Red Flag Laws at Work in Florida.

[:-)]

In defense of the law if you keep libtard friends, girlfriends, etc, etc, you got it coming.

She isn't a libtard, she just dindn't know libtards existed until now I guess.
She is a gun owner and even carries.

You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family.
I have a few in my own family... Holidays are a lot of fun...

[JustinR]

This may illustrate one of the problems I have with Red Flag laws, once inside, the police can grab (or plant) anything, even unrelated to the basis for the Red Flag confiscation which is intended only to seize firearms. Prior to Red Flag the police would have at least have had to go to a Judge and get a search warrant based on probable cause that an actual crime has been committed. That is not a requirement any longer. A hearsay allegation made by anyone to the police and based on a flimsy uncontested evidentiary standard is all it takes for the police to independently seek an order. The Fourth Amendment is a thing of the past, consigned by the socialist Democrats and RINOs to the trash bin where all individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are destined to end up.

This has been something that has crossed my mind as well. A cop walks in saying they're there to seize your guns, and they happen to see something contraband sitting on a table like a pot pipe or a loose oxy tab-

Does what would have been a summary drug or paraphenalia offense suddenly become a felony because there were firearms present?

I don't dabble in ilicit substances, but do look at externalities and how a law will actually be applied once it hits the real world.

[Walleye Hunter]

If they were really interested in preventing suicides they'd also red flag prescription drugs since they are the preferred method of suicide for women.

[Wilderness 1864]

This has been something that has crossed my mind as well. A cop walks in saying they're there to seize your guns, and they happen to see something contraband sitting on a table like a pot pipe or a loose oxy tab-

Does what would have been a summary drug or paraphenalia offense suddenly become a felony because there were firearms present?

I don't dabble in ilicit substances, but do look at externalities and how a law will actually be applied once it hits the real world.

I am with you. These laws are bad. Some fixes help, but none eliminate the inherent abuse built right into them So, yes, using a Red Flag order as a basis to prosecute crimes that were discovered without warrant in the Red Flag confiscation raid should be non prosecutable, no matter how horrible. Period. No going back and using the info learned in a Red Flag raid to form the basis for a subsequent search warrant either. That would be a disincentive for police and prosecutors to use the Red Flag laws as a means to evade the 4th Amendment search laws.

The penalties for false filings have to be severe and capable of being brought in a civil action because prosecutors will not waste their time on them. An aggrieved citizen might. The proposed PA law is very week. All costs, including attorney fees, of any proceeding found to have been without merit must be assessed on the applicant.

The record of proceedings on all orders needs to be open to public inspection, otherwise there is no brake on the courts becoming kangaroo courts where applications are rubber stamped and no one can get to them to understand if Constitutional rights are being violated (just like our FISA courts, remember how we were told they could never be abused?) All courts issuing orders should have to keep statistics on their activities and report them publicly on a semi-annual basis so that citizens can easily keep track of how this exceptional set of procedures is being used and with what frequency. Access to the information should be made available without FOIA costs and fees.

The standard for issuance of the initial order should be "clear and convincing". If a family member has a reason to fear something bad, they usually reach those conclusions with serious information and evidence. Preponderance of the evidence in a one sided hearing means a judge cannot refuse to issue an order unless he believes the applicant is bald faced lying. No way. If someone's civil rights are going to be cashiered, it ought to be based on more than a 50.1 to 49.9 odds. Normally a requirement for any injunctive relief is that person seeking it can show they have a good chance of prevailing at trial.

Ex parte hearings should be disfavored and only allowed on a clear and convincing body of evidence that the threat of harm is real and imminent.

Finally, no police applications at all. That is a truckhole. Despite the efforts to narrow the range of applicants (which the Democrats then expand with each new legislative session) allowing police to file them should be expressly prohibited. Anyone, even with no family relations, can give information to a police officer. A neighbor, a co-worker, a motor vehicles clerk that did not like your attitude, an co-worker, someone who didn't like you Maga hat and claims you were threatening. Anyone for almost any reason can start the Red Flag process with a police officer.

[JustinR]

Finally, no police applications at all. That is a truckhole. Despite the efforts to narrow the range of applicants (which the Democrats then expand with each new legislative session) allowing police to file them should be expressly prohibited. Anyone, even with no family relations, can give information to a police officer. A neighbor, a co-worker, a motor vehicles clerk that did not like your attitude, an co-worker, someone who didn't like you Maga hat and claims you were threatening. Anyone for almost any reason can start the Red Flag process with a police officer.

This is another big one; we already know a police tactic when they can't get a warrant is to not arrest a local miscreant and in return the miscreant kicks the door of the house in right before the cop "happens" to drive by and seeing the door open they look around to make sure nothing is missing - and oh look at that! The thing I just happened to think was here but didn't have enough info to get a warrant!

Now all that has to happen is a weapons check/confiscation in response to an anonymous threat report.

[gooseSA40]

The article reports that some confiscations are based on reports of offensive online remarks, not a history of mental illness or violence. This is where the Red Flag laws were intended to go. They are very dangerous to our rights and freedoms, including First Amendment rights.

As an individual who open carries and volunteers my time on my local government's Planning Commission, my biggest concern is the random unvetted complaints. A resident doesn't like how I voted, or what I said, then BAM, a complaint is filed. Then PSP will raid my house at 5am over someone's feelings.

The current penalties for false filing are worthless.

[Sgt.K]

I hate to say it but it's like you have to hide the fact that you are a gun owner anymore.

I don't have to hide shit.

[Parrisk]

You all miss the part that nothing in written into these shit laws about preserving the property (firearms) or deadlines and requirements for return of firearms.. once confiscated the owner must spend thousands of dollars to get their property back :-(

[TB3]

These BS Red flag laws only apply to gun owners because they hate gun owners. What if everyone was included? It would fix everything...

Guns aren't that hard to find and there are a lot of things that can be used as weapons.
If the person is a danger to society or just has a mental problem like they think they are something they are not... ...
Why would they let them be out running around in public?
See how long red flag laws would last after they start locking up the libtards that want this crap.

If they lock these crazy kids and people up before something happens, look at all the lives it would save...
It's "commonsense."

The libtards love that word.

A liberal I was talking to yesterday said that they should make all gun owners go through a psychological evaluation before buying a gun...
I said they should make all kids go through one before they can get in high school...
If they don't pass it, put them in a mental facility for life.
She said that would be unconstitutional....
It's always ok for the "other guy" but not them.

We need to start turning it around to include them and sometimes they are smart enough to realize how stupid they sound.
Sometimes they are just braindead.


For example.... Ban guns, confiscate them by force if we have to but "a clear backpack is unconstitutional"... You can't make this stuff up.
These people all have a mental disorder...



.

I have made this very point myself! If this person is such a danger that you are justified in taking their firearms, how do you justify leaving them running around free to either steal a firearm or buy one on the street or choose some other method of causing mayhem. I’m obviously not in favor of these BS laws and punishment of anyone who hasn’t committed a crime, I just think this is a valid point to make. Glad to see I’m not the only one who had thus thought

[Qtrborecrazy]

How before these red flag laws wind up in front of the SCOTUS?