lawmakers push red flag after wawa shooting

[ar15_shooter]

Anyone have a link to the Everytown commercials encouraging people to make false red-flag reports? Would be a good thing to show to lawmakers who are on the fence about this.

[giant_g2]

LOL no. I think you'll have to find a DA willing to bring them up on charges for making a false police report. Wouldn't count on it happening.

Well, this could fall under defamation if you could prove you did not commit the crime and that the person accusing you made the report with malicious intent. You would also have to prove that it negatively affected your reputation/business etc. It would be a gamble with your time and money to bring the suit against them in civil court.

If the DA declines to file on purgury, you could technically file a private criminal complaint (I think that's what it's called). If you have evidence, this could make the DA bring charges on your behalf and lead to conviction of the offender, but it won't help you and it won't deter future offenses because the DAs still won't prosecute it with regularity. I think this could also leave you open to paying court costs if the conviction fails.

I wouldn't recommend either. IANAL

[ideaman]

The evidence are, you lost your Constitutional rights, denied self-defense, deemed to be threat and public embarrassment. Who knows how long you may have to wait before your case comes up.

[giant_g2]

The evidence are, you lost your Constitutional rights, denied self-defense, deemed to be threat and public embarrassment. Who knows how long you may have to wait before your case comes up.

While that is correct from a logical perspect (and I agree), the problem is that if this law passes, then the lost right, lack of self-defense, and deemed a threat is moot since "the public" has determined that it is acceptable to deny the accused those rights as indicated through the passage of the law (assuming the courts uphold it). Unless you can prove that the person reporting it did not act in good faith (unlikely), and even then it's a gamble.

Basically, it doesn't matter what's right, wrong, logical, factual, etc. What matters is public perception, what mood/view the people in power have, and your jury selection. I'm not saying it this is right, but it's what the system has become.

[Walleye Hunter]

There is a town hall meeting in Royersford with a few of our legislators and I assure that this subject will be discussed. It would be great if I could get some help.

More information here.

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=346608

[giant_g2]

I would go, but I'll be working.

[JenniferG]

I know some of you will be stone cold set against any discussion... here is my take

These laws in other states are rife with abuse because they did not go into depth for protecting the firearms owner and their property.
Nor do they specify that false statements open the reporter to legal actions.

Ex's or enemies that make false statements and police swarm in to take firearms
Police not returning firearms or damaging the firearms through poor stewardship

I am not totally against these efforts, but there must be:
a preponderance of evidence
Judgement by a Judge
Strict inventory rules before removal
Time limits and mandatory return enforcement !
Clear rules on what the owner has to do for return of firearms
Allowances to take legal recourse against reporter when allegations are unfounded
Protect the abused and their rights to own firearms for protection

There are weak minded/soulless individuals who have severely hurt our cause to protect the 2nd Amendment by shooting up places and people.. some of these asshats kill because they want to kill.. others have killed because they know it will stir up the hornets nest of Anti-Gun cucks.

I once thought that these red flag laws might be helpful if they provided the accused time before the judge to make their case but in this day and age PA courts have proved time and time again they are too corrupt to be trusted with gun owners rights and these laws will ultimately be used to confiscate firearms en masse. I gave it much thought and I'm against these laws. This is how sane people make decisions. They weigh the evidence pro and con and then decide on what to do or what to support.

[Wilderness 1864]

Yeah, they don't care at all about making sure the gun owner is treated fairly. Killion says that his bill has "plenty" of due process protection in it.
I get what you're saying, and would probably support something that was actually fair and protected the gun owner. Unfortunately what we will get will allow seizure w/o any evidence, no property protection, and no consequences for false reporters.

On its face, the Bill appears to have due process protections, but it is not enough to simply pay lip service to "due process", the protections have to be practical and workable. The purported due process protections in this bill do not even come close. The fraudulent filing protections contained in SB90 are a myth as a practical matter. But Killion will say they are "in there".

I do not understand why the basis for taking someone's property and depriving them of rights cannot be based on a more substantial evidentiary status? If one is that sure that someone is posing a danger to themselves or others, then that person should have damn good evidence of it and they may indeed have it. Make the standard for the initial order "clear and convincing". Even at that, since the other side does not appear, the deck is still stacked in the applicant's favor. But at least that standard demands that the order judge have a real basis for acting.

In civil actions, a party seeking an "ex parte" order from a Court or even a preliminary injunction, has to make a strong showing of being able to ultimately prevail. They may even have to post a bond in order to protect the target of the order from damages that he or she might suffer. The target of the ERPO has no such protections. The applicant does not even have to pay a filing fee

[Walleye Hunter]

On its face, the Bill appears to have due process protections, but it is not enough to simply pay lip service to "due process", the protections have to be practical and workable. The purported due process protections in this bill do not even come close. The fraudulent filing protections contained in SB90 are a myth as a practical matter. But Killion will say they are "in there".

I do not understand why the basis for taking someone's property and depriving them of rights cannot be based on a more substantial evidentiary status? If one is that sure that someone is posing a danger to themselves or others, then that person should have damn good evidence of it and they may indeed have it. Make the standard for the initial order "clear and convincing". Even at that, since the other side does not appear, the deck is still stacked in the applicant's favor. But at least that standard demands that the order judge have a real basis for acting.

In civil actions, a party seeking an "ex parte" order from a Court or even a preliminary injunction, has to make a strong showing of being able to ultimately prevail. They may even have to post a bond in order to protect the target of the order from damages that he or she might suffer. The target of the ERPO has no such protections. The applicant does not even have to pay a filing fee

I agree, 1) filing a false complaint rates as an M2, not much above traffic violation, which will probably be plead out to something like jaywalking if it gets processed at all. 2) Then there is a provision for one offended by a bogus claim to collect restitution. Having sued and won a civil case I can tell you that there is not enough money to be collected off of a bogus filing to make it worth it and if one was so inclined to go through the process collection would still be a nightmare should they win the case.

[Parrisk]

I work with a guy in NY, he is a NY resident and had a NY unrestricted pistol license, 2 pistols, 2 deer rifles and a shotgun.

(soon to be ex) Girlfriend accused him of domestic violence and got a PFA. Sheriff came into work and took him out in cuffs. later said they went to his house and made him turn over all firearms and pistol license. Was never charged with DV and released.

5 years later and he has given up trying to get his firearms and pistol permit back. She even admitted to lying about the attack to get the PFA. Sheriff and judge will not give back firearms or license, tell him to ask again next year. Even had a lawyer try and help him because of the property issue, but they are not "Confiscated" they are only being "stored"

he retires in 45 days and moving out of NY to somewhere normal

This my friends is what our Red Flag law as written will turn into