Are Red Flag Laws Constitutional?

[marvin martian]

No, I personally do not feel red flag laws are at all constitutional. They deprive someone of constitutional rights without due process.

Absolutely 100% illegal IMHO.

Yup, it's unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights.

 

[Missourian]

A restraining order is issued without any due process. A single person files the request saying I’m afraid. The court doesn’t wait to hear from anyone else. The order is issued. No opportunity to present contradictory evidence. No hearings are held to discuss the matter. The judge signs it and it is done.

At least with the Red Flag laws the police are involved with the request. They present evidence that this individual has made threats or threatening behavior.

Getting a restraining order quashed is practically impossible. Just making the request would be seen as proof of the threat.

The restraining order lasts for months, or years. No appeal is possible. As long as you are under it, you can’t own firearms. The red flag laws have hearings scheduled to consider the matter in a few days or a couple weeks.

So what is the real difference?

A TEMPORARY restraining order is the only type that doesn't require a formal hearing.

In Missouri it is termed an ex parte restraining order.

Firearms removal is not a function of a Temporary Restraining Order...at least in my state...

I have a temporary order against the abuser. Can his/her gun be taken away?

Missouri law tells a judge what protections s/he is allowed to grant someone in a temporary order of protection. Restricting an abuser’s access to have or buy a gun is not included in the list of protections that can be granted in a temporary order.1 1 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.045

www.womenslaw.org

 

[MarathonMike]

The rub is that we no longer have the facilities we once had. In the 1980’s Reagan shut down the last of the federal mental institutions. The states who were supposed to build and staff facilities to take up the slack, didn’t. So there is a shortage of facilities, and people to treat them.

We don't have the beds, and we can’t just lock them up in prison and hope for the best. Prisons are overcrowded too, and the medical care in prisons is worse than the most awful example of mental hospitals.

That’s the problem. Even if we started to focus on mental health, we couldn’t hope to do anything for at least a decade. It would take time to build the facilities, and moreover, training enough Doctors would take years.

So to get started now, would cost billions, and not show any results for a decade, or two?

In Florida they have floors of hospitals dedicated for mentally ill people. I know because my Mom flipped out after taking too much Xanax once and they put her in there until she came out of it. Other states could do something similar to start providing much needed mental health facilities. Yes all the mental institutions were closed because they were totally understaffed and wrongly staffed. We need to bring them back with the lessons learned. Yes it will take years but at least we would be addressing root cause and not endlessly spinning our wheels over gun control that won't work anyway.

 

[Missourian]

A PERMANENT Restraining Order requires due process. A hearing, with witnesses and the person upon whom the Restraining Order is being levied must have an opportunity to attend the hearing and refute the accusations...

Levying this type of restraining order is not "easy" and requires due process.

The OP is an idiot talking out of his ass.

 

[progressive hunter]

As with the DV restraining orders, it seeks to remove the tools of destruction from someone who may present a threat to another while authorities investigate and judicial process continues.

do you really think a law restricting gun ownership is going to stop a person from attacking a person??

 

[MarathonMike]

do you really think a law restricting gun ownership is going to stop a person from attacking a person??

Exactly. The Democrats and the anti-gun lobby waste all of our time and resources on a non-solution to the root cause of the problem. It's about gaining more control.

 

[the watcher]

Why do "red flag" laws need to be explicitly tied to gun seizure? Red flag laws should focus on mentally ill people who are dangers to themselves and others.

And why does it have to be tied to violence to be dangerous, like people who may vote in opposition to you? Wouldn't that be a danger? Should they be stopped before they do damage to your world?

 

[SavannahMann]

In Florida they have floors of hospitals dedicated for mentally ill people. I know because my Mom flipped out after taking too much Xanax once and they put her in there until she came out of it. Other states could do something similar to start providing much needed mental health facilities. Yes all the mental institutions were closed because they were totally understaffed and wrongly staffed. We need to bring them back with the lessons learned. Yes it will take years but at least we would be addressing root cause and not endlessly spinning our wheels over gun control that won't work anyway.

The idea is to limit the damage that can be done.

I was a Combat Engineer in the Army. One of the rules you followed was to hold a blasting cap in your hand when crimping the time fuse to it. This meant that if the blasting cap detonated it would remove your hand. But it wouldn’t set off any other explosives, and wouldn’t kill anyone through dumb luck. You limited the possible damage.

But we all do that, we are all trained to do that. If a car crosses the center line we dive for the side of the road. Yes, we may crash into a ditch. We might even roll the car, but that will be less bad than a head on between two vehicles traveling at even medium speeds.

So the idea is if Joe Dumbass is doing things, making threats, we respond to it.

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution when I enlisted. The Constitution was one of the two books my Father held sacred at home.

So civil rights mean a great deal to me.

 

[SavannahMann]

do you really think a law restricting gun ownership is going to stop a person from attacking a person??

As a trained soldier I can kill with guns, knives, clubs, spears, or my bare hands. Really anything can be a weapon to someone trained.

Someone untrained will gravitate to the item that provides the most damage to his target. I don’t think we will have much argument that this would be a gun.

Most people don’t know how to fight with a knife. They can kill you but the odds are lower. Most people don’t know how to make a lethal wound with a knife. They’ll just keep stabbing over and over until the person being stabbed stops moving. I know of one lunatic who stabbed a woman more than a hundred times as an example.

Now. What those other weapons or whatever give the victim is a fighting chance. Someone who walks up and just shoots you in the head with no warning, no chance. The victim may still die from being stabbed or beaten, but they had a chance, even if a slim one.

My question to you is this. If someone is making threats, why do you want him armed? Probably he won’t act on those threats. But if he does, the result is catastrophic. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[progressive hunter]

when did

As a trained soldier I can kill with guns, knives, clubs, spears, or my bare hands. Really anything can be a weapon to someone trained.

Someone untrained will gravitate to the item that provides the most damage to his target. I don’t think we will have much argument that this would be a gun.

Most people don’t know how to fight with a knife. They can kill you but the odds are lower. Most people don’t know how to make a lethal wound with a knife. They’ll just keep stabbing over and over until the person being stabbed stops moving. I know of one lunatic who stabbed a woman more than a hundred times as an example.

Now. What those other weapons or whatever give the victim is a fighting chance. Someone who walks up and just shoots you in the head with no warning, no chance. The victim may still die from being stabbed or beaten, but they had a chance, even if a slim one.

My question to you is this. If someone is making threats, why do you want him armed? Probably he won’t act on those threats. But if he does, the result is catastrophic. Wouldn’t you agree?

when did I say I wanted hem armed??

so far to date no law has ever stopped anyone from hurting or killing a single person when they really wanted to do it,,

in this case people like you think a law is going to stop a person from comitting a crime,,

thats just sad,,

 

[MarathonMike]

And why does it have to be tied to violence to be dangerous, like people who may vote in opposition to you? Wouldn't that be a danger? Should they be stopped before they do damage to your world?

What a stupid post. This is a serious subject, run along little boy.

 

[MarathonMike]

As a trained soldier I can kill with guns, knives, clubs, spears, or my bare hands. Really anything can be a weapon to someone trained.

Someone untrained will gravitate to the item that provides the most damage to his target. I don’t think we will have much argument that this would be a gun.

Most people don’t know how to fight with a knife. They can kill you but the odds are lower. Most people don’t know how to make a lethal wound with a knife. They’ll just keep stabbing over and over until the person being stabbed stops moving. I know of one lunatic who stabbed a woman more than a hundred times as an example.

Now. What those other weapons or whatever give the victim is a fighting chance. Someone who walks up and just shoots you in the head with no warning, no chance. The victim may still die from being stabbed or beaten, but they had a chance, even if a slim one.

My question to you is this. If someone is making threats, why do you want him armed? Probably he won’t act on those threats. But if he does, the result is catastrophic. Wouldn’t you agree?

If I had a magic wand, I would make every gun in the hands of someone intending violence to turn into silly putty. The magic wand does not exist and temporary gun seizure will not stop a determined person from finding a gun. As I keep saying, focus resources on what will do the most good for the most people. Mental health resources and facilities first.

 

[SavannahMann]

If I had a magic wand, I would make every gun in the hands of someone intending violence to turn into silly putty. The magic wand does not exist and temporary gun seizure will not stop a determined person from finding a gun. As I keep saying, focus resources on what will do the most good for the most people. Mental health resources and facilities first.

Ok. Convince the Republicans to put the money up. You’ll see support for mental health vanish faster than concern for the child ten seconds after it is born.

 

[MarathonMike]

Ok. Convince the Republicans to put the money up. You’ll see support for mental health vanish faster than concern for the child ten seconds after it is born.

Don't blame the GOP for what has been a failure of both parties to address probably the MOST serious domestic problem next to the economy. Mental illness.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

 

[whitehall]

Meanwhile I have no criminal record and in NYC it takes over $500 in fees and months of waiting just to get a license to keep a revolver in my apartment.

Is that a legitimate restriction?

We are talking about the federal restrictions. State and local restrictions are up to you dude. Fix it if you have the balls.

 

[progressive hunter]

We are talking about the federal restrictions. State and local restrictions are up to you dude. Fix it if you have the balls.

neither the fed nor the states have authority to make gun laws of any kind,,

shall not be infringed is pretty clear,,

 

[the watcher]

As I keep saying, focus resources on what will do the most good for the most people. Mental health resources and facilities first.

That's exactly what the state is doing, calling everyone who disagrees with it to be mentally ill, and in need of "remedial care". You seem to be well ahead of the curve here. Good work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So I wonder, using the Rahimi decision, if Red Flag Laws would be ruled as Constitutional?

The Rahimi decision is in conflict with Bruen, invalidating the ‘historical analogue’ test.

The ruling in Rahimi was correct but for the wrong reason – fear of political backlash.

Likewise, future Second Amendment cases, such as extreme risk protection orders, will be evaluated based on political expediency, not the law.

If the Court’s conservatives were honest and consistent, they would have struck down laws prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms and strike down extreme risk protection orders as well – regardless the political consequences.

But the Court’s conservatives are neither honest nor consistent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Using Bruen there have been some interesting developments. A drug user had his conviction overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals because according to them, using Bruen as a guide, the prohibition against drug users buying guns is unconstitutional.

…because there’s no ‘historical analogue’ during the Foundation Era.

The problem is that the Bruen Court painted itself into a corner with its test – where a strict, consistent application of the test would prove to be politically problematic, running counter to sound public policy, such as allowing domestic abusers and those subject to extreme protective orders to possess firearms.