to work? Include statutory damages paid by the accuser.”

          Civil *and* criminal penalties.

          The Leftists will just set up ‘GoFundMe’ accounts for their buddies who get caught.

          Those bastards need *mandatory* hard prison time to deter them…

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          So it sounds like you need to fight against the constitutionality of TROs in general, not just “Red Flag” laws in particular. I wonder how many people whined about TRO abuse by disgruntled spouses before the addition of “Red Flag” statutes now means it can affect them?

          The reality is that ex parte orders need to be blanket banned. If the federal “Red Flag” bill does that for “Red Flag” orders, then, overall, it’s a step in the right direction.

          Again, until we see the bill, running around like your ass is on fire and blaming “Drumf” is stupid. The bill could be a shit show, and I’ll be sure to call it that if it is. It could introduce much needed due process protections to a system that has existed for decades and has been abused by feminazis for literal generations. Point is, we don’t know.

        6. avatar Biatec says:

          I hate that we are hoping Trump over reaches to far than already has been and it back fires or that the law is so redundant and pointless it only affects an unlucky few.

          If it even gets to his desk I mean. Ignoring the bills that are coming from the house as well. If he attaches it to immigration reform I bet he gives them something.

          We are just heading straight for becoming Europe at this point.

        7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Served hundreds of restraining orders. Me, “Do have any firearms.” Them, “No.” Me, “Okay. Have a nice day.” Regardless of what the petitioner said. A restraining order is not a search warrant. Second scenario. Me, “Do you have any firearms?” Them, “Yes.” Me, sigh. “Can you call a friend or relative to come get them?” Them, “Yes.” Me, “Great. I’ll wait.” Them, “No.” Me, “Damn!” And I start getting out the paperwork. Despised confiscating firearms.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          Gaddy, thanks for the info on the TROs, it’s always good to get the perspective of those actually serving the papers.

          Also, a very good point, TROs are not search warrants.

          Would you venture a guess as to how many of those service attempts turned ugly? Did most individuals respond reasonably, or did you encounter problems?

        9. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

          “It would still be a massive abusive system for targeting people.”

          Oh, yes, Leftists will consider it a duty to ‘report’ as many gun owners as they can to strip them of their rights.

          And let’s face it, any way they can of discouraging gun ownership in the first place, they will do it….

        10. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Miner, never had any blowback. That was a chance I was willing to take. What were they going to do? Fire me? I was looking for a job when they hired me.

        11. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Gadsden, when they failed to get a red flag law in PA last session they settled for adding provisions to restraining orders that
          1) Firearms now have to be surrendered within 24 hours of the order being issued, which will be well before any potential hearing
          2) You can now only give them to an attorney, an FFL, or a law enforcement agency

          In practice, Sheriffs departments are now just coming and taking a persons guns on issuance of a restraining order. Sheriffs in PA do not have statutory powers of arrest. They are officers of the court, and mainly do court security, prisoner transport, seve papers, and now confiscate guns.

          We have a historic problem in PA with getting seized guns back from LEO once matters are adjudicated.
          It is not specific to this issue, but it makes most of us think once they get seized you will need lots of lawyers and money to have any chance of getting any of your guns back.

        12. avatar Big Bill says:

          pwr: “(Under federal law, it is illegal for the subject of a TRO to own firearms.)”

          Not so. The 4473 words it like this: “Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?”
          IOW, only TROs based on domestic violence make you a prohibited person.

    2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      “Authoritarianism and Governmental Paternalism is NOT Due Process…! It’s a U.S. citizen being called an Enemy of the State! Though use of secret court orders and the Star Chamber!”

    3. avatar Biatec says:

      You are the same thing as a leftist honestly.

      All that sounds to me is like it would be rape allegations. Wasting your time, money and resources and maybe destroying your reputation. It’s truly disgusting. I’m not normally this bothered but that is really really disturbing that you could support that.

      If there was proof of something illegal you don’t need red flag laws. due process with allegations is still truly bad. How many people will think they were in the right too when they red flag someone? What judge will throw them in prison for just being wrong?

      It will be a nightmare no matter the form it takes. Go a head and call me a commie because you disagree though.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        what judge would punish an accuser if they didn’t lie but were just wrong. is what I meant*

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Depends how the law is written, now don’t it? That’s why I think that discussing proposed legislation without the text is stupid.

        2. avatar Biatec says:

          Trump is smart. He does mess with the dems and has all different types of strategies. He is not pro gun though. If he could add even more gun control than he already did he would. There is no reason to believe he is pro gun.

          He’s going to be the modern Reagan. People will excuse violations of their rights because ‘We’re winning” and just make excuse after excuse. he has already wrecked the bumpstock industry.

          I mean you realize gun stores all had a major losses from that? If I remember right some went bankrupt? Even if the courts rule in our favor. He is a anti constitution president who does not care about rights at all.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Believe it or not, I’m with pwrserge on this one, and happen to agree with literally everything he said above.

          Let’s all see the details of any proposals before we get upset. We still might end up getting upset, but at least we’ll have something we can point to as the cause.

          I *think* Trump might be riding the emotional wave right now with his sights set on 2020. He may be well aware (and well advised by his legal counsel) that Red Flag laws violate the Constitution every which way possible, so his strategy might be to kick this issue over to Congress to say he did something to Mr. And Mrs. Frightened America, and then – if Congress does actually pass a bill after fighting about it forever – he can stall it further by line-item-vetoing portions. Even if he chooses to sign something, he knows his appointments to Federal courts and SCOTUS will eventually hear cases and likely overturn such a law as unconstitutional.

          Let’s wait to see what the proposals are before we spaz out.

        4. avatar Biatec says:

          He has already violated the constitution. Fix nics and bump stocks? Didn’t he also sign extensions onto surveillance and privacy violations? I don’t understand how he would have a conversation with counsel about how he should violate the constitution when he already has.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          If the conversation becomes stalled in Congress, then it’ll never reach his desk, and he can place the blame on them.

          After all, laws are supposed to be the responsibility of the Legislative Branch anyhow, not the Executive, yes?

          Let’s see what ideas make their way past the rhetoric and onto paper. Then we can decide if we’re all united in opposing them. This is, I believe, the point pwrserge was making.

        6. avatar Biatec says:

          I get his point. My point is he has already been proven to be anti gun, anti constitution and will destroy lives and businesses to get what he wants. It’s always 4d chess though. What about all the businesses with bumpstocks? even if it gets overturned. I don’t think it will it’s still done damage.

          Fix nics?
          privacy?
          I’m sure there is more I just can’t think of.

          People keep making excuses and I’m tired of it. I’m not saying he has done nothing good. I’m saying he is a net bad expanding government power still.

        7. avatar Biatec says:

          There is no form of it that could be good. it’s just degrees of bad.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          I already explained how it be good. By adding mandatory due process protections to existing state laws it will roll back some of the “wins” that the gun grabbers got over the past decade or so.

        9. avatar Biatec says:

          It is still not good I already explained that. Laws that add restrictions on people but do not stop violent people are bad. Doesn’t matter if they use due process it’s better but it’s not good.

        10. avatar B.D. says:

          pwrserge: It will never be good. It’s an infringement, and the most successful one so far in history. You keep given them inches and now they take miles. What is to stop them from overreaching here? Your trust for our government to have the best intentions with these red flag laws is alarming to say the least.

        11. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Serge, Haz,
          When have we ever gotten anything good or anything we wanted out of a gun control law? When have we ever successfully traded losing rights for getting other rights back?

          I don’t think we need to wait for the bill to know it will be bad.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          @The Crimson Pirate

          FOPA… One bad turn… (MG Ban) for a lot of benefits.

    4. avatar Wiregrass says:

      It would take someone the likes of Ted Cruz to draft it, and the Democrats would never accept that.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Which may be the point.

        1. avatar billy-bob says:

          It’d be one of those bills you “have to pass to see what’s in it” rammed through on Christmas eve.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          [X] Doubt

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        There is a reason Mike Lee didn’t step forward to draft it instead of Cruz,because a work around of the fourth & sixth amendments remains un Constitutional.

    5. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

      “Until we see the bill, we can’t say one way or the other…”

      It will start out sounding ‘reasonable’, say, immediate family only.

      But before long, the list of who can accuse you *grows* vastly larger, until it becomes anyone who has had any contact with you on a personal, or worse, internet level.

      Leftist scum will expend every effort to grow it into as large a malignant cancer as possible, until it becomes something a gun owner will not dare disagree with someone Leftist, since they can use that as grounds to seize weapons…

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Agreed 100%. This is an elevator to the top of the infringements on our rights. The stairs are no longer needed.

    6. avatar frank speak says:

      “due process” is going to be the first casualty in the implementation of these horrific laws…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You have a crystal ball you’re not sharing? Because I’d love to see the text of the bill before I make blanket statements and sound like an ass.

        1. avatar route66paul says:

          There is no due process in Ca with the red flag laws – I think all of the state red flag laws bypass due process, some allowing you your day in court after the fact.

    7. avatar LifeSavor says:

      I would add treble damages for an accuser filing a false report.

      That being said, I am opposed to Red Flag laws and will call and send letters (on actual paper) to fight this. “No crime committed, but you need a lawyer now because someone complained about you”. You can bet we will end up in a database with an asterisk near our names. Our carry insurance premiums will go up to cover this risk, our families will be stressed.

      We have to fight this, loudly, stridently, over the long term

    8. avatar Ing says:

      “…a mandatory hearing with legal counsel before anything is taken” already exists. It’s mandated in the Bill of Rights.

      The Red Flag laws specifically exist to REMOVE that requirement.

      That’s their entire purpose: to get rid of the inconvenient civil right that requires Americans to be *proven* guilty before the gov’t can take away something we have the right to own.

      I also like a lot of the things Trump is doing…but that doesn’t give him a free pass to also do stupid things. And the push for “red flag” confiscation is a very stupid, harmful thing.

      Just imagine what the “progressive” control/left — and sooner or later we will have an one of them in the White House — would do with a national law like that. The thought should terrify you.

    9. avatar Joe says:

      If these anti-gun idiots are going to force Red Flag laws down people’s throats, it should include a codicil that stipulates no anonymity. Therefore, if the ex-wife decides she wants to “Red Flag” her ex-husband for revenge, her name, address, and telephone number should be on the Red Flag order. So then that way, when it is found that her ex was, in fact, innocent, either he (or his survivors, if the ex ends up dead due to the encounter with the SWAT Team) can sue the hell out of her for damages, and her be sent to jail. Red Flag laws are nothing more than an end-run around the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and if we lose our rights, so should the jack a** who thinks it is funny to Red Flag someone.

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        The gun grabbers didn’t get their “No-fly List”, so this is Plan B.

    10. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Pwrsrge, LE has been able to confiscate firearms subsequent to service of injunction of protection for domestic violence for decades. Thank you, Slick Willie. Confiscation subsequent to a BA-52 (Baker Act) has been around forever. However, a BA-52 required statements from the individual to my ear. All others required a hearing in front of a judge for an order of ex parte. These red flag laws appear to want to circumvent all of the above. Including officer discretion. Fuck that!

    11. avatar There is a storm coming says:

      Yeah, what I remember, “You have to pass the bill to know what is in the bill.” By the time you are ready to complain, you have already lost your rights.

    12. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Compromise is a core Leftist Democrat strategy. Their idea of compromise is simple. We can’t expect to get everything we want this year. It is simply unrealistic and would make us to appear to be unreasonable. So they make proposals, negotiate some concessions and come away with some of what they wanted. Then next year, they come back for more. For the Democrats compromise simply means you don’t get everything you want this year.

    13. avatar SGT Preston says:

      The basic issue is this: the 2nd Amendment says that the right “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. To me, that means the government is NOT allowed to take weapons unless the owner has already been found guilty of a crime. Just thinking someone might become a danger, does not qualify as adequate cause to confiscate firearms.

  3. avatar B.D. says:

    Tyranny.

    Fuck this tyrant Orange motherfuker.

    Come and take them.

  4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Well said, Dan. And thank you. The more that is said about the evil of confiscatory gun-laws the better off we all are.

  5. avatar MDH says:

    It means SUE!!!

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “What Does Red Flag Law ‘Rapid Due Process’ Mean?”

    Confiscate first, legal nice stuff later.

    Rapid due process is that which occurs prior to the confiscation order being issued: complaint, request warrant forthwith from judge, serve warrant immediately; 48hrs max. Recovering firearms is just legal minutia.

  7. avatar Andrew Lia says:

    One further step towards social credit scores.

  8. avatar Jim Jones says:

    Thinking around this in relation to the current Baker Act law. Currently you can be held for I believe 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation if the police or others think you are a danger. Being held against your will….locked away…is basically the same thing as these red flag laws You are being denied a basic right without being convicted of anything or being offered a hearing first. Wondering if the constitutionality if the Baker Act has ever been challenged. Would be interesting as if that was held up to be fine then these Red Flag laws would be. Now I’m not agreeing with them. Really either of them. Dues process is the corner stone of our society. But there are obviously not insane people in society and what to do with them has always been tricky. We used to lock them away in hospitals and threw away the key. This was hideously abused. Don’t know the answer here. Maybe it’s just something a free society has to endure.

  9. avatar BobS says:

    As a systems engineer, I would observe this illustrates the difference between designing for “failsafe” to mean “fail open” or “fail closed.”

    When your neighborhood loses power, do you want to be able to open the garage door, or not? When government processes fail, would you rather the wrong people have their guns (Parkland), or would you rather the right people not have their guns (Katrina)?

    1. avatar Political gristle says:

      We should ALWAYS er on the side of liberty.
      Bad guy with gun with disarmed person = victim, fear, tyranny.
      Bad guy with gun/ good guy with gun = freedom, safety, liberty.
      It’s the price of living in a Constitutional republic.
      If you don’t like it maybe you’d feel safe night canada., Eh?
      I say you, but I mean people in general.

      1. avatar Gris Benson says:

        (It’s the price of living in a Constitutional republic.)

        Who the F**K are you to determine what the ‘price’ of my liberty is or isn’t ?
        It is one thing to lose your liberty to a government entity. It is completely different to lose your liberties to a citizen of equal status. This is murder. This is what is going on in America; not fascist take-overs, not martial law. Unjustified Murder.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is murder. This is what is going on in America; not fascist take-overs, not martial law. Unjustified Murder.”

          Your point being?

        2. avatar Leftists are liars says:

          Hey “Gris”, when is “murder” justified? Never! That was an ass hat statement. You can fight the individual lunatics in a free and ARMED society, that is what our ancestors have always done. You will not fight an all powerful government where leftists dictate how you will live, where you will live, and what you will think or they MURDER you. THAT is UNJUSTIFIED my friend!

        3. avatar Leftists are liars says:

          Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

          Frankly I will protect my freedom more than any worthless coward who would say something so f*cked as you have said Gris.

          “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams AMEN!

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          It is now been revealed that the mother of the shooter contacted the local PD, and voiced her concerns about her son’s maturity and the dangerous weapon he had recently purchased. She reported her concerns directly to the local PD, who told her it was legal for him to own that weapon and there was nothing they could do about it.

          Question for opponents of Red flag laws:

          If your loved one was one of the ones killed by this individual, do you believe you would have a cause of action against the police department for negligence?

          If your daughter, sister, wife or mother was shot by the shooter, would you sue the PD or would you just say “that’s the price of liberty!”?

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If your loved one was one of the ones killed by this individual, do you believe you would have a cause of action against the police department for negligence?”

          No.

          “…would you sue the PD or would you just say “that’s the price of liberty!” ”

          No; neither. PDs have no duty to protect, period. I would blame the idiot shooter and the twisted society created for and by him/her/it. There is evil in this world, and no PD, social worker, or politician can stop it. But not being completely logical about the scenario you posit, if the shooter lived, I would gladly put a bullet behind each knee, if allowed, and tell the shooter, “That’s the price you pay for living in a free society.”

    2. avatar Gregg says:

      You’re assuming gun control, even in a limited targeted fashion, is effective in preventing terrible acts
      It isn’t…

      1. avatar ... says:

        “You’re assuming gun control, even in a limited targeted fashion, is effective in preventing terrible acts
        It isn’t…”

        Since the NFA of 1934, there hasn’t been very many mass murders involving machine guns.

        1. avatar There is a storm coming says:

          Really? Outside of a few gangsters killing each other during prohibition WHEN exactly were there any actual “mass murders” committed with machine guns?

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      sounds like someone who has never manually opened a garage door…with all the symbolism that entails…

  10. I’m ready to set sail eith next batch of programs to find the next Americans. One that won’t be FΩ©£ up by Goverment Bureaucrats, SJWs, and the Feelz Mob!

    1. avatar Gonzo The Clown says:

      Throw on your purple active wear and white Nike shoes AAron, The comet is on its way. It’s Coolaid time!

  11. avatar Grumpster says:

    So if someone is really a serious threat to someone else then why just take his guns away? If some suicidal sociopath wants to shoot up a school, Walmart, or workplace does anyone really believe taking away guns “found” in his possession will make everything good? There has been already a case where the killer murdered his mother in cold blood to get her rifle. Red Flag laws are just another stupid law that will fail on the list of the progressives tools to harass gun owners as they slowly move to their goal of a total ban of firearm ownership for us subjects as one stupid idea law after the other fails and mass shootings continued to be blamed on the gun.

    1. avatar John Bryan says:

      The worst incident of violence against school children and staff happened in the 1920s in rural Michigan – crazy, disgruntled school board member killed 45 people with bombs. He did use a rifle to detonate the final bomb in his truck that took him and the principal out but the rest of the carnage was gun-free. So taking someone’s firearms will just push them towards yet another violent “solution” to whatever imaginary problems their addled brain has created.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        Careful there.
        Could get reloading “red flagged”.
        Some gun powder and some plastic tubing and some “for entertainment only” toy cannon fuse.
        BTW. Anyone here see the quality of some of the underground firearms being found in Brazil?

  12. avatar MGD says:

    I have an anti gun friend who is all for this despite my telling her what amendments are being violated. I changed her mind so fast, her head nearly visibly spun off her shoulders. Here’s how I explained it to her:

    I explained that where she and I both live, firearms aren’t registered nor are they required to be. That means the government doesn’t (shouldn’t) know what you have or don’t have. I asked her if she’d ever heard of “swatting”. She had. I told her it was the same principle. I could get angry with her and call the police telling them that she is acting crazy and has guns in the house. I told her she could expect a no knock raid likely in the middle of the night, she and her entire family would be put in handcuffs and held at gunpoint, and any resistance could be met with deadly force as they’ve been told a crazy person has guns and is going to use them in a nefarious manner. I told her that the police would ask her where her guns were and she would tell them that she doesn’t believe in owning them. I told her that it wouldn’t matter to the police who would then turn her house upside to find them because they’ve been told a crazy person has guns and is going to use them in a nefarious manner. I asked her if she still thought it was a good idea. Her answer: Hell no!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Bravo !

      Appropriating this one today.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Standing ovation!!!

    3. avatar grumpster says:

      Awsome LOL. I have already mentioned this to a couple of non gun owners who think these red flag laws are a great idea and they are like “what do you mean, I don’t own any guns”. I mentioned that the government has no idea if you own guns or not but they will assume you do if someone reports you as a threat to them or yourself and you will get an unannounced SWAT team visit, but I am sure you understand it is all for the good.

    4. I think it was last year when some guy was killed by cops, due to a phony “swatting” episode. Turned out, that the guy who was killed had been online gaming with this guy in another state; who got pissed off at him because the other guy beat him or ridiculed his abilities, or whatever.

      Anyway, the cops showed up, and when the guy answered the door, he was shot and killed, without a chance to even question why the cops were there. Some trigger-happy cop took him out. I think maybe he had a cell phone in his hand when he came to the door, maybe not. Irregardless, it just shows one of the possibilities of what could happen if these Red Flag Laws are enacted.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Directly rounding up firearms door to door is too risky. This way the law can ruin the enemies and scare plenty of people. Guns being taken isn’t the primary goal here.

    1. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

      The lefties are too frightened to do that, since other than that idiot Swalwell, they understand the realities of 4th gen warfare.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Naw, Swalwell wouldn’t be the one doing door to door. If you tell him he has to lead the crash team, he’ll wet his pants and call in sick for the day. Leftists love to tell us all what to do, if someone else will be left with the responsibility of dealing with the person who says “hell no”.

  14. avatar RGP says:

    “Rapid due process” merely means that anybody falsely accused will be given a fair trial and immediately hanged without possibility of appeal. Oopsies, forgot, they’re skipping the “fair trial” aspect of the procedure.

  15. avatar Jason says:

    Let’s see…

    If we use the Washington Post data:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?noredirect=on

    Since 1966, there have been 1,196 people killed in mass shootings. So that’s 1,196 divided by the US population of 328,915,700 gives us 0.000364%. Of course the percent is really much smaller as the 328,915,700 number is the current population, not everyone that has ever lived since 1966.

    So by all means, let’s subvert our foundational principles and come up with a new set of emergency invasive criminal laws to address this “out of control” problem.

  16. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    If I got to write the definition of “Rapid Due Process” it would mean no ex parte, and anyone attempting to abuse the system would be arrested at the hearing with arraignment within 72 hours and no bail before arraignment. First time conviction would be 90 days in jail and be a misdemeanor, second and subsequent convictions would be one year and a day in jail as a felony. Put teeth in attempts to abuse the process and that would prevent abuse and keep lawyers from using it as part of their regular divorce process like they do with protection orders (which need similar deterrents).

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Agreed. I’d also point out that setting such standards for “Red Flag” orders gives a good lawyer a case for arguing that ALL TROs should have those protections.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Say it!!
      But even that may not be sufficient protection. Lots of judges out there who hate guns, gun people, and gun people’s dogs.

  17. avatar John Bryan says:

    As much as this whole topic is cringe worthy – monkeying around with seizing people’s property without some kind of hearing with an ironclad appeals process built in based on what sounds like unsubstantiated hearsay is NOT a trivial thing to advocate. I’m thinking these red flag “laws” would make any one, right, left, or center, who truly thinks maintaining our Constitutional guarantees is paramount very uncomfortable.

    If this is really an “epidemic” of gun violence we’re experiencing (it’s not) would the proponents of RFL/ERPO laws be willing to accept this compromise: if you are the person making the claim that someone is a threat, are you willing to pay for a 24 hour police monitoring presence while the supposedly dangerous person is evaluated? If they turn out to be homicidal maniacs then the state can reimburse you, heck give you a medal on top of the refund – if not, well then the fine for a false claim is built in and the “accused” gets the benefit of a free mental health screening…

    1. Trouble is I can see this headline clearly in some future newspaper.
      “President Kamala Harris today signed an executive order declaring all NRA members terrorists and is invoking the nation’s Red Flag Law statute to protect the children”
      Also included are military veterans, GOA members, FPC members and anyone who is or has been a member of a gun club or shooting range facility.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        “All gun owners are bad guys…or potential bad guys”….now they’re actually saying it instead of just thinking it…

  18. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Politicians refer to law-abiding, gun-owning Americans as “domestic security threats,” yet want you to trust them with implementing such a system. I’m talking about red flag laws and the risk they pose to due process.

    Not No but Eff No.Not Trump,the Commicrats or unknown leftist’s,think our deep state,that tried to take a duly elected president down. The founders installed a system of checks and balances for a reason and yet thru inattention we have allowed our fourth amendment to be ripped to shreds and no matter who proposes it Red Flag is a giant tear in the fourth .

  19. avatar Billy Bob says:

    Best one I’ve heard is, ” How many rapes do you need to hear about before you finally agree to cut off your d/ck?”

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    They already have “red flag” bs on the books in ILLinois. Not a lot is happening with it in this broke azz er bankrupt state. Just don’t have a lyin’ ex,an evil neighbor, a crazy relative or a disgruntled co-worker😫

  21. Here’s what’s wrong with ERPO or so-called Red Flag Laws.
    “Standing the Coffin on it’s Head”

    http://realitybytesblog.com/standing-the-coffin-on-its-head/

  22. avatar Reno1947 says:

    Get ready for it , blood will run.if the cops kill enough of these citizens I think then these same cops will be hunted down

  23. avatar Mercutio says:

    Well, I can see one positive effect. Since the All Powerful (Judge)’s decision to confiscate your guns will probably be at least partially based on an “analysis” by some shrink type (and there’s a reasonable and normal bunch of people!) and they will probably rely on your postings to Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc to make their professional and no doubt 100% accurate assessment of your danger to society, since they need to do this quick like a bunny (and they’ll be too scared to see you in person), any rational person will stop writing anything on those sites… of course if they were rational, they wouldn’t be there in the first place.

    OTOH, they’ll probably look at gunfolk sites like this too, which will be a clue for me to share my recipe for oatmeal raisin cookies here rather than my opinions.

    (yes, a very long lead-in)

    1. avatar Enuf says:

      Almost Lindy’s Cheesecake
      https://recipeland.com/recipe/v/almost-lindys-cheesecake-27724
      http://www.wiveswithknives.net/2015/05/18/lindys-famous-cheesecake/

      That’s my favorite right there. Been using that recipe for cheesecake for many years. Sometimes I make the crust out of a nut flour like pecans (Trader Joes!) and a dark chocolate as a binder. Then place dried berries (whatever I can get, on the crust before adding the batter.

      It ain’t easy arguing polyticks, so you may as well start with happy taste buds before flapping yer gums over some emotional hot button issue!

      Besides, I like pie!
      (and cheesecake too)

      1. avatar Mercutio says:

        Bless you, Enuf

        1. avatar daveinwyo says:

          @ Enuf. Can you use cranberries? I love cranberry muffins.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          I am not a professional pastry chef or even an amateur, I just love me a good cheesecake and I tend to go off-script on chocolate and anything yummy that pops into my head.

          But I see no reason why you cannot use your favorite berry. Give it go, see if it works for you.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Since the All Powerful (Judge)’s decision to confiscate your guns will probably be at least partially based on an “analysis” by some shrink type”

      Nope. Takes too much time. Judge will accept police statement that the situation exists, then issue the warrant.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        They will phone the judge and get an email back. That quick. This way no one can tip the target off.

  24. avatar Enuf says:

    We need these “Red Flag” and “Orders of Protection” laws to be written by top lawyers for our side. Not fighting against them, writing them with the protections our smartest legislative legal beagles can think of.

    Instead we fight against them. Which only helps to insure that the clamor for the destruction of our rights will continue to be constantly refueled by mourderous outrage upon murderous outrage. This is how we will lose, by making everything a head-on, absolutist, purity tested battle to the political death.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We need these “Red Flag” and “Orders of Protection” laws to be written by top lawyers for our side.”

      Which is the single-point failure of such an idea. Ain’t gonna happen. The wackos on the other side will not permit it.

      Not even sure I want a lawyer working for me who says, “You are going to have to give up something to be considered right-thinking. Here, let me help make it not so bad.”

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Enuf is like a textbook example of controlled opposition.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Incorrect. I’m an engineer by training and natural disposition. I see us failing, maintaining the same practices that generate the threat to us in the first place, and I look for a way out of this insane cycle.

        None of us wants crazy murderous motherfuckers to have guns or to use them. And yet all we do is claim that shooting back is sufficient. I mean it boils down to that.

        Well, sure, shooting back is essential but that will not save our right to shoot back. What will save that right is preventing the attacks in the first place.

        The anti-gun side thinks that guns cause all this misery. We know better, we know it is human action.

        How come we refuse to work on the real root cause of the problem? Detecting murderous fuckwits and preventing them from acting out? Thus taking the pressure off our Second Amendment, our natural right of self defense?

        We’ve seen a lot of gains for our side in the last decade or so. But it is temporary as long as pressure and sentiment continues to grow in the other direction. Either we wise up and promote approaches to prevent attacks or we eventually lose.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

          “How come we refuse to work on the real root cause of the problem? Detecting murderous fuckwits and preventing them from acting out?”

          The only effective solution is warehousing them away in a mental institution.

          Have we forgotten who it was that eliminated that option? It was the Leftists who successfully shut those institutions down and dumped the nut-jobs out on the street in the 60s or 70s.

          We need to seriously ‘open the conversation’ (that Leftists love so much) about re-opening them to remove them from society.

          The Leftists will gasp in horror at the prospect and *never* let that happen. “What about their rights?” they will scream.

          We need to seriously push this idea. The next time a nutjob kid who had all the warning signs slaughters a bunch of people, we can turn around and say “We offered you a proposal to remove them from society, and you refused. That’s the price society will pay to preserve their precious ‘rights’. People will die. The blood is on your hands, Leftists…”

          Let’s push to re-open the asylums…

        2. avatar Dennis says:

          The dirty little secret, glad someone finally brought it up. Yes, in the 50’s-70’s people who were judged to be unacceptable to be among the rest of us were institutionalized and treated till such time they could function in society. I remember the day the gov in my little state decided to do away with this practice and release them to the streets, almost immediately homelessness and all the associated crimes started to go through the roof. I forget how it was explained away, but I know it was’nt because “we restored the civil rights of these poor people”! Sound familiar?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How come we refuse to work on the real root cause of the problem? ”

          Because the solution keeps being denial of constitutional rights without trial. Which other constitutionally protected rights should we sacrifice because someone is possibly going to do something bad, like say unpleasant things? Or refuse to testify against themselves?

        4. avatar enuf says:

          Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR –

          We are mostly in agreement but it was not simply the liberals who tore down the mental health system in this country. The conservatives saw the financial “savings”, it did become a bipartisan act of grand stupidity.

          Not that there weren’t terrible abuses, that problem was very real. But what was done was to tear it down and then pretend the problem of crazy people was solved.

          This is one I have a personal view on because my mother was an RN in those years, working in a variety of places. Including the state asylum. She predicted these troubles. Not specifically the mass shooters, but I recall her saying that all this reform was leaving mentally ill people undiscovered, untreated and with no place to go. She saw it mostly being bad for the mentally ill as few are violent and many make easy victims themselves. Even so, I recall very clearly her worrying that the violent crazies would be out there hurting and killing people.

          It is so long ago that few today are even aware that people like the Dayton shooter and the Tucson shooter and many others used to be discovered and committed to asylums and sanitariums early. They did not have a chance to turn into mass murderers.

          This is why we think we have more of them today. Because we got rid of the laws, the funding and the places to put them 30 to 60 years ago.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They did not have a chance to turn into mass murderers.”

          Please take note that the same people who told us having violent crazies on the streets was the price society paid for honoring individual rights, but having firearms to protect ourselves (at the risk of crazies shooting public) it too great a price to pay to defend against the crazies with guns.

  25. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    Do red flag laws remove access to gasoline ?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    Do they prevent BG from accessing a car or truck ?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

    Do they remove all sharp pointy things from BG ?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      Sort of. When is the last time you saw a metal gas can at wally’s world?
      Even 5 gal jeep cans are plastic now.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        Saw metal ones at Rural King when I was in a few weeks ago. They’re still out there.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      Or prevent you from purposefully crashing a plane you are piloting killing all 150 people on board?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

    3. avatar enuf says:

      Yes, when we detect would-be killers and the laws enable an intervention, attacks are prevented. Happens quietly in school districts all around the country. But no news media is going to give that sort of thing more than the rare mention, there’s no money if there’s no blood.

      We should be writing these laws to address the faults we see in them.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    I was shocked — SHOCKED — to discover that a person can be arrested and held in jail for a period of time without being found guilty of anything! It’s the worst kind of guilty-until-proven-innocent legal bizarro world.

    People should be entitled to a trial before they can be arrested and detained. It’s not fai to deprive anyone of their liberty otherwise. Because, after all, people may get their guns back, but they will never get their time in jail back.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      those attempting to implement these measures are seeking a world in which we’ll all be encouraged to inform on each other…for any manner of things….

      1. avatar Enuf says:

        If you see something, say something.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Ugh. I actually saw a new poster from our lovely local Sheriff station outside our mall, greeting you with its “see something, say something” mantra.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… people keep forgetting that “Red Flag” orders aren’t really materially different from shit that already exists. They are just upset because…

      1. They get to rail against Trump like good little sock puppets.
      2. They might get the same treatment that innocent men have been getting for decades from the feminazis.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        Yep. Child “protective” service is a good example.
        Been used for decades.
        No evidence required.
        It’s for the children.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        That doesn’t make any of this better. It makes it far worse.

        And you’re willing to bet that the “red flag” scheme, which is expressly designed along the same lines, will be any different?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m not much for betting. Depends who writes it and how. It could roll back some of the abuses of TROs by removing ex parte orders.

  27. avatar Dennis says:

    What does it mean!? Like every other official sounding catch phrase libs concoct, absolutely nothing!

  28. avatar Political gristle says:

    Well, say bye-bye to ar- style pistols.
    The police chief in ohio is pissing and whining about un regulated rifle caliber pistols.
    It’ll be a matter of days untill the Bolshevik media pick it up and hammer it into oblivian.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Let’s make them scientifically prove that an SBR or AR pistol is more lethal than the same caliber with a standard stock and a 16 in. barrel.

      That should be our demand for all of the Dems proposals.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        The battle cry won’t be lethality (except — “vastly more lethal than normal handguns”) it will be “concealability.”

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      It’s all emotion. No science. Entire classes of guns will be removed until we are left with single shot guns and the authorities have full auto guns, vests and armored vehicles.

      Just like you see on TV in other countries.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Except that in this case, there are too many in citizens’ hands. They would now meet the threshold of being
        “in common use” due to the fact that they’re not accessories such as a bump stock, but actual completed products offered by multiple manufacturers.

  29. avatar Mad Max says:

    I don’t have a problem with red flag laws as long as the standard of evidence is high, the burden of proof is on the State, and making false accusations to authorities against the firearms owner is a 1st Degree Federal felony and the false accuser is liable, in treble, for all costs incurred by all parties (including the State) in addition to incarceration.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      If whatever the person did is a crime, arrest them for it. If what they did is not a crime, then it is no basis for depriving someone of their second amendment rights.

  30. avatar Gideon Rockwell says:

    Red Flag Laws are backdoor gun confiscation for the left. At least one innocent man who was a victim of Red Flag Swatting has been killed by police because he would not give up his personal firearms for no reason. They won’t reveal the reporters names to the gunowners, so that means snowflakes can wholesale have a field day swatting innocent gunowners. How many will die. Wii it be like during the planning phase of Gun Walker, when the question was posed about the possibility of law officer and innocents being killed with the guns. One of the architects of Gun Walker coolly replied “Oh well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.” In case you forgot Gun Walker was the Obama Administration scam to put American Guns in the Mexican Cartels hands to speedup calls for gun control. Anyone who supports Red Flag Laws is against the Bill of Rights. To pass it will realize the snowflakes wildest dreams of eliminating middle age white males. They’ll use the police.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” snowflakes can wholesale have a field day swatting innocent gunowners ”

      And gunowners can have a field day swatting snowflakes. How long do you think these laws will stand up when some swank digs in Brentwood or the Upper East Side start getting tossed based on anonymous tips?

      I can just picture Babs Streisand’s face when her house gets tossed…

  31. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    Red Flag orders are going to be common place in divorces….because when you’re going through a divorce no-one become petty and vindictive.

    1. avatar Dennis says:

      How many disgruntled neighbors are salivating about this!? I know a couple who can’t wait!

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Red Flag orders are going to be common place in divorces”

        They already are. Courts give out protective orders like they were lollipops.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Exactly. I know because I had to fight one. She tried to take my 2nd away from me but lucky the judge was not an idiot, and all her shit was fabricated beyond belief with only texts about custody on her side. But that is the main reason why I disagree with these infringements. I have seen it first hand. Being served and treated like a criminal just because one person reported you in these contexts, is unacceptable. You will lose time, money, and not to mention the nerve racking feeling of losing your case. My attorney was good, but expensive. Most people cannot afford attorneys, which is why it seems like one party is favored. Without legal representation you could easily lose these cases. Also, once served with papers, is that supposed to stop someone? Or anger them even more? Because I was fucken angry. It took every ounce of self restraint I had. Everyone but the person who filed (my ex) felt the steam seeping from my pores during the “waiting period” and I could not sleep or eat right. But these idiots thinking that presenting someone with papers stating they are a threat because so and so reported them and they should have their guns taken away? Get real. You wanna push someone to the edge, I dare you to red flag them. How safe do you really feel with a paper as protection? It’s just stupid, and asking to push these people over the edge. Very risky, especially for the law enforcement agencies who have to deal with them. Most people in a divorce or any kind of TRO know they are coming already…. but these? Good luck petitioners. Maybe they don’t realize their names will be on the paperwork too… or that they will have to be there in court through it all as well. Maybe they just think someone will protect them. How naive.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      When I lived in MA, this was the norm and not the exception. The future ex-wife would file a restraining order in order to screw the guy. It removed access to his children, and also he had a short period of time to get rid of his guns. Often they had to go transfer the guns at a gun store to a buddy because universal background checks! They are all features of the law, there are no bugs.

  32. avatar Manny A says:

    With an election looming in the near future, saying that we need to tie red flag laws with immigration reform and mental health considerations is the perfect thing to say , knowing none of it will get done. Smart move by Trump.

  33. avatar TFred says:

    Lurking in the shadow of all the blatantly unconstitutional process violations, here is another aspect that is often overlooked.

    The total immunity granted to the government agents. As is typical of these kinds of laws, here is an example from one of the bills, HB4031, recently submitted for the “special (gun grabbing) session” in Virginia:

    “B. Any law-enforcement agency or law-enforcement officer that takes into custody, stores, possesses, or transports a firearm pursuant to a warrant issued pursuant to § 19.2-152.13 shall be immune from civil or criminal liability for any damage to or deterioration, loss, or theft of such firearm.”

    Let me translate that for you. The officer could show up, take your guns, walk them out and lay them down on the street, wave his hand for a steam roller to come over and crush them right in your plain sight while you watch, and you would have absolutely no recourse or claim to recover (the value of) your personal property whatsoever.

    This is the level of depravity to which these folks have fallen.

    1. avatar Alan says:

      Depravity strikes me as an overly kind description. For purposes of remaining within the bounds of polite conversation, I will stop with the above.

  34. avatar Alan says:

    Leave BASIC CIVIL And CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in the hands of BUREAUCRATS? You absolutely have got to be kidding. I would not entrust the setting and winding of a $10.00 Timex wrist watch to bureaucrats.

  35. avatar Alternator says:

    Read “rapid anal rape.”

  36. avatar Redd Fox says:

    Moral to the story: don’t abuse your wife and kids and never threaten to shoot anyone. To those that do … there’s a red flag with your name on it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Moral to the story: don’t abuse your wife and kids and never threaten to shoot anyone. ”

      Moral of the story…..if anyone says you abuse your wife and kids, you will have police at your door.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        And that “anyone says you abuse your wife and kids” that does so falsely should be found guilty of a 1st class Federal felony, incarcerated, and required to pay treble damages to both the State and the wrongfully accused.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And that “anyone says you abuse your wife and kids” that does so falsely should be found guilty of a 1st class Federal felony,…”

          Not disagreeing, but your commentary indicated that not beating your wife and children would shield you from problems with red flag laws. My note simply pointed out that you, me, we, us are subject to attack, regardless of what we do not do.

        2. avatar Every woman is a liar? says:

          So let’s see the statistics. How many red flag orders have been handed out? Of those, how many were wrongly issued based on the testimony of someone with a vendetta?

          The NRA, GOA, or some other pro 2A organization is keeping track, right?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…how many were wrongly issued based on the testimony of someone with a vendetta?”

          How many are acceptable, given our constitution?

        4. avatar False rape claims says:

          How many are falsely accused of rape are acceptable? The answer is the same. Do you favor abolishing laws against rape? I doubt it.

    2. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

      Thanks for the reminder, comrade a-hole.

      If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about… 🙂

      1. avatar Been accused of beating your wife? says:

        You have as much to worry about false claims used in n the Red Flag laws as false claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, rape, etc. it does occasionally happen, but we’re much better with these laws than without.

        1. avatar There is a storm coming says:

          Yeah, isn’t it great until it is your asz in the hot seat because of a false accusation. Then you’ll have a change of heart about how great it is.

        2. avatar No rape laws, because false accusations! says:

          So you’re against rape laws because they have been abused by those with a vendetta?

  37. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    Sounds a lot like “common sense gun control” or as the new motto goes “f*cking do something”.

  38. avatar tdiinva says:

    If the person subject to the order is not allowed to be present in court with an attorney and not allowed to cross examine his accusers it is not due process. That is the very definition of a Star Chamber.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If the person subject to the order is not allowed to be present in court with an attorney and not allowed to cross examine his accusers it is not due process.”

      You do realize the process you decry is the exact process for arresting and charging a criminal suspect, right?

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        No it’s not. You can hold a suspect for 48 hours before charging him and bringing him for arraignment. At the arraignment he is represented by Counsel who can dispute both the charges and the State’s evidence. Unless the suspect is taken into custody at the scene of the alledged crime the State must show probable cause to be issued a warrant to search for evidence. Hearsay is not probable cause.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You misunderstand the process. First, police identify a suspect. Second, police go to a judge to get a warrant. This is ex parte. The judge signs the warrant, and the police serve it. The suspect is separated from his property for however long it is permitted before being brought be for arraignment. At arraignment, the suspect does not confront witnesses. Where, in the initial stages is the criminal procedure not the same as for a DPRO?

        2. avatar Troubled Soul says:

          The difference Sam, is that in the case of the accused suspect , a crime was committed.
          There has been no crime committed in case of Red Flag laws
          You are correct that the process is the same though

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There has been no crime committed in case of Red Flag laws”.

          We only have suspicion, not a conviction, that an individual committed a crime. But there is a “suspect”, which is my point. Ex parte hearings are not unusual, not a violation of law, or jurisprudence practiced here since the beginning. Treatment of “suspects” (someone accused, but not yet proven guilty) the same way regardless of the alleged infraction should be the order of the day. Thus, the same “due process” pre-trial.

          We have a weak argument about “due process”, when, in fact, the argument is the outrage of jailing someone because “maybe”, “might”, “could”. This is pre-trial punishment, period. There is no constitutional justification for pre-trial punishment (and being held indefinitely awaiting trial is also pre-trial punishment).

          At the heart of the matter is how to protect individuals, without robbing another individual of their natural, human and civil rights. Nothing new about that. Societies are composed of individuals, not the other way round. How to protect and prosper the society by protecting and prospering the individual. Age old question.

  39. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    Literally it’s bull. What it means is rhetorical cannonfodder for people who don’t believe in an individual RKBA and are into Trump for whatever reason to browbeat and deceive RKBA people into toeing the RNC political line.

    And yeah, I mean the RKBA people who could imagine not voting R every chance they get. The others don’t matter.

  40. avatar US says:

    Unfortunately no president for decades has been very friendly to the second amendment.

    That includes Reagan.

    Though Obama didn’t actually get much done regarding gun control, he would’ve signed any sort of gun control legislation that made it to his desk.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      So it seemed, but look at what he *did* not what he said. How do we know he wasn’t secretly pro-gun and playing 4D chess?

  41. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    There is already a process for this. It’s on the form 4473 everyone fills out when they buy a gun from a dealer. “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

    If you think someone shouldn’t own guns, try to get them adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. If you can’t meet that bar, then you have no business taking their guns.

  42. avatar strych9 says:

    Hrmmm.

    As written the current laws are highly problematic. I could envision a law that would be bothersome but not constitutionally repugnant and would “split the baby” in pretty much all regards.

    However, I’d rate the chances of the government managing to create such a law as hovering just above 0.00%. So, I’ll err on the side of opposing this until someone gives me a reason not to.

  43. avatar Chief Censor says:

    The Republicans seem all too happy to use these 3 mass shootings to pass gun control and other communist laws.

    Trump and his anti gun administration are colluding to use executive action to pass more gun control. Trump and his administration want to remind everyone that he is doing/done more gun control than Obama.

  44. avatar There is a storm coming says:

    Wow, a gazillion responses. Keep in mind these judges will have absolutely NO incentive to NOT issue a red-flag warrant and EVERY reason TO issue a red flag warrant. Why would any judge take the “risk” of not rounding up all guns from ANYONE who was put before them? They know if they decline one case, no matter how reasonable, if they make one “mistake” and not take the guns away and something bad happens they will be vilified. So, just issue the warrant, let the police deal with getting the guns and leave the saps to spend thousands of dollars proving they are not guilty and several thousand more to coerce the police into actually returning their firearms, if they somehow successfully prove they were wrongly accused. It costs the system nothing to persecute gun owners, it costs the accusers nothing as they can call fake calls on gun owners anonymously all day every day without the fear of facing the accused or being sued for false accusations. They will bury gun owners in repeated red flag accusations and warrants until they give up, either by bankruptcy, by fear, or they finally do lash out at after being repeatedly red-flagged (swatted) and thereby “prove” they were violent after all. Cost the anti gunners in and out of government absolutely nothing to reek such havoc on their law-abiding gun owning “enemies”. And gun owners are the enemies of the neofascist left wingers. That is the future, mark my words.

  45. avatar Chuck says:

    ERPO’s are going to have to be challenged at the SCOTUS level as to whether or not they’re Unconstitutional, and I don’t see that happening in the near future, so we could be waiting a year or more before there’s a decision that could go either way. It’s not just Due Process that’s kicked aside, but the ability to challenge your accuser in open court, and a few other basic procedural rights being denied. Innocent until proven Guilty is a cornerstone principle of our entire Judicial System, and removing that cornerstone is inviting a collapse of the system. What’s next? Arresting and charging all males 14 and older for possession of Rape Tools, and requiring them to place a surety bond upon their future illegal use of their willie? It might seem ludicrous, but this is the path we’re heading down if we continue with this principle idea of punishment before a crime can be committed, which is what ERPO’s really are.
    There’s very little documentation supporting ERPO’s as to their effectiveness at reducing crimes with firearms, other than the few States that already have similar legislation in place. California has had “Red Flag” laws in place since 2014, yet the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting still took place, so logically, there’s flaws in either the ERPO legislation they enacted or it failed in its intended purpose. I favor the latter, because everything else they’ve done in the past failed as well. UN-biased examination of the data collected so far in various States, shows less than a 10% reduction in suicides, but no corresponding drop in crime. Looking at those numbers, there isn’t a significant reduction to warrant or support the passing of ERPO Legislation at any level.
    Specific Gun Bans don’t work, nor Magazine Capacity Restrictions (Parkland proved that a 10 round magazine is just as deadly as a 30 round magazine). Anti-Gun Pundits like to throw out the Brady Era ban from 1994 to 2004 as being effective, but the reality of that legislation’s effects on crime was so minute as to be statistically insignificant. Usually one word silences that cry for a repeat and that’s “Columbine.”
    The root problem with ERPO’s, besides their obvious Unconstitutionality, is the reliance upon “reporting.” Receiving accurate and precise reports is not guaranteed to be uniform across all the various agencies between the population and the courts. Mandating that anything suspicious be reported is going to be a logistical nightmare at best, and more likely it’s going to generate accuracy of the report to be in single digits. I hate to use Parkland again, but it’s a classic example of not one, but two or more agencies neglectfully failing to report breaches of the peace and abberrant behaviours appropriately. The perp should have been flagged as a NO to Possess, years before his escalation, but a lot of officials screwed the pooch on that one.
    In reality we’ve learned some things, yet there’s still the cry for more useless (common sense) legislation. We know for a fact that Gun Free Zones are ineffective at best and culpable at worst. The GFSZA of 1994 was supposed to stop/reduce school shootings, yet the number of school shootings after the legislation was passed dwarves the numbef of school shootings prior to the ban. We know from the meandering rambles and manifestos of these sick A-Holes that they specifically picked a Gun Free Zone because unarmed victims don’t shoot back. Real “Common Sense” would say get rid of Gun Free Zones, but the Anti crowd will never say that.
    In the end, I think we may be looking at forced confiscations in the next few years. I hope I’m wrong, but the signs it’s coming down the pike are all there. That’s been the Left’s Goal since 1934.

  46. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Virtually anybody can initiate it. Politicians are not immune.

  47. avatar Leftists are liars says:

    Anyone who supports such ANTIconstitutional guilty-until-proven-innocent “laws” is a fascist. It is turning out legal system on its head and is typical of what you would see in any fascist-communist tyranny. Gulags are not far behind, once they have destroyed or murdered enough gun-owners.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Newsflash, many posters here are liars.

  48. avatar Public says:

    As a defense attorney, actually a public defender, I can tell you that “rapid” results in a f*ck job = absolutely no due process.

    My adversaries always want to speed things up because they know speed helps them win… the faster things happen, the less my clients can properly defend themselves.

    There will be no REAL due process at these hearings… there’s not much real due process in the criminal justice system already. A total farce.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      As I suspected, thanks

  49. avatar route66paul says:

    Why shouldn’t LE have to get a gun confiscation signed off by a judge? If it were a drug raid, they would get a judge – this is more of the feds trying to take over LE at the state level.
    I hoped that the supreme court would hear about red flag laws and that they would overturn them and(at least) require a judge or a mental health professional signing off on it.

  50. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

    Has no one actually read the Constitution and its very important Amendments? I know it is all written in cursive, yet I am a calligrapher as well, so I can actually read it. Let me help you without getting too technical, we all know everyone hates technical unless we are talking about video games. Red Flag laws violate the US Constitution. Our Constitution, for all who have read it, and I know it is long and boring to read, but some very important things were written into it, guarantees amongst many other things a right to due process, which is very explicitly defined several paragraphs after a comment about a guaranteed, “shall not be infringed,” regarding another right protected in the Constitution and which terminology is not used elsewhere in the Constitution in reference to anything else. https://pics.me.me/thumb_amy-72-lyn-everyone-wants-me-to-read-the-constitution-turning-point-60946931.png

  51. avatar grumpster says:

    Another danger of any red flag laws is that eventually it will be brought up that gun registration is necessary to make them effective. Otherwise they just have to trust the person who has a red flag complaint filed against what guns he owns to turn in or be satisfied that what they found during a search was complete. It will take just one high profile incident where someone murders people after his guns were supposedly confiscated.

  52. avatar SoBe says:

    P. S., wtf happened to the edit button again???
    Dan, please stop messing with us.

  53. avatar BruceT says:

    With a few exceptions, a lot of mass shooters could have been involuntarily committed under existing state laws. Most states have some form of “danger to self or others” commitment order.
    Often, mental health councilors/professionals take the path of least resistance. Also, hipaa adds another hurtle.

  54. avatar Jaque says:

    The political class are a lynch mob. They have the ropes and are now marching in the streets with torches and pitchforks. To hell with the constitution. Forget the criminals, the illegals, and the crimes of Hillary. Its the gun owners they want.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Molon Labe!

      It would be helpful if they would commit a direct attack like the British at Lexington & Concord on April 19th, 1775.

  55. avatar grumpster says:

    So it appears Dayton killer was antifa member. Time for them to be declared terrorist organization and put them all list not being allowed to possess firearms.

    https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-may-be-antifas-first-mass-killer/

  56. avatar Joseph Malone says:

    Anytime you rush due process you are railroading somebody. The definition of railroading is to ignore due process and rush to a premature decision. So they intend to railroad people thereby depriving them of due process then lie and say it was due process anyways. This is blatant abuse. This is clearly obstruction of justice. They are unfit for office and should be charged with crimes. I would look to see what arguments could be made in filing criminal charges against them.

  57. avatar TRacer says:

    Aside from the aforementioned problems, there are several fundamental truths that will render this type of law ineffective. 1. No one can predict who will become the next violent mass murderer. Psychiatrists can’t really figure out why people have done what they’ve already done, never mind what they will do next. 2. The knowledge that seeking medical treatment today for psychological problems can be used against you in the future will make it that much less likely that the people who need help the most will seek it. The law of unintended consequences will bite back hard on this.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The law of unintended consequences will bite back hard on this.”

      Anything that interferes with gun ownership is an intended consequence. Anything that improves the likelihood that more laws will be needed to interfere with gun owners is an intended consequence. The more likely a trouble person will refuse mental health treatment, and become a mass murderer, is an intended consequence. Laws that reduce the number of troubled persons would be a case of unintended consequences.

  58. avatar Philip Twiss says:

    “These two monsters were walking red flags with access to firearms and yet, with all of the laws available to adjudicate them “…

    No, no the reason they were not “adjudicated” was because THEY WERE NOT ADJUDICATED … Especially in Florida, The OBAMA administration had edicts from the Dept of Ed that stated in effect no punishment for problem children “no child left behind on steroids”… As such the single mom knew, the school knew, the POLICE knew many times over that the kid was a time bomb looking for a reason or no reason at all. But no one moved to adjudicate because of the OBAMA Dept of Ed edicts … There are all the laws needed now that remove the individual who is at risk from society… Its just the state / politicians do not want to do involuntary commitment. The left does not recognize insanity… The right does not want to pay for it…

    So they come up with this grand plan take away the weapons and leave the person at risk in place with no help if they truly are in need… Because everyone will be happy that we have a Red Flag law to take away the weapons… Never mind the fact they can be replaced in kind or with common everyday tools and implements. And the disturbed mind is still in a society at risk.

  59. avatar R Vincent Warde says:

    OK, let’s look outside our own 2A community and wake up. Something is going to get passed. We can oppose everything, or we can keep an open mind, and have as much input as possible into what gets passed.

    We should push for emergency mental health commitments and, perhaps making solo planning of an attack a crime. These should be the primary alternatives to red flag laws.

    BTW, we already effectively have what amounts to red flag laws in all 50 states. If you are the subject of an order of protection, you are a prohibited person and cops in many states will show up to take your guns. Most red flag laws have more protection for potential subjects that the laws governing orders of protection.

    One positive about red flag laws, for all their very real faults, is that they focus on individuals rather than gun bans that affect everyone.

    When it comes to red flag laws, I don’t think a total stop is possible – but we can definitely do a lot to prevent abuse:

    1) Due process. We must make sure that any red flag law has very robust due process protections. We can and should sell this as the best way to insure the law pass judicial review. If we fail, we should challenge the law on those very grounds. I am interested to see what this “rapid due process” turns out to be.

    2) Severe civil and criminal penalties for abuse. In California’s first year, 90% of orders were reversed as soon as the subject was able to present their case. This is good evidence of abuse. The judge should be able to order civil penalties at that time. Additionally there should be criminal penalties.

    3) Police agencies must be responsible for any damage to firearms in their care.

    4) There must be clear “black letter law” standards for issuing such orders.

    5) Those who can apply for such orders must be very limited. Ideally, only peace officers should be able to do so, but we probably will have to accept close family and domestic partners.

    I’m not saying that every gun rights group should given in on this. I am saying that one or two should sit down and help write the bill. Let the others oppose it. That way if it does pass, we will have had input that can greatly reduce the damage.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Something is going to get passed. We can oppose everything, or we can keep an open mind, and have as much input as possible into what gets passed.”

      I understand what you mean, but the sentence above is the whole NRA strategy for the last 50+ years.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email