red flag confiscation legal costs thousands
Previous Post
Next Post

If your guns are confiscated under a “red flag” order, not only will you have to prove a negative — that you’re not a danger to yourself or anyone else — in order to get your property back, but you’ll have to pay thousands…maybe tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

– Donald Kilmer in The enforcement problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Don’t most states have laws against making threats? I mean the red flag laws are BS, if you truly are a danger to self/others, the police and/or feds probably already have dirt on you and don’t care (something, something, Parkland kid, something, something).

    • Yes. That is exactly how TRO warrants are issued. These red flag laws are straight up tyranny. TBH… I even hope the murderous felons who get flagged go out in a firefight, just because of the red flag “law”. I think any tyrant who allows their agency to enforce such “laws” is a tyrant as well, and should be killed. Refresh that tree of liberty, starting with those who take the kings shillings to enforce the kings orders.

      Sad, but true. I hope the majority of cops understand that we are not willing to just lay down and let them do as they please. Because it will get them killed. Not for “honor” or “duty”… but for tyranny.

    • I came across an article about it on PJ Media…otherwise, crickets.

      Google gave this guy the full SWAT team treatment. For his own safety, of course. Just trust them. It will all be okay.

      • Project Veritas who broke the story has a followup:
        Clearly if you really pi$$ off Google they will do their best to turn you into a non-person. Fortunately he had already passed the information on to the US Department of Justice. No doubt they were hoping he would resist and the cops would shoot him. Because Google and YouTube are not unbiased, but are in fact publishers with an editorial position, we need federal regulation of them.

  2. Not a “privilege.” The “right” to bare arms. A privilege the government controls. A right is given by God and cannot be taken away by man. Get the verbiage and meaning correct and maybe we have a defense.
    Until then, mind your Ps and Qs!!!!!

        • The 2A guarantees the right to keep sleeveless blouses in your wardrobe and to wear them outside the home.

          There you go lefties; that’s my interpretation and it’s just as good as yours.

          Let’s see which interpretation SCOTUS is willing to uphold:
          – the “Standard Interpretation” accepted by most serious scholars;
          – the Progressive “Collective Rights” interpretation already rejected in Heller;
          – Mine

          • I would not trust SCOTUS any farther than I could throw them with regards to protecting our Second Amendment. There is vote-whichever-way-the-wind-blows Roberts: Certainly no one that a gun owner can count on. And who knows how Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will vote. Anymore, SCOTUS rules on what they think the Constitution and Bill of Rights should mean. They also seem to think they are god, and that once they make a ruling (even if it is unconstitutional), that their word is final. These nine judges seem to forget we have 3 branches of government, not just one. Add to that those Democrats who recently outright threatening SCOTUS members for voting pro-gun, makes me all-the-more-distrustful of everyone in that rat hole place we call “Washington D.C.”.

  3. It’s the end of innocent until proven guilty. But what all these anti gunners don’t realize is, the monster they’re creating is going to hurt them all just as bad as it hurts us, in the same way the guillotine killed it’s own creator. Acceptance of these laws for use against gun owners will begin to filter into the rest of society as well, when it comes to drugs, protests, speech, and affiliations. Behavioral Algorithms paired with sesame credit is the future.

    • It the laws are written to make “red flagging” someone easy enough, it wouldn’t surprise me to see it used by all manner of people to spite people they don’t like. Removing guns would be almost be secondary, the main point would be to inconvenience and damage someone’s reputation.

      This said, I assume and hope the penalty for abusing a Red Flag law would be similar to filing a false report with police, and that these things aren’t going to be enforced at the slightest whim. I guess we’ll find out.

      • After Parkland, states that passed red flag laws utilized the system hundreds of times.

        Police are now using red flag laws to immediately take guns out of a home when they show up for calls of domestic disturbance, drug/alcohol abuse or potential self harm. They are able to contact a judge for an immediate order to confiscate guns without having to leave the call. This power is what police departments have been calling for to keep the public safe.

        Currently 17 states and D.C. now have confiscation powers. Prior to the Parkland shooting there was 5 states. After Trump called for “take the guns first, due process second” 12 states passed their versions. Now the federal government wants the remaining states to pass their version to go along with the federal threat assessment act.

        Conspiracy theorists and indentitarian radicals are now considered, by the FBI, as potential domestic terrorists. Under this designation the FBI can monitor those people legally. They can poke people to see who reacts, then they can intensify their efforts to make an arrest. Once they have integration of threat dossiers and red flag laws, they can remove the guns first, then make an eventual arrest if they can find probable cause to do so.

        Essentially, we are moving to a Minority Report system of guilty until proven innocent and harmless. If you are untrustworthy you can’t have firearms, but if you are not a political danger you can roam freely in society. This is a bipartisan effort.

        • Its interesting to note this week police arrested and removed guns in 3 States including Florida and Ohio and I know for a fact Ohio has no red flag laws. Its just that now that the heat is on law enforcement they are finally getting off their lazy asses and monitoring the right wing nut cases that are on line bragging about how many people they are going to kill. Red Flag laws are only making it legal without the corresponding law suits that can come about without a red flag law. In reality the cops always could get anyone’s guns at anytime and for any reason they wanted to.

        • “Authorities this weekend announced they had foiled three potential mass shootings after arresting three men in different states who expressed interest in or threatened to carry them out.
          All three cases were brought to authorities’ attention thanks to tips from the public.”

        • Miner and Vlad… do you two share that double sided dildo often?

          I hope no one even acknowledges your posts other than to tell you both how idiotic you are. Not worth the effort, but it would still be funny to see people give you the finger either way.

    • Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin died in 1814, at home from an infection. This was 15 years after the end of the French Revolution.

  4. So if gun owner A secures their firearms off site because they believe that red flag laws are about to be weaponized against them and police show up and find no firearms and gun owner A refuses to give location of firearms what happenes?

    • Always leave a little so they find what they desire. Several lesser value firearms and ammo….even a low cost AR or two… a safe, with a couple “hidden ” elsewhere on the premises so they will easily find them and believe they even found your secret stash. Have your main arsenal spread over several places to spread the risk. (Don’t take your phone when visiting those places due to GPS tracking.) When the ERPo confiscations begin in earnest, Patriots will be taking back the country and will need the good stuff. I would not be surprised if suspected ERPO accusers and confiscation artists begin mysteriously dropping on the streets from long distances…..cue the PRS enthusiasts. Will give pause to someone contemplating filing the ERPO or executing it. Just wondering.

      • Would you trust your firearms in a storage facility? I’ve been contemplating on where to store my firearms.

        • Any place out of your immediate control is a risk. I’ve storage facilities hit where tensof doors are cut open just looking for high value items. As in investing, spread the risk to a sustainable level. Even in a safe at a discretionary location incurs some risk. Where there is intent, safes only keep out honest people. Having s strong safe is advisable. Having s strong safe that cannot be found is critical. Three friends have gone in together to purchase a “retired” bank specifically for the huge walk in vault…..the remaining area being a guys party central. Even banks get burglarized. We sold most of the safe deposit boxes off. Then packed high security safes into the vault minimizing access to the backs, sides and tops where gun safes are really very weak. Vault door is now hidden to view and casual access.

      • Modern vehicles also have GPS installed on them. You would have to use a car without a navigation system nor OnStar. You can’t use a ride service. You could leave all your tracking devices behind and ask someone for a ride but don’t tell them why.

        I doubt people will go that far.

        Remember anyone that hides and gives you access to your firearms is violating the law. They will be charged. They will lose their right to vote and own firearms.

        It’s even possible that everyone involved will be charged with conspiracy.

        • When it reaches this point, we will already be “criminals” and as such the laws will no longer matter….just as with criminals now. Only good guys obey laws.

    • Or the red flag law victim keeps a few firearms at home and the rest somewhere else. Unless he/she has registered all their firearms the police will have no idea how many firearms are owned. I see these stupid red flag laws as another reason why the progressives will claim all firearms must be registered with the federal government.

      We need to find a way to poison pill red flag laws. If they are expanded to motor vehicles and cell phones/cell phone service as examples so that the entire population is at risk of having a red flag violation I think we will quickly see major opposition to any red flag laws.

      • People already lose access to their vehicles if they are considered a danger due to continued drug abuse. People do not care about that and they are now used to Uber.

      • Keep an old vehicle around, no gps junk when you leave your phone at home, and they are simple and cheap to keep running.

    • If they can prove you currently do possess a firearm then you’re probably looking at an obstruction of justice charge. Like others have said, probably best to have a couple sacrificial lambs in your collection.

      Also, it might be tempting to just store a few firearms in your buddy’s safe, but if he gives them back to you he might be facing a felony charge. Best to keep it to yourself.

    • Obstruction, delaying an investigation, interference in official duties, prohibited possessor, disorderly conduct, etc.

      People whom give you access to firearms or hides your firearms can also be charged for providing firearms to a prohibited person.

      Once you are ordered to surrender your property you are put on the prohibited persons list and you lose your CCWs. You are treated as if you were convicted of a felony. You can’t have access to firearms and ammunition.

      Not sure if they will charge you federally or at the state level. Trump would love to prosecute you to the fullest extent possible, according to him.

    • “…and police show up and find no firearms and gun owner A refuses to give location of firearms what happenes?”

      Depends where you are. In some states, you are required to store your weapons where they are ‘registered’, your home, etc.

      Other areas, they are SOL, unless they get warrants to search other locations (your work, etc.)

    • And what about the people who don’t own enough to store anywhere? There are tons of people who may conceal everyday, but only own that gun. So I guess the answer to that would be: buy more guns and don’t register them? Anyway you look at it, they are making us all felons. They have made the second amendment a felony.

    • Good luck with that. In most cases you’ll end up spending ANOTHER wad of cash for almost NO return.

      In Florida we have a law that supposedly prohibits criminals or their families from suing if they are injured or killed in the commission of a crime. Judges here routinely allow lawsuits to go forward against the victims even though the law is clear and the criminals will eventually lose in the end. The ambulance chaser lawyers use the “process” to extort thousands of dollars from the victims to settle out of court or risk spending $40-60K in lawyers fees to defend yourself in court.
      You can TRY to recover your lawyer and court costs from the criminals but almost ALL of them are welfare queens to begin with and have NO assets to get.
      My solution would be to make the lawyers liable to cover my costs if they loose, knowing that their clients are just rolling the dice, at their encouragement, with no assets to lose.

      • I think that the person who has to defend their innocence, should be allowed to sue the hell out of the person or persons that Red Flagged them. Make these ERPO’s so that NO ONE can be anonymous. There should be real, serious consequences when one is allowed to Red Flag anyone they do not like. Which is what it will turn in to. Once the gun owner is found innocent, he/she should be able to sue the crap out of the one who “Red Flagged” them. I do not see where any left-wing, liberal, hate-America judge in this country is going to ever “allow” one who has been “Red Flagged” to ever recover what was stolen from them. I thought I read not too long ago of just such a case: Person was found innocent, and authorities refused to return the person’s confiscated firearms. But maybe someone can correct me on this one? In the end, “the powers that be” want to make it so damned expensive to prove your innocence, that you go bankrupt, and lose not only your firearms and Second Amendment, but your livelihood, as well.

        • The problem comes down to the “err on the side of caution” thinking. Under this most judges will sign a red flag order. The person making the complaint is never going to have to take responsibility for their actions. “I was afraid something would happen” being the excuse.
          Gary Willis was killed by the police serving a red flag order. Saturday night, as his niece said “family (was) being family.” Later, a relative called police and at 5:17 AM the police were at his door with a red flag. The only witness to what happened next were the police and their chief simply closed the case. There’s been no follow up to the event.
          It’s important to note that, at the time, Maryland’s law was about a month old.
          “Anne Arundel County reported 19 such “red flag” petitions in October, tied with Harford County for the most in the state, according to a report on requests made under the new law by Montgomery County Sheriff Darren M. Popkin. The state has reported 114 petitions overall.”
          Now “petitions” doesn’t equal “red flag orders” so the number of confiscation orders is lower.
          Notice then how two countries have a third of the orders in the state. In population they are the 4th and 7th in population. Do these countries have a gun problem or a government that doesn’t like guns?

        • I read the article, Icabod. Erring on the side of “safety” is one damned, slippery slope. I do not know whether to be sympathetic, or sarcastic towards the aunt that started this “Red Flag” process to begin with. Did she not take into account that Willis might end up dead instead? Well, that is one way to get rid of his Second Amendment right. And his life, too! What is even more scary, is that there is nothing to stop police (who enact ERPO’s) from just flat-out shoot the person they are “Red Flagging”, as there is no accountability anywhere concerning these new laws that are a gun-haters dream come true. The gun owner is dead, and cannot speak, and the police officials enacting the ERPO order can say whatever they want after the fact.

      • If these slime ball lawyers were required to pay the other sides expenses and fees if they lose a contingency fee based lawsuit the problem would quickly resolve itself.

    • Nope, that won’t work.

      Stuff said in the course of civil litigation / criminal cases / administrative proceedings is almost always privileged and can’t be the basis of a libel / slander / defamation / other tort case.

      About your only option is a malicious prosecution claim, which is an unbelievably heavy lift that is all but impossible.

  5. This is a feature, not a bug.

    It’s designed to intimidate people from owning guns.

    The angle we need to take is similar to the tactics used in the civil rights era, when Blacks were harassed for just trying to exercise their rights.

    And as far as I’m considered, we need to explore getting gun owners declared as a protected class…

    • You are on the right track, but making a gun owners a protected class would essentially make white males a de facto protected class. The powers that be will never allow that to happen. What is more realistic is for Red state local governments to nullify these unconstitutional laws by not enforcing them. This is how millions of illegals and recreational drug users are able to live in plain sight in “sanctuary areas”. The major gun right organizations should funnel resources into legal aid for gun owners just like the countless NGOs that provide help to illegals. Individual citizens can also help using jury nullification whenever possible. Basically we need to accept that gun owners are a new class of illegals.

      • ” making a gun owners a protected class would essentially make white males a de facto protected class ”

        WTF??? That’s about as faulty as faulty logic can get. I know plenty of non-whites and women that are gun owners. A trip over to my local range shows that white gun owners are barely a majority, and the number of women is steadily increasing.

        I’m calling BS on this one.

          “White men are especially likely to be gun owners: About half (48%) say they own a gun, compared with about a quarter of white women and nonwhite men (24% each) and 16% of nonwhite women.”

          Your local range may or may not be representative of the demographics of your community, but it is not representative of gun owners as a whole. Politicians know who they are targeting with these proposed red flags while exploiting a moral panic.

  6. The author is correct.
    Talk is cheap, until you hire a lawyer.
    As an off topic aside. If some of you are bored for any reason, click over to The Hill web site and troll the libtards like some of them do here.
    Was up late doing so and had much fun!

  7. Not sure I understand this whole red flag thing. It has been a federal offense to process a firearm while under an injunction for protection for domestic violence since the Slick Willie administration. A BA-52, Baker Act, usually the result of a suicide threat. Requires removal of firearms from the home. A BA-52 has a very narrow set of circumstances. For good reason. We’re screwing with someone’s freedom and their Constitutional rights. Are the red flag laws looking to expand what’s already been in place for decades?

    • Red flag laws are for gun confiscation of selected targets.

      The reasons are many as to why they can confiscate your property without due process. It could be you are depressed, you drink too much, you threatened to hurt someone, you talk about conspiracy theories, you have PTS, you are a sovereign citizen, etc.

      Ultimately, it’s a very soft version of gun confiscation that won’t alarm the public but will give immense power to the government, which always gets expanded when something else bad happens. It’s a transition from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent and harmless.”

      Most people like to focus on the ex-wife as the threat to their liberty. They should be more focused on the fact red flag laws give a cop and a judge all the power they need to confiscate your guns when they feel like you are a danger/threat. Your ex-wife isn’t necessary for the government to take your guns.

      • Right, but she can easily, and most times, be the one to bring it to their attention. The reason filing for TRO’s in divorce cases are so high is the same the for the threat of these red flag laws. Tons of judges favor their cases. They lie under oath and to the judges because they don’t want you to have, well, anything, especially if kids are involved. Divorces are a serious threat when it comes to these “laws”. We already know what the police and judges will do with other cases, but the divorce cases are without a doubt the most common.

  8. I’m guessing since you’re only facing the seizure of your property and not incarceration that you’re not entitled to a court appointed attorney at taxpayer expense if you can’t afford one. Probably can’t sue to get your money back either, so ultimately it’s just a choice of which property you give up, your money or your firearms.

    If I lived under the threat of a red flag law I’d consider it cheap insurance to bury a cache of weapons and ammunition in the back yard. At night, of course.

    Another good question would be what if you just wait it out and live your life as a model citizen? How long do they hold your weapons? 2 years? 5? 10? Forever? Haven’t you proved your innocence (of thought crime) at some point?

    • You have to be a good little boy from 18 to your death. If you don’t and they take your guns, you have 12 months to get back in line and prove you are not a potential threat to anyone.

      That means you can’t do what society thinks is unacceptable. You can’t freely express or talk about controversial topics. You can’t get into fights or arguments. You can’t abuse alcohol or other drugs You can’t stand up to authority.

      If you become too quiet you might be considered a threat because it’s always the “quiet type” that does very bad things.

      • If they just give them back voluntarily after a year it wouldn’t be worth it for most people to spend thousands to get them back. But something tells me that they’re not going to come knocking at your door with your (undamaged) guns in tow.

        • Exactly. They will either find some way to confiscate them forever, or they will come up missing… or require massive fees as well. I can see this being taxed…. why not… taxes are already illegal, let’s just tax gun confiscation too… smh.

        • Or at least make you pester them for 6 or 8 months (after the year is up) before they reluctantly return your slightly damaged weapons. It’s kind of like how a lot of PotG think that national reciprocity would be some kind of panacea for gun owners, but do you really think the cops in NJ are just going to wish you a nice day and let you on your way when you dare carry a weapon in their state?

        • Yea, really the only hope is in the military/police agency leadership. I suspect the majority would actively avoid civil war and not support tyranny, because not only will it kill Americans, but it will kill their men too. Mostly because it’s innocent Americans. We need mattis, but even he gave up and took the easy route because of someone like Trump. No different than Obama forcing generals out either… All presidents will do it because the military leadership pretty much tells them to fuck off. So let’s hope for that.

  9. Funny but I have not read of police using red flag laws to disarm any of the thousands of violent gang thugs in the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago like Austin and Englewood. Sounds like it would be the perfect vehicle for them to do this with off hours unannounced raids looking for firearms. It should not be too hard convincing a judge that someone with a rap sheet bigger than the phone book is a risk to others.

    • Well, that’s because a lot of those guys are felons. The law says felons can’t own guns, so obviously they don’t own any! Nothing to confiscate! Of course they obey the law, despite the evidence of their rap sheet. THEY are innocent until proven guilty!

      • Oh that’s right – due process. However law abiding firearm owners will no longer have that right.

    • As usual these laws aren’t written for criminals. These are designed to target the innocent. They want the criminals to keep their guns so they keep committing crimes, so they can keep punishing the innocent. Gun control never has or never will be about stopping crime. It’s only about control.

      • A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun. He only controls the good guys, which is his true agenda. The bad guy with a gun…..or the mentally deficient guy with a gun……or the terribly distraught family member of a gun shooting victim…….or the Feelz-Gooder Social Do-Gooder… the politician’s Useful Idiot Tool to achieve his agenda.

    • I heard the ACLU is against red flag laws because they believe it will be used against minorities in poor communities. Those people have no money to defend against the court order. They believe red flag laws will be used by white people as a tool against minorities.

  10. Will insurance like Texas Law Shield cover this in the future, or will you have to shoot someone to get their help ?

  11. To the point of the Article, the co$ts of fighting such a seizure will be far outside the means of many Americans (including myself. How about you?). Many would be forced to just wait and see what happens, but as bad as that is, it gets worse…

    “Red Flag Laws” for firearms are totalitarians setting the stage to turn every person against every other person. You have only to look at the major totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century to see where this goes. The root goal is to overturn the basic principles of American Justice: presumption of innocence, due process of law, and the right to a speedy trial by a Jury of your peers.

    If this kind of law gets enacted on the Federal Level, then the principle that depriving Citizens of their natural, civil and constitutionally established and protected rights for whatever reason the Government deems “necessary” has gained a beachhead in the United States. Once that’s done the scope of the law can be expanded readily. Maybe even a “special” branch of Law Enforcement will have to be created to deal with the “denounced”.

    • The politicians do not want a federal red flag law. They want 50 different versions, one in every state. Why? Because that makes it much harder for a case to make it up to the federal supreme court and for every red flag law to be considered unconstitutional. It’s also much easier to pass on the local level because gun owners focus on the federal law and elections.

  12. Ummm…they ALREADY have Red Flag laws in ILLinois. And they confiscate/steal/”buyback”guns in chitty Chiraq hoods constantly. The Chicago po-leece just siezed 60guns & many 1000’s of rounds of ammo from “a good hard-working quiet neighbor” on the Southside. I would think having stash gats would be a good idea…

  13. Don’t think for a second that progressive liberals won’t weaponize red flag seizure statutes just like they weaponized FISA Court statues and just within the last few weeks, public information as the Castro Brothers of San Antonio did with political contribution records.

    It’s not at all a leap to predict that radical left activist wouldn’t flinch when using red flag laws to disarm anyone who refuses to embrace progressive liberal ideology.

    • Today, it’s progressive ideology, but in the long term the door is open much wider than that. Red flags can be used by the gubmint in any configuration at any time, so the danger isn’t just the libbies. It goes deeper than that.

      It’s been almost 20 years since 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The gubmint has pretty much worn out the foreign terrorist meme. People don’t really get worked up about it so much anymore. Enter the Domestic Terrorist. The term has no definition beyond anything the gubmint doesn’t like. So anyone who strays from the ideology du jour is subject to this open-ended, very loosely defined accusation, and, just like the Patriot Act, can be tossed in jail on the thinnest of charges, or no charges at all. Red Flag laws are just part of a new Patriot Act, re-tooled to keep an increasingly unruly population in check.

      It’s not just the libs we gotta be wary of. It’s the gubmint itself.

  14. Accusers will need to be responded to with malicious prosecution, slander, and libel charges once their allegations are defeated full recovery of legal costs of the accused will also need to be sought. As exhausting ad it would be to defend oneself from friviolous charges, slanderous accusers must be held to account to balance this BS out

  15. I cannot support “red flag” laws at all, as I find them inherently unconstitutional.

    If the person is truly an imminent danger to himself or others, have him civilly committed. If he has committed a crime, arrest him. If the evidence is not the overwhelming sort needed to justify depriving someone of their liberty, it should not justify depriving them of their RKBA. (Whether civil commitment laws have been unreasonably restricted by the courts is another conversation, but there should not be a different standard for temporarily depriving someone of their rights.)

    For the proponents of red flag laws who claim that they can be effectuated with meaningful due process, I have the following thought exercise:

    In civil law in this country, if you want a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (i.e., a court order that restricts a party’s actions before he has had his day in court), the party seeking it typically has to satisfy a *very* high standard of proof *and* has to post a bond that would cover the damages incurred if the injunction was wrongfully entered.

    Ergo, if proponents of “red flag” laws are truly serious about due process, why not require something like that to be baked into the law? E.g., require that a party seeking a “red flag” order MUST post a $50k bond as a mandatory condition of the request. This requirement would apply not only to private parties but also any governmental agencies seeking a red flag order.

    If the initial request is denied for any reason, half of the bond MUST be forfeited to the defendant. If the request is granted, then the defendant must be given a full evidentiary hearing within 10 days, at which petitioner must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the the defendant is in fact a imminent danger to himself or others (and thus should be civilly committed and taken off the street anyway) If the petitioner fails to meet this high standard, then the bond MUST be awarded to the defendant. If the red flag order is entered, but later found to have been improperly entered or otherwise overturned on appeal, the bond MUST be awarded to the defendant. No discretion — if the red flag case fails for any reason, the defendant gets the money.

    If something like this was in a red flag law, lawyers would be all over defending such cases on an if-come basis. Those seeking a red flag order will have to put their money where their mouth is, up front, with the expectation that the target would likely be well-represented by the cottage industry of lawyers that would spring up to handle such cases.

    Of course, proponents of red flag laws will never agree to anything close to this, because they are not actually interested in affording any sort of real due process to the targets of the law.

    • LKB, I *like* they way you think!

      Realistically, there’s little chance of that happening…

      • Yup, not gonna happen. But just as attaching National Reciprocity to a gun control bill has been an effective poison pill, perhaps something like this would smoke out the antis.

  16. If we get a federal Red Flag law and you have an angry ex-spouse or soon to be ex-spouse, be prepared for a knock on your door by LEO with a warrant. It’s easy to foresee the Family Law courts abusing the heck out of this.

    • Absolutely true and predictable.
      Your neighbor doesn’t like your Trump 2020 flag and notices that you have an NRA sticker on your car. Here comes the phone call and the knock on the door.

      You leave your girlfriend, who used to love to go shooting with you, for another woman – BAM! The claws come out followed by a knock on the door.

      The dozens of possible scenarios practically write themselves.

      • No need to have the person publically display gun ownership. “I heard my neighbor (or neighbor’s kid) yell ‘I’m going to f’ing shoot you,” would be enough. Or toss in that you once saw them with a j-frame revolver. The police’ll have to ransack the house looking for any space someone could hide a tiny, metal object, despite the owner swearing they never owned a gun.

    • Yup.

      Plus, if Congress or state legislatures give courts this power, consider the various incentives / disincentives for the judges involved:

      If a judge says no to a red flag order request, and the defendant later goes postal, then the judge will be blamed (and will the target of the Twitter / SJW mobs).

      But if the judge says yes, and it later turns out that the request was baseless, then it’s just “better safe than sorry.”

      In short, big potential downside for the judge personally to saying no, and zero personal repercussions for saying yes. Heck, even if the judge knew the request was baseless and granted it anyway (or made it known that he’d grant every red flag request presented to him), he enjoys absolute judicial immunity from suit. All that can happen is that the judge might get reversed on appeal (months or years later), and most judges really could not care less about that.

      Given these realities, what do you think will happen? Judges will just start rubber stamping red flag requests the same way they do search warrants, and I suspect family court judges will start handing them out like candy. Even if a few judges take it upon themselves to look hard at the requests (again, just like some judges *do* take issuing search warrants seriously), the cops will know what judges are “easy” or otherwise anti-gun, and that’s where they will go to get them.

      Heck, given some of the goofy 2A opinions that have come out in the past few years, I suspect more than a few judges will view granting all red flag requests as their way of resisting Heller and imposing gun control by judicial fiat. In NY/NJ/CAL, such views would probably be viewed as a job requirement for a state court bench.

      So, another thought exercise: if red flag proponents are so sure the process won’t be abused, then how about eliminating *all* immunities for everyone involved? I.e., if a red flag order is issued and it’s later determined that the defendant was not actually an imminent threat, then the complaining party, his counsel, the cops, and the judge involved are all subject to suit — no absolute judicial immunity, no qualified immunity, no lawsuit privilege, nada. Strict liability for all involved if they deprive someone of the RKBA without clear and convincing evidence of an imminent threat.

      Again, such a provision would never be attached to a red flag law, but ask the red flag law proponents why they would oppose such a “common sense” protection? Their answers will tell you all you want to know about their actual motives.

      • Philly mayor kenny would red flag the entire city. The better safe than sorry bit will be on the red flag itself.

      • I had mentioned this in another reply (further up the column), LKB. That is, the one who is calling in to the police/authorities for a “Red Flag” should NOT be anonymous. If the person being “Red Flagged” does not end up dead first, and if he/she is found innocent, that person should be able to sue the hell out of the one who started it in the first place. Where “common sense” protection is concerned, you are correct in what you wrote. Sadly, only gun owners have to be accountable for anything, it seems, while left-wing liberal judges, and other, gun-hating Americans do not have to be responsible for anything.

  17. It’s a Catch 22 Law.
    You have guns. You’re not a troublemaker or get angry easily. You have an argument with your neighbor over doggy doo-doo in his front yard from when your dog got loose. He “Red Flags” you. You door is broken down at 3AM on a no-knock raid by SWAT. You defend yourself and injure or kill a Policeman or Deputy.
    Hypothetical scenario.
    PROOF you are a danger to yourself or others.
    And that is why Red Flag Laws are wrong.

  18. If you have an nasty ex wife, angry relatives, liberal nosey coworkers, or a jerkoff neighbor it’s time to start planning the stash.
    Airtight storage boxes and grease. Find a remote location on a paper map and travel there without phones or a GPS connected car. Dig deep and cover accordingly.

    It’s quickly going to get ugly.

  19. THE government makes the mistake and the citizen has his right of self defense denied and he has to pay to get his rights and property returned.

    Is this the America of the land of the free ? Hell no. Its the land of the police state. Its a case of extortion and racketeering. The LEO and the lawyers are a racket working together to extort payments from innocent citizens. The lawyers and the state and county all make money from this mistake. The wrongly accused must prove his innocence, which is costly. Very costly.

    Where is a law that holds the government accountable to pay for their mistakes ? How difficult is it to use a photo to identify the guilty party and not only a name ? Not difficult at all, as all CCW permits require a photo. The police refused to lift a finger to double check their paperwork, which once again reinforces my extortion charge.

  20. Yes….getting your property back after it was stolen via “red flag laws” will be an expensive, arduous and in some places a near impossible task. And if the commie demonrats pushing for these laws were honest
    they’d tell you that such a Sisyphean Task is a FEATURE…..not a bug…..of the entire process. In short
    the ENTIRE PURPOSE behind “red flag laws” is the same purpose behind “gun control” laws. And it has
    NOTHING to do with guns, crime or safety. The purpose behind these laws is CONTROL. They seek to
    disarm us by ANY means possible so they can RULE US…..with impunity.

  21. The government overlords know those stated facts well. Most of us cant afford to defend our rights against unlimited power and monies. WE WILL LOOSE.

  22. OK, I definitely am opposed to most, if not all, red flag laws. That said, I have to take issue with the premise that one must hire a lawyer in order to defend against a red flag order. Looking at the first year for California’s law, 90% of the 89 orders issued statewide in 2016 were reversed at the second hearing – in other words as soon as the subject got their say the order was lifted. I simply do not believe that all of these people, or even most of them, hired lawyers.

    Clearly when it comes to red flag laws, the devil is in the details. Other laws could be harder to defend against. Never the less, at least in this case, judges are willing to lift orders when people represent themselves.

  23. I work with some criminal defense attorneys, who by their nature are liberal. n any case they were laughing at the Red Flag Law. Aside from the constitutionality of it, they thought it was a farce that somehow it would stop mentally ill people from acquiring guns…like many of their clients who are prohibited. Sometimes bad laws make strange bedfellows…

Comments are closed.