They’re coming whether you want them or not. I propose two solutions that I believe would take care of most abuses while allowing them to function as intended.

The first is to require a bond. If you make a accusation against someone meant to invoke a red flag action, you must provide a bond that you forfeit if the Defendant wins his case at the fourteen day hearing. I would propose $500.00. That amount is high enough that most people wouldn’t want to throw it away just to harass someone, while it isn’t high enough to serve as a serious bar to someone reporting someone they honestly believed to be immediately dangerous.

The second condition is to make the accuser liable for the defendant’s reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees needed to defend himself if he prevails and the Red Flag Order is not granted at the fourteen day hearing.

I think that the realization that a false and malicious claim made for the purpose of harassment could cause you to have to pay five or ten grand out of your pocket in pretty short order would mitigate a lot of potential abuse while still providing an avenue to deal with someone who might actually have some bad issues.

Red Flag laws will be the same as Domestic Violence complaints. No judge is going to deny one and catch the blame for not taking someone’s guns and a shooting happening.

It will really depend on the jurisdiction. Around here, if a protective order is opposed and contested, it is seldom granted.

How many Emergeny ROs (I’m uncertain of what y’all call them) are turned down? That’s a better comparison ‘in the moment.

my neighbor *might* drink and drive. i'm not positive.

one thing about red flag laws, once the camel get's it's nose under the tent, then it's endless.

true, in random and rare cases they might have an effect. but lot's of individual rights will be forfeited.

we can blame it on the liberals, on the city-people, on the culture where folks are now living as a collective group.

Both need overturning by the courts. There's no clearer violation of due process in the history of US law.

How many rapes have to occur before we cut off our dicks?

For the judges issuing these orders, there will be no downside to granting the order. There will be no incentive to deny one and the judges will effectively be unaccountable.

A $500 bond would be considered discrimination against people of color and the poor.
Just saying....

Red Flag is BS. Everyone seems to miss the point of the Laughtenberg act.
It was to make sure that people under restraining orders for Domestic violence or had a conviction of misdemeanor DV that they would no longer be able to purchase or possess firearms. Problem was that the military, police and the courts would not send all the information to the data base. Too damn many cops and soldiers would have been booted for not being able to handle a firearm so they just let it slide. The Texas church shooting was a good example of failure.
Secondly as long as schools and local police fail in their duty to get bad teenagers adjucated ( Florida school shooting prime example ) and entered into the data base. The Ohio shooter had his juvenile record sealed and wiped clean even though there was enough LE contact to put his name on the no buy list.

I spent 20 yrs in LE in South Jersey and don’t ever recall a TRO (temporary restraining order) being denied. The domestic violence case workers know exactly how to coach the “victim” to get one issued. The system was put in place to protect victims but quickly became a way to get the upper hand in a divorce, custody battle or just getting the boyfriend or husband thrown out of the house/apartment for the weekend.

Problem is the stacked deck. Colorado's will be me against a po'ed wife, policemen, DA, doctor, judge; with whatever help I can afford. This goes for almost any personal dispute without evidence (black eye on wife) . The other thing is it leaves kitchen knives, cars, lye, hammers out of the equation.
Add in the rough handling reported on guns. How do they know what I have in the truck, at my work, brothers house so they will want an inventory before hand the inventory will also aid in the mandated background check
It has already passed here, and coming soon in your state.

Several weeks ago I started a thread posing the question, how will we know when it is "time"?

John has a long mustache, John has a long mustache.

Besides the outrage at completely ignoring the 5th and 14th Amendments what really scares the sh*t out of me is the potential for rampant abuse by anyone with a grudge.

Anybody can make a claim about anybody else and the subject of the claim has no idea one is even being made and has no recourse to confront his accuser nor defend himself. The first indication that a "red flag" has been raised is when the police come to your door (or flat out knock it down) with a predetermined mindset "this guy has guns and someone thinks he's dangerous enough to have them taken away, so be ready to shoot at the slightest hint of a threat." I can't think of a more perfect storm for tragedy.

Very little pisses me off any more, I've seen so much political bullscheiss and blatant abuse of power that I'm almost enured to it, but this really does get my blood up.

Judges routinely violate the 4th Amendment in regards to weapon seizures due to the issuance of a TRO. I’ve had this conversation with Judges, Chiefs, Sheriff and more lawyers than I can count. Search Warrants require specificity and particularity. Basically a clear description of the weapon and where it is located. The judges around here check off a box that the search warrant is approved and in the description line they write “any and all firearms”. The next line is the address of the warrant. The next line is the description of the specific location of the weapon ( I.e. master bedroom closet). The judges don’t fill this section out.

Once again, no judge is going to deny a search warrant for weapons in relation to a TRO. They aren’t going to limit the scope of the search in specificity or particularity. They don’t want to have a finger pointed at them so they just twist the law however they see fit. It’s disgusting.

👍👍👍👍

Exactly 😀

Exactly.

Can someone fill the rest of us in. What's that mean?

hunter4623,

I spent over 30 years "pinned to a badge" & served for several years as a City Marshal. = Unfortunately, I know all about ABUSE of "protective orders", & ABUSE of "tip lines" by ANGRY ex-wives, jilted girlfriends & just plain CRACKPOTS.

For just one example: Our office was seeking a 19YO & VERY dark complected A-A male, who had robbed a local convenience store of about 200.oo, using a large butcher knife as a weapon. - Our Mayor insisted that we "set up" a "tip line" & offer a 1500.oo reward for "information leading to the arrest & indictment of the armed criminal". - The local newspaper printed a photo, from the store's security camera of the robber, too.
Over the next 3 days, until I talked the Mayor into "withdrawing the reward & disconnecting the 'tip line' ", we received & "worked" a total of 78 complaints & "hot tips" off of the recorded line.

Of those 78 complaints that were "called in" & that we "looked into", only SIX of the men, who were reported to our office as "likely suspects", were even BLACK males. - Further, those supposed "likely suspects", that were reported to our office, ranged in age from 16-71 years of age.

Of all of those who called-in "HOT tips", the "complaining witnesses" were divided into 4 main categories:

1. ANGRY & VINDICTIVE ex-wives,
2. Jilted (& about equally angry/vindictive) former girlfriends,
3. CRACKPOTS, who knew NOTHING about the robbery but wanted to "make a complaint" about something, that they were ANGRY or were just upset about
4. People who just HOPED to claim the 1500.oo reward, though their "likely suspect" did NOT even vaguely fit the "general description" of the knife-wielding criminal
and
5. Persons who were "members" of more than one of the first 4 groups.

Our office over the next week also had FIVE male subjects, who came into our office & wanted to confess to the robbery.- Only ONE of the 5 "confessors" was a Black male.

Btw, one of our Deputy Marshals caught the robber, as a result of apprehending him for an unrelated DWI about 8 days later.
( He pled guilty to the armed robbery & served 4 years in the state penitentiary. )

yours, tex

All of your concerns are why I say that a bond should be required. Put up or shut up.

Mike Beltran has a long mustache.

My friend just told me a story of a man that had 300 guns and all accessories and ammo taken under a red flag law. He went to court, and prevailed, but the govt refused to give anything back. Don't ask me how, I don't have more details, but I just bought a sheitload of his ammo so it's for real.

Florida.

I posted this personal anecdote before, but because it is about how red flag type laws work in the liberal paradise of California, here it is again...expect this to happen nationwide. As a reminder, I'm a lawyer, I've practiced before the US Supreme Court and I've had Second Amendment articles published in law reviews, yet the judge simply refused to respect the Constitution and knew there was nothing I could do about it short of taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which I wasn't planning on.

"My cousin (who lives in California) got into an argument with the business next door to his. There was no violence, no threats of violence, just two business owners arguing over parking spots.

In California, though, not only are there "red flag" laws there are all sorts of other laws that allow for the confiscation of firearms. My cousin's business neighbor happened to be over 65 years old and he filed for an "elder abuse" restraining order against my cousin. The order was granted and the court ordered my cousin to give up all of his firearms.

I went to court on behalf of my cousin to argue that the elder abuse law was never intended to be used for business disputes and even if there was a basis for its use in this case, any gun related orders should only apply to the place of business, not my cousin's home. I argued that by issuing the order over a parking spot dispute the court was leaving my cousin without adequate means of defense in his home, something that even the Heller decision found to be covered by the Second Amendment.

No dice, the court refused to budge and agents came to my cousin's house and confiscated all of his guns and ammo.

The CA law had "due process" provisions yet the judge simply ruled that they had been complied with, as I had an opportunity to argue my position in court, and that satisfied due process requirements."

And let me guess who gets the proceeds from the sale of said merchandise, the State?

Great to have pro gun senators.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news...h-gop-in-congress/ar-AAFqNjB?ocid=msn360