[MA Survivalist]

From what little I know about red flag laws apparently your guns can be seized if somebody deems you a threat, even if you aren't a threat. In other words, with red flag laws its your word against somebody else's, its "he said, she said." Is that correct?

 

[Inittowinit]

Not sure. My understanding is that if someone saw you posting pics of guns, say on a social media site, they could report you to the authorities, and as a result have your guns seized. I could be wrong though. It all has a Minority Report vibe about it either way. It basically seems to throw due process away in favor of a presumption of guilt, even if you’re not

 

[MA Survivalist]

Not sure. My understanding is that if someone saw you posting pics of guns, say on a social media site, they could report you to the authorities, and as a result have your guns seized. I could be wrong though. It all has a Minority Report vibe about it either way. It basically seems to throw due process away in favor of a presumption of guilt, even if you’re not

That's ridiculous. I see many youtube videos of people showing their guns and so forth, hopefully they're not getting their guns seized.

 

[StreetSweeper 12G]

You date a girl but decide she's not right for you, so you let her go. She calls the Sheriff and says you drove drunk with her. The LEO's come and confiscate your car. You then must prove, at your expense, you didn't drive drunk to get your car back. That's "red flag" laws in a nutshell.

 

[Double-aught Buck]

Gun confiscation without a trial and conviction by one's peers. Sorta sounds, I don't know?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

 

[Mr. Sockpuppet]

19 states and DC have, to date, some form of such law. Each law varies from state to state.

Oklahoma actually has a law to prevent localities from enacting such laws.

 

[Abishai]

From what little I know about red flag laws apparently your guns can be seized if somebody deems you a threat, even if you aren't a threat. In other words, with red flag laws its your word against somebody else's, its "he said, she said." Is that correct?

As far as I know, you're correct. Especially in regards to any type of domestic altercations. The spouse (usually wife) can say she fears for her life and you have access to firearms. They are taken and good luck getting them back. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[pobept75]

From what little I know about red flag laws apparently your guns can be seized if somebody deems you a threat, even if you aren't a threat. In other words, with red flag laws its your word against somebody else's, its "he said, she said." Is that correct?

The Red Flag law process begins when a law enforcement official, family member, or household member petitions a state court to temporarily remove firearms from someone they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. In some states, the list of eligible petitioners can include school officials, health care workers, or even coworkers.

After a petition is filed, the court will hold a hearing where the concerned party provides evidence to support their claim that the person in question (the “Respondent”) is a threat. States use two main standards of proof in these hearings:

1. Preponderance of the evidence, or
2. Clear and convincing evidence.

These standards are both lower standards of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard required in a criminal trial.

 

[Mr. Sockpuppet]

The Red Flag law process begins when a law enforcement official, family member, or household member petitions a state court to temporarily remove firearms from someone they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. In some states, the list of eligible petitioners can include school officials, health care workers, or even coworkers.

After a petition is filed, the court will hold a hearing where the concerned party provides evidence to support their claim that the person in question (the “Respondent”) is a threat. States use two main standards of proof in these hearings:

1. Preponderance of the evidence, or
2. Clear and convincing evidence.

These standards are both lower standards of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard required in a criminal trial.

That is because "Red Flag" laws are related to civil actions, and not criminal.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) is a SCOTUS decision that raised the burden of proof to 'Clear and Convincing Evidence' for civil commitment, and placed the burden of proof on the petitioner. It would seem at least reasonable to expect the same these matters.

 

[PaulGray]

Red Flag gets two thoughts.
It's an "idiot neighbor" or a "Karen's" dream law.

Second thought is it's something that needs introducing in the UK.
Only before I start, I am a multiple gun owner so this is not some Brit going on about banning guns!
There have been a few times when the UK police have failed to act when family or friends have tried to warn them about a mentally unstable, someone with a VERY short fuse, an abuser, an alcoholic, or a drug user, who was a danger to people AND NOTHING WAS DONE.
Why? Because the owner had not broken the law.

Until they did and people were hurt, or murdered.

This has been going on for years and the result has always been "a tightening of gun laws" which achieved nothing but made life hell of gun owners until the media, and sheeple, moved on to talk about something else.

 

[1911Glock]

It’s back door gun confiscation, with no due process, as I see it. Your crazy ex wife, lazy can’t keep a job brother-in-law, Karen neighbor, the employee you fired, your kid’s nutjob teacher or any host of others, with a vendetta, convince a liberal judge, that you are dangerous. How hard is that, when the judge already hates guns?

You will not be given any notice of a hearing and you will not be afforded the opportunity to defend yourself, provide contradictory evidence, confront your accusers, etc, etc. Next thing you know, the police show up at your house with a search warrant. That will be your first and only notice. They confiscate your guns for “safety”, until some anti 2A, gun grabbing, liberal judge deems you no longer a threat. That’s my understanding of it.

Some motives to turn you in might include, jealousy, anger, revenge, your political affiliation, your bumper sticker, your support of a particular football team and anything else that hurts their little feelings. Go figure.

You can bet the request to take your guns won’t go to just any judge. The requests will be fast tracked to a gun grabbing, anti 2A, leftist that believes no one, other then him and his cronies, should own a gun.

That’s my opinion on the matter. Sorry about the long winded rant.

 

[pobept75]

Red Flag gets two thoughts.

There have been a few times when the UK police have failed to act when family or friends have tried to warn them about a mentally unstable, someone with a VERY short fuse, an abuser, an alcoholic, or a drug user, who was a danger to people AND NOTHING WAS DONE.

American not British, however even if you had a red flag law would things turned out differently? It sounds like it is derelict or incompetent police problem. No law ever stopped a nut case or criminal from committing a crime.

 

[cook]

I've heard of it,but not the specifics,so I just did a quick search.
Seems every state is different,hodgepodge of limits,kinda making up the rules as they go.
Curious how it affects other houshold members in the house that also own firearms?

 

[mrhonda1975]

I've had 2 friends ambushed by the wife in the course of a divorce.
One psycho threw herself down the stairs 2 minutes after he left for work.
Arrested when he arrived at work and all guns seized.
#2 Drug addicted wife played every card she could. "he pointed a gun at me"
Yep Arrested - guns seized. Libsuk judge even gave the kids to the addicted witch.

First question a scumbag lawyer will ask the divorcing women:
"Does he have guns?"

 

[Texas Fire]

There has already been this one:

 

[44 Guy]

Once again I'm seeing lots of opinions & suspicion, and very little facts.
Washington State, one of the most liberal gun hating state in the US, can not just seize your guns based on someone's words. Domestic violence for example, guns can be "temporary removed" from the home.

The judge can order the firearms temporary removed from the home. They can be turned in at the local police station, OR taken to a relatives home, including your cc permit. The person receiving the order signs the order and that's that. No one comes to your door demanding your weapons. This is done at pretrial. Once you go to court, if not guilty, everything is returned. If guilty it comes down to circumstances, was a weapon used etc., it must be proved.

How do I know this? I've had to explain and witness no gun orders to hundreds of inmates. I've also had to read the orders to a handful of inmates who can't read These are facts, not options, something I read on someone's blog etc.

 

[44 Guy]

I've had 2 friends ambushed by the wife in the course of a divorce.
One psycho threw herself down the stairs 2 minutes after he left for work.
Arrested when he arrived at work and all guns seized.
#2 Drug addicted wife played every card she could. "he pointed a gun at me"
Yep Arrested - guns seized. Libsuk judge even gave the kids to the addicted witch.

First question a scumbag lawyer will ask the divorcing women:
"Does he have guns?"

My ex wife's lawyer tried to paint me as a dangerous person with her opening statement at my kids custody hearing. She claimed I was a dangerous person for the following 2 "facts".

I'm a martial artist because I enjoy beating people up, and I have lots of guns and hunt because I like killing animals and she hates guns. Well I cut of my attorneys opening statement and asked for permission to speak. My response: My wife is also a martial artist, it's how we met, and she actually has more trophies for fighting than I do. For the gun issue I had a picture of her and I together, me with an AR, Her with an AK. Judge was actually pissed , I won everything, including custody of my kids, which is how I became a single dad.

Again, I hear lots of opinions, suspicion and fear, and very few facts. Usually, when a person's weapons are removed it's because they have a long criminal history of some kind and / or have been to court / arrested for DV before.

 

[Cat wrangler]

What I have witnessed here, NY, is that an accusation is made and history of the accused is not relevant, the immediate accusation and situation is. A person taken in for a "head evaluation" is at the mercy of the doc doing it. If a person is held for 72 hours, really not sure if phone calls are allowed.

Most recent case that I am involved in, person was allowed firearms returned, with costs. Never should have been removed, imho.

Never seen a set of gun laws that aren't abused.

 

[US RIFLE M1A]

These laws are being passed in bad faith. Many perpetrators of mass violence have been known to the authorities before hand. Why are trained, professional investigators not effective, and yet the general public is supposed to be effective in preventing mass violence?

Reminds me of the child abuse laws that were passed after that terrible case in New York City. After that, anyone, anyone who sees you and your children together, or alone at school, can call for any reason they do not like. Dirty shoes, scraped knees, everything and anything.

 

[charliemeyer007]

Commie flag laws are un-Constitutional period. If you submit you might as well just get in the boxcar with a free shower to end your trip.