United States & Gun Control discussion.

[AWP]

Side note: she's hot...but so is polonium.

 

[CQB]

So the laws have changed, but not as much as the boss wanted. Keeping an eye on those with mental issues is quite sound.

 

[Topkick]

So the laws have changed, but not as much as the boss wanted. Keeping an eye on those with mental issues is quite sound.

Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?

 

[Gunz]

Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?

The potential danger would be any proposed arbiters of mental fitness having the authority to access private medical records without due process.

 

[Cookie_]

Yeah, I think we are all for that. But who initially gets to decide who has mental issues?

There's a broad federal law that says persons "committed to a mental institution or determined by a court to be mentally deficient"(paraphrased wording) cannot purchase firearms.
The specifics are left up to the states, who aren't required to report that information to the NICS.

For a real world example of how this disconnect has failed:

The Virginia Tech shooter was deemed mentally ill in court and ordered to undergo mental health treatment. Under federal law, he wasn't able to purchase a weapon.

However, his treatment was outpatient. Under VA law at the time, only those who had involuntary inpatient treatment would be reported to the NICS.

Another example of a state law is Florida; I remember seeing this after the Parkland shooting. Upfront it needs to be acknowledged it wouldn't have applied to the shooter anyways because he was never commited; this is just an example of the law.

In Florida, someone can be involuntarily committed for up to 72 hours. That would prevent them under federal law from purchasing a firearm, but Florida law still allows it. If, after 72 hours, medical professionals request an extension in court and are granted that, then the person can't purchase a weapon and is reported to the NICS.

The potential danger would be any proposed arbiters of mental fitness having the authority to access private medical records without due process.

No harder than getting a warrant is. Everything involved in involuntary commitments is either a court case or an active medical emergency.

 

[Topkick]

Okay, @Cookie_ not sure why but you're always trying to present the other side even when it doesnt make sense. Not sure how this justifies why a pissed off wife or family member can initiate an investigation to determine if I should have guns or not. You can try to to swing it, but I aint buyin it.

 

[Cookie_]

Okay, not sure why but you always try to present the other side even when it doesnt make sense. Not sure how this justifies why a pissed off wife or family member can initiate an investigation to determine if I should have guns or not. You can try to to swing it, but I aint buyin it.

What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?

Like losing gun rights to mental illness, this shit is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.

To give you a personal example; I was involved in an Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO/red flag) back in 2020 for one of the guy's in my guard unit. We were actually one of the first few cases of it being used in the State.

It's May/June during the height of COVID lock downs; I'm working at the unit on ADOS(temp active duty) orders with a few other soldiers. One of the full time staff guys was on leave, but didn't come back to work when he was supposed to.
The female soldier who called him let's us know that he was very drunk on the phone and kept saying he was going to shoot himself.

We get there and he talks to us through a window.
Keeps saying he's going to shoot himself, then changes his mind and says "I'm gonna kill my fucking ex-wife first though".

Now cops get called. He calms down a bit talking to them, but does mention he's still thinking about "hurting" himself.

I'm not to privy on this part, but I know the senior officer decided to petition for a red flag. The officers get with the judge and provide the info, judge says ok; much in the same way a warrant works.

They explain it to him that he's not being charged with anything, not being forced to a hospital, not going to the drunk tank, etc. He agrees to turn over his firearms and gets contact info with local PD.

Fast forward a week to the follow up court case (which has to happen within 14 days under law).

He goes before a judge with his court-appointed counsel (free to him). Explains that he was drunk and depressed, is now in treatment, etc. The people who filled the order (police/family) would at this point have to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that he's still a danger, but obviously we don't.

Judge rules the ERPO is no longer active and that he can have his firearms back. He just goes to the local PD, shows his ID and signs some forms, then he got his property back.

Edit to add: I looked up our state stats, because it's reported by county. In the county he was in, there have been around a dozen requests; half by cops and half by families. His case is one of the LEO requests that was approved; county wide, about half of requests (by family or cops) are approved. So just as many ERPOs have been shot down for being unnecessary has have been approved.

 

[Gunz]

What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” — Every dude on earth.

 

[ThunderHorse]

What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?

Like losing gun rights to mental illness, this shit is a lot harder than you seem to think it is.

To give you a personal example; I was involved in an Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO/red flag) back in 2020 for one of the guy's in my guard unit. We were actually one of the first few cases of it being used in the State.

It's May/June during the height of COVID lock downs; I'm working at the unit on ADOS(temp active duty) orders with a few other soldiers. One of the full time staff guys was on leave, but didn't come back to work when he was supposed to.
The female soldier who called him let's us know that he was very drunk on the phone and kept saying he was going to shoot himself.

We get there and he talks to us through a window.
Keeps saying he's going to shoot himself, then changes his mind and says "I'm gonna kill my fucking ex-wife first though".

Now cops get called. He calms down a bit talking to them, but does mention he's still thinking about "hurting" himself.

I'm not to privy on this part, but I know the senior officer decided to petition for a red flag. The officers get with the judge and provide the info, judge says ok; much in the same way a warrant works.

They explain it to him that he's not being charged with anything, not being forced to a hospital, not going to the drunk tank, etc. He agrees to turn over his firearms and gets contact info with local PD.

Fast forward a week to the follow up court case (which has to happen within 14 days under law).

He goes before a judge with his court-appointed counsel (free to him). Explains that he was drunk and depressed, is now in treatment, etc. The people who filled the order (police/family) would at this point have to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that he's still a danger, but obviously we don't.

Judge rules the ERPO is no longer active and that he can have his firearms back. He just goes to the local PD, shows his ID and signs some forms, then he got his property back.

Edit to add: I looked up our state stats, because it's reported by county. In the county he was in, there have been around a dozen requests; half by cops and half by families. His case is one of the LEO requests that was approved; county wide, about half of requests (by family or cops) are approved. So just as many ERPOs have been shot down for being unnecessary has have been approved.

The assumption that he gets his property back. Would need to look, but that never happens in Cali. Thanks Kamala.

 

[Marauder06]

What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?

Custody battle? Caught cheating? Drunken verbal argument? ...breathing?

I think the issue many conservatives and gun owners (they are not always the same) have with red flag laws is their potential for abuse. Being deprived of property based on a mere allegation, and the enormous nut roll of going through the process of having your property restored, is a concern for many.

 

[TLDR20]

Custody battle? Caught cheating? Drunken verbal argument? ...breathing?

I think the issue many conservatives and gun owners (they are not always the same) have with red flag laws is their potential for abuse. Being deprived of property based on a mere allegation, and the enormous nut roll of going through the process of having your property restored, is a concern for many.

It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.

 

[RackMaster]

That is exactly how it is in Canada and it can be any previous partner. It used to be previous 10 year's, including anything mental health and now it's your whole life. So if you sought help and were treated 20 year's ago. Or any previous partner, can be used to justify immediate seizure of all firearms and ammunition. If they mention you're a Veteran, you get special treatment. It's then on you to go to court and fight to get them back. And even if you get them back, you're definitely being watched more closely.

I have a friend that gave up after paying lawyers for 2 year's. The government lawyers can go forever.

 

[Marauder06]

It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.

Yes, totally. Those are crappy laws. Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Cookie_]

I can't speak to other states, so I understand that red flag laws can vary widely. I think Colorado had a good model, because the standard is high, a lawyer is provided to to accused for free, and the police cannot legally sell the weapons (AFAIK) even if someone has a year long ERPO.

Laws that don't return property like @ThunderHorse referenced or the low bar @RackMaster has up North are not acceptable.

I don't support any civil asset forfeiture laws that apply prior to conviction, or laws that don't provide a lawyer to the accused.

I am interested in how states implement these laws.

I know off the top of my head that NY has authorized about 600 and FL about 8,000. I wonder what the difference is.

 

[Marauder06]

Here is an interesting read about red flag laws in NY. So in addition to the searches and seizures potentially being carried out based on "triple hearsay," the way I read this article (and assuming that it's true), the potential exists that you could be arrested for violating any number of NY's draconian gun laws during a red flag-related search. Say for example you moved to NY and have a handgun in your house, but you don't have a permit for it yet because it takes forever to get one. Or say you just retired from the military and they find a couple of old 30-round AR mags during the search. You're going to jail, homie.

https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf

 

[Marauder06]

I know off the top of my head that NY has authorized about 600 and FL about 8,000. I wonder what the difference is.

This article claims it's because the laws are "poorly understood." Maybe FL understands better? IDK.

New York’s ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Is Little Used, Poorly Understood

 

[Cookie_]

Here is an interesting read about red flag laws in NY. So in addition to the searches and seizures potentially being carried out based on "triple hearsay," the way I read this article (and assuming that it's true), the potential exists that you could be arrested for violating any number of NY's draconian gun laws during a red flag-related search. Say for example you moved to NY and have a handgun in your house, but you don't have a permit for it yet because it takes forever to get one. Or say you just retired from the military and they find a couple of old 30-round AR mags during the search. You're going to jail, homie.

https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf

Not a fan of charging someone for criminal acts during a non-criminal search.

It's the same reason I don't support laws that charge drug addicts or sex workers when they try to get help or report crimes; it does nothing to help if people go to jail for trying to do the right thing.

This article claims it's because the laws are "poorly understood." Maybe FL understands better? IDK.

New York’s ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Is Little Used, Poorly Understood

Seems like a big difference between Florida and New York is that in New York family members (as in Colorado) can do the petition without law enforcement assistance. I know in our state law enforcement requests get worked 95%(est) percent of the time, but requests by family only go through 30ish% of the time. It's a much higher burden of proof to get an ERPO if law enforcement isn't involved.

All requests in Florida go through the police. That probably accounts for why Florida has so many go through, especially when you consider that the vast majority are for mental health crisis.

Full Circle: Florida's red flag law through the eyes of a judge that issues them

The petitions that come before Pomponio are civil proceedings, not criminal. Therefore, respondents are served and given due process just like in any other proceeding. Think of these hearings as mini-trials that includes evidence and witness testimony.

"Law enforcement brings the petitions," Pomponio said. "So, I'm dealing with petitions from not only the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the Tampa Police Department, Plant City Police Department."

All are reviewed to make sure they meet Florida law regarding risk protection orders.

"I review the petition for the sufficiency, part of the petition is the police report or a sworn affidavit from law enforcement. That helps me decide whether I'm going to issue. Then there are different categories that get checked off, whether they've used a weapon, whether they've threatened to use a weapon, whether they had been Baker Acted, whether they had been arrested," Pomponio said. "Now, even when I don't feel it's sufficient to petition and I denied the entrance of the injunction, they still have to have a hearing. So, in other words, I denied the injunction, a temporary injunction. Still, it has to have a hearing where the sheriff's office or the police department has the ability to bring witnesses forward to come forward. And to hear it even further than just the paperwork."


The way our law is written, if someone isn't served by law enforcement to appear in court, the risk protection order hearing can't move forward.

Something often overlooked is that guns and ammunition are not taken away permanently. If a judge issues the RPO, the respondent will lose them for a year. However, once they fulfill the court's requirements, such as a mental health evaluation or substance abuse program, they can file a motion to vacate, and the judge can return their access to weapons sooner.

"You've said this multiple times in court, that 'this isn't a punishment, we're not here to punish you, we're here to make sure that you don't hurt yourself or others,'" Paluska said. "You're separating the man or the woman from the weapons, looking at them with empathy?"

"Well, I always tell them this is not a criminal proceeding. This is a civil proceeding," Pomponio said. "And, that's why you hear me say that 'we're not here to punish you. We're happy that you are here today, that you're sitting here." But, for the grace of God, two more seconds, and you may have followed through with your demons that night."

 

[amlove21]

It isn’t just red flag laws. The police can take your money and make you prove you weren’t committing a crime with it. If they can get away with civil forfeiture of money and assets, guns would be super hard to get back.

Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind.

@Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?

What happens when the police come to the door, say "We need to search your house for guns because of red flag laws"... and the response is, "GFY. Go get a warrant and don't come back without one. Or, stack it up, playboi." I can only speak for myself- that's my answer. I would argue that these laws could lead to more deaths in the LE community than it would prevent mass shootings or violence. Maybe an experiment for another thread.

Let's say I was at all in agreement with Red Flag laws and that they're constitutionally valid (I'm not/they're not but this is pretend time)- an emergency brake I would need is reciprocity and penalty for people using these laws to call the police on people they don't like. What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate penalty for people that are found guilty of abusing the red flag law reporting procedures?

What are you doing to piss off a wife or family member enough that they're willing to contact the police with information that you are a danger to yourself or others, who then contact a judge with that info, who then tells the police whether the can enforce a protective order or not?

And I am going to call this comment as I see it...This is either obtuse or naïve. Not sure if intentional in either regard.

We live in a world where people call the SWAT team on each other over video game disagreements and where unelected, un-appointed people went as far as calling the police, physical violence and altercations against other normal citizens in America- for not wearing a mask, alone, at a beach.

So- are you ignoring those things, or do you not realize that we have a *lot* of examples of people abusing laws like you're describing (for much less)?

 

[TLDR20]

Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind.

@Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?

What happens when the police come to the door, say "We need to search your house for guns because of red flag laws"... and the response is, "GFY. Go get a warrant and don't come back without one. Or, stack it up, playboi." I can only speak for myself- that's my answer. I would argue that these laws could lead to more deaths in the LE community than it would prevent mass shootings or violence. Maybe an experiment for another thread.

Let's say I was at all in agreement with Red Flag laws and that they're constitutionally valid (I'm not/they're not but this is pretend time)- an emergency brake I would need is reciprocity and penalty for people using these laws to call the police on people they don't like. What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate penalty for people that are found guilty of abusing the red flag law reporting procedures?



And I am going to call this comment as I see it...This is either obtuse or naïve. Not sure if intentional in either regard.

We live in a world where people call the SWAT team on each other over video game disagreements and where unelected, un-appointed people went as far as calling the police, physical violence and altercations against other normal citizens in America- for not wearing a mask, alone, at a beach.

So- are you ignoring those things, or do you not realize that we have a *lot* of examples of people abusing laws like you're describing (for much less)?

I cannot disagree with you on this, at all. Though recently I have disagreed with many takes you have had.

I may even think masks are the right call, but physical violence visited upon anyone by the state in response to a hearsay complaint is never NEVER the correct response.

 

[Cookie_]

Correct, and both instances are egregious violations of due process and the 4th amendment. Civil forfeiture blows my freaking mind.

@Cookie_ , reading your experience above- personal property was removed from this individual without crime, warrant, or due process. Can you help me to understand how you think that's legal?

What happens when the police come to the door, say "We need to search your house for guns because of red flag laws"... and the response is, "GFY. Go get a warrant and don't come back without one. Or, stack it up, playboi." I can only speak for myself- that's my answer. I would argue that these laws could lead to more deaths in the LE community than it would prevent mass shootings or violence. Maybe an experiment for another thread.

Let's say I was at all in agreement with Red Flag laws and that they're constitutionally valid (I'm not/they're not but this is pretend time)- an emergency brake I would need is reciprocity and penalty for people using these laws to call the police on people they don't like. What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate penalty for people that are found guilty of abusing the red flag law reporting procedures?



And I am going to call this comment as I see it...This is either obtuse or naïve. Not sure if intentional in either regard.

We live in a world where people call the SWAT team on each other over video game disagreements and where unelected, un-appointed people went as far as calling the police, physical violence and altercations against other normal citizens in America- for not wearing a mask, alone, at a beach.

So- are you ignoring those things, or do you not realize that we have a *lot* of examples of people abusing laws like you're describing (for much less)?

To the first part of your reply.

These are civil, not criminal proceedings; that's not a lack of due process or legality in the property being removed.

My understanding of the vast majority of these orders is that the person in question willingly surrenders the weapons.

I'll have to ask some friends that work on the force what happens if someone doesn't. I can't imagine there's much that can be done if it's a mental health case, as it's not really illegal to say you're gonna off yourself.

If it involves threats to other people though, I guess it'd depend on what the state laws for threatening/intimidation are.

Filing false reports is already a crime in basically all jurisdictions; I'd like to see that actually be enforced if there are instances like you describe.

Again, Colorado has only approved 30ish% or request put in by family members; that's a decently high bar for proof to get an ERPO.


To the second point:

Sadly, it's way to fucking easy to SWAT somebody. A lot of departments that have been involved in instances like that have come out and said that they often acted without verifying the situation.

It takes (at least in Colorado) proving to a judge that someone is a danger. That's a higher burden than sending in a SWAT team.
Looking now at different states, I think Florida has a better idea for initiating an ERPO (must be LEO) than we do (LEO or family).