Just a heads up to anyone in New Jersey who isn't aware:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...-confiscated-via-new-red-flag-law-in-nj/

Some will find the taking of their self-defense capability a real hard pill to swallow and may act out. So the liberals can then yell, "See, we told you!".

Red flags are very, very bad for America.

So every millennial with an Instagram account now has a red flag.

No they don’t. But if you call them in they could. Oops sorry for thinking like a Democrat. I’ll say two hail Marie’s . Ed k

Mad girlfriends and wives will soon realize the power and leverage in this. No judge in his right mind would refuse to uphold a red flag confiscation, much like emergency protective / domestic violence orders.

There WILL be institutional abuse of red flag laws, just a matter of time.

Another great gun law in New Jersey, almost as ridiculous as the law that states you can only go from your house to your hunting location or range with no deviations or stops. This means you can't stop for gas, food, take a piss or pick a friend up. Unbelievable!

In order to end a final order, the original petitioner or the person who had to surrender their firearms can submit a new form to terminate the order. A hearing is then scheduled to evaluate the request before a judge. If the person who surrendered their firearms is making the request without the support of the original petitioner for their removal, they bear the burden of proof to show they are no longer a risk to themselves or others."

In other words you are guilty until proven innocent!

Questions:

1. Does the gun owner get to try to counter the allegations BEFORE they confiscate the guns (or does the gun owner even know about the "due proess/"

2. Are the LEOs required to keep the guns in good condition, no throwing them in a pl=ile, letting them get rusty, etc.?

Anyone know?

Just gotta love that "common sense gun control".

Don't look now but "infringement" of your rights is coming!

VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY bad for America... And they need to be litigated out of existence at the SCOTUS PRONTO!!

And time is getting damned SHORT!

Freedom-loving gun owners are going to be more than a hell of a lot butthurt if someone not so politely asks for their guns, after pushing their door in with a battering ram. America is headed down a dark road.

Here is the process. It is pretty much like a protective order and they are pretty much the same, with some minor differences, everywhere.

There will be an affidavit made that the person is an imminent danger. A petition for an ex parte order will be prepared based upon the affidavit. That will usually be hand delivered to the judge like a search warrant would be. The judge will consider the petition and the affidavit and if granted, issue the temporary order and set a hearing within 14 days. The order will be served and presumably the firearms confiscated. Then at the hearing the merits of the case will be heard with the accused given the chance to call witnesses, present evidence, impeach evidence and cross examine witnesses. After that hearing a decision will be made by the judge to grant a red flag order or not. If he decides not to, the matter is over and the firearms are returned. If he grants it, then it will be in effect for a year or so from what I’ve seen in most places during which time from what I’ve seen the firearms will be stored or given to family members. At the end of that year, it will expire and the firearms returned. The state or the complainant can petition to have it extended one more time for another year with the person affected given the chance to contest that and have another hearing. Only one extension can be granted and will be considered.

I doubt that we'll see many red flag petitions denied until such time (if ever) as these laws are challenged & get a SCOTUS decision on constitutionality.

MM

Depends on the jurisdiction. Judges have opportunities to count votes every time they take the bench.

The East Coast & the Left Coast states, along with any other highly or mostly blue states will be where most accusations come, & in those states, few will be denied.

Likely a little better scenario in highly red states.

MM

Wham, you just got elected Judge. Doesn't matter what jurisdiction. A case comes before you: Citizen X's guns have been red-flagged. At the hearing, Witness for the govt. is Citizen X's girlfriend. She testifies that Citizen X has been threatening to shoot up a McDonald's, threatening to shoot her, threatening to shoot her family and then kill himself. Says he sits there all night long cleaning an AR over and over, mumbling about how everyone is out to get him but he is gonna make all of them pay.

Citizen X testifies in his defense: girlfriend is mad because he won't take her on vacation and he has threatened to leave her, but nothing else. He says all of her testimony is BS. He admits to owning a confiscated AR and a thousand rounds of ammo. Says he got a good deal on bulk ammo and he likes to go to the range.

Alright Judge, what you gonna do? This is a simplistic scenario but I think we all know what the Judge is gonna do: err on the side of caution. The side of caution is confiscation. Always will be...

fixt

Wham, you just got elected judge. You live in a jurisdiction where fifty percent of the males have an AR, seventy five percent of households have some kind of firearm and 2,000 rounds is just enough for a couple afternoons at the river. Deer season is coming soon and you know that the state rifle association will want the stats of all the red flags you’ve granted. There are no social media posts backing her assertions. No evidence of drug use. And a clean criminal record and no mental health issues.

You don’t want an opponent in the next election who says that you aren’t concerned enough with second amendment rights. Now what do you do?

If I think there is a remote chance that the guy may go on a shooting spree, I look for evidence to support that. And then I confiscate, basing my decision on, and carefully citing, whatever evidence I can hang my hat on to support confiscation. And when the gun lobby starts fussing I tell them Sorry, but I gotta go by the evidence, and the evidence was __________. Cause I am a Judge and am sworn to apply the law to the evidence and if you want a different outcome you need to fuss at the legislature and not me, and blah blah blah.

Happens every single day with domestic violence petitions (many of which can temporarily ban possession of firearms if granted) in every jurisdiction in the US.

Just my opinion, but no. If they arrived back to you (assuming you get them back) as a pile of rusted metal and broken stocks you'd have to sue the Police Department and prove in court that they were not in that condition when they were confiscated.

But in any event you still get to pay for the smashed in door and the funeral for your little shih-tzu who was shot as it barked menacingly from behind your wife's leg at the intruders rushing in screaming "GET THE F*CK DOWN! GET THE F*CK DOWN!".

New Jersey has been screwed up politically and legally for a long time - this is some more of the same. I'll believe it is effective when they take the guns away from Corey Booker and his ilk.

1) No.
2) No. They will be piled on the ground, thrown into the back of a truck and tossed into an evidence locker. If you're lucky nobody will engrave an evidence number into each and every one. Oh, you'll be charged for storage.

The way RFL's work you're not even Guilty until proven Innocent. First, you're just Guilty, when they hold a "hearing" without you even knowing about it and the judge rubber stamps an order to suspend your Second Amendment rights. Better safe than sorry.

Since you've been judged a threat a SWAT team may knock down your door at 4AM, along with news coverage of the "arsenal" and the "thousands of rounds of ammunition" (four bricks of 22) they discovered.

Then you get to be Guilty until proven Innocent, at a hearing likely presided by a judge who has already declared you guilty once.

All this is not for a crime that has been committed, it's for a crime that someone thinks might be committed.

It's all part of the new bigotry. If you own a gun, you are a second class citizen. Due process doesn't apply to you. Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to you. Ex post facto doesn't apply to you. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to anybody.

Red flag laws ARE an infringement on the second amendment.

I agree with most of your posts and reasonings about these red flag laws JoeBob but have to disagree here. I think if it comes down to it a judge is going to rule on the side of caution just like we know they do when a PFA is written. All it takes is an ex girlfriend or wife with an ax to grind (or I guess anyone in general in the case of red flag laws) and your firearms are gone for a while...

It's an interesting speculation, but Red Flag Laws don't get passed in jurisdictions like that. At least not yet.

About a year ago, 16 people were shot in Trenton, NJ on one night during two different shootings including one fatality. The first thing that Gov. Murphy said was "we need better gun laws"! I guess they were fighting over who got to sell hot dogs on a particular street corner!

They get passed as the state level. But they are implemented at the local/county level.

I see your point. Even in California, there are probably some counties in the State of Jefferson who would have a real issue.