Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Red Flag and due Process?

Red flag laws allow the courts to confiscate guns from anyone deemed mentally ill by a judge.

What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”

So a man who was briefly and INVOLUNTARILY treated at a mental health clinic in 2003 for less than 72 hours was denied by the background check system when he tried to purchase a firearm 15 years later.

He sued, alleging his due process rights were violated. And the courts just agreed that his brief hospitalization did not meet the standard to take his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Simultaneously, however, the courts still said that had the man been involuntarily committed with a judge’s order, he could have been stripped of his rights.

So if, back in 2003, the judge had ruled he should be committed for even a single day, the man would have lost his rights to own a firearm forever.

This is starting to set a very clear legal precedent for how Red Flag laws can be applied.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...29/2019-8-8-wilborn-v-barr-order-msj.pdf

this what the NRA supports.

So does the 4473. You two never read one of those?

I'm not a gun guy, I like gardening.

crickets, crickets, get your crickets here

As far as I can find that has been on form 4473 since gun control act of 86. So jeeze just find that little pearl after 33 years.

This link goes to an article in a very liberal weekly in the heart of Bernie Sanders country. Read it, because this legislation may well become the model for a federal law. It’s not about “mentally ill”. The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.

Find enough pearls and you can make a real purty necklace.

There is no due process on a red flag law. They are trying to take a god given right away from you. HELL NO!

^^^^^ This.
All they are trying to do is expand who can turn you in.
1993 Brady Background check law. Then throw in the Laughtenberg Act. Each were enacted for stopping Domestic Abusers and people who shouldn’t purchase a gun.
Problem was/is that under the mental health question it took a professional mental health worker to go before a judge to have you committed, but you were allowed to defend yourself or have an attorney present at the hearing. Due Process.
Red flags are just a legal confiscation tactic denying you that and allowing even a co- worker, teacher or joe fugging blow to turn you in and short circuit the due process requirement.

This thing needs to be reviewed by SCOTUS pronto.

Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.

Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.

Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.

And if you want to make a difference, instead of screaming and jumping up and down about no red flag laws, lobby your state representatives. Maybe change the standard on the 14 day hearing from one of “more likely than not” to a clear adjudication of mental incompetence. Make them eligible for jury trials.

It would seem to me, that the real goal should be to remove the weapons from someone who is about to blow AND to get them under scrutiny and get them help if they need it. If you merely take the guns away from someone who “might” be a danger, you haven’t done much. Maybe he just goes on a stabbing spree or gets another gun from his hunting cabin and does his work. But if you actually hold the state to a higher standard of proof at subsequent hearings, you get a much better idea if the person is someone who really needs some mental health attention.

Right. We already have laws in every state for involuntary civil commitment, which keeps dangerous people away from guns. If people are too dangerous to have access to their guns, they're too dangerous to be walking around loose amongst us. But all that requires real due process, and those that implemented it better be damned sure they got things right, because taking someone's freedom to walk around is a major thing, so all your due process rights are in effect. But all that takes time, so the Red Flag laws were invented so as to circumvent due process (what trump calls rapid due process, or some such nonsense), and allow cops to just come to your house to take your guns before you've even had notice that anyone had accused you of anything. That's a formula for disaster, and one man is already dead because of it. An innocent man, by the way, for which there was zero legitimate basis for any action against him. His daughter, or somebody, didn't like his politics, so reported that he had guns and was unstable. That was all it took, and he's dead.

I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.

That Crenshaw guy is a real traitor.

Another traitor.

Yes Joe. "Equity" is a bitch.

Okay, whatever.