CDZ Should all legal fees involved in a "Red Flag Law" gun confiscation be paid by the state?

[rightwinger]

Payable with a small tax on gun owners

Then we should also combat voter fraud with a poll tax

We should tax free speech too.

How about a per letter tax on all the shit people post on the internet?

With the amount of voter fraud proven in this country, you could fight it with the change I find in my soda cushions

So we can use the poll tax to fund something else

We could tax everyone for their 4th and 5th amendment rights and fund police forces with the revenue

We can tax every letter people type and post on the internet and fund public schools

So let's tax all rights and balance the budget

No need for a poll tax

I already offered the change in my sofa cushions

 

[OldLady]

The initial Order taking the guns is not based on a psychological examination, but all you have to do is have one and yes that costs money but then if the report says you are not homicidal/suicidal---you get your guns and you walk away. You can then sue the pants off the original accuser in civil court and get back any costs incurred.

Much like a Restraining Order, most people do this unrepresented by counsel. The courts make the language simple and the judge is patient with goof ups. The accuser, usually a family member, hasn't got a lawyer either. Spend $100,000 if you want, but it would be perfectly possible to represent yourself, if you are indeed okay.

The person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client

Red flag laws are a blatant sidestep of due process.

If it were a sidestep of due process WHY ARE THEY IN COURT?
There are laws for exigent circumstances that allow law enforcement to enter a building or residence without a search warrant. These involve imminent danger to a person or imminent destruction of property. Red flag laws are about imminent risk. Emergency. That is why it is called an Emergency order. There is a full evidentiary hearing scheduled ASAP. When I did Child Protective, almost all of our removals were Imminent Risk of Serious Harm. These also required Preliminary and Full Hearings within a set amount of time. It is how emergencies are handled. Would you rather have someone or many someones dead?

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

 

[Blues Man]

The person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client

Red flag laws are a blatant sidestep of due process.

If it were a sidestep of due process WHY ARE THEY IN COURT?
There are laws for exigent circumstances that allow law enforcement to enter a building or residence without a search warrant. These involve imminent danger to a person or imminent destruction of property. Red flag laws are about imminent risk. Emergency. That is why it is called an Emergency order. There is a full evidentiary hearing scheduled ASAP. When I did Child Protective, almost all of our removals were Imminent Risk of Serious Harm. These also required Preliminary and Full Hearings within a set amount of time. It is how emergencies are handled. Would you rather have someone or many someones dead?

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

 

[Blues Man]

Payable with a small tax on gun owners

Then we should also combat voter fraud with a poll tax

We should tax free speech too.

How about a per letter tax on all the shit people post on the internet?

With the amount of voter fraud proven in this country, you could fight it with the change I find in my soda cushions

So we can use the poll tax to fund something else

We could tax everyone for their 4th and 5th amendment rights and fund police forces with the revenue

We can tax every letter people type and post on the internet and fund public schools

So let's tax all rights and balance the budget

No need for a poll tax

I already offered the change in my sofa cushions

So this post will cost you 2 cents per word that will fund education.

If you don't want to pay it then you hate children

 

[2aguy]

This article looks at the cost of getting your Right back after you have been attacked with a Red Flag Law......

This being the case.....before any Red Flag law is passed there needs to be a law that mandates that all expenses, fees, and pay lost due to time of from your job to fight these cases is paid for by the state, and if the Red Flag law is used criminally, from the accuser...

The cost involved is one reason those who oppose gun ownership love this idea...

Defending Against a Red Flag Confiscation Will Cost You Thousands - The Truth About Guns

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.


To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

The initial Order taking the guns is not based on a psychological examination, but all you have to do is have one and yes that costs money but then if the report says you are not homicidal/suicidal---you get your guns and you walk away. You can then sue the pants off the original accuser in civil court and get back any costs incurred.

Much like a Restraining Order, most people do this unrepresented by counsel. The courts make the language simple and the judge is patient with goof ups. The accuser, usually a family member, hasn't got a lawyer either. Spend $100,000 if you want, but it would be perfectly possible to represent yourself, if you are indeed okay.

The person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client

Red flag laws are a blatant sidestep of due process.

If it were a sidestep of due process WHY ARE THEY IN COURT?
There are laws for exigent circumstances that allow law enforcement to enter a building or residence without a search warrant. These involve imminent danger to a person or imminent destruction of property. Red flag laws are about imminent risk. Emergency. That is why it is called an Emergency order. There is a full evidentiary hearing scheduled ASAP. When I did Child Protective, almost all of our removals were Imminent Risk of Serious Harm. These also required Preliminary and Full Hearings within a set amount of time. It is how emergencies are handled. Would you rather have someone or many someones dead?

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

Judges are the ones granting I-bonds to repeat gun offenders and giving repeat gun offender light sentences for repeat gun crimes....so don't tell us how wonderful judges are.

 

[2aguy]

Payable with a small tax on gun owners

Then we should also combat voter fraud with a poll tax

We should tax free speech too.

How about a per letter tax on all the shit people post on the internet?

With the amount of voter fraud proven in this country, you could fight it with the change I find in my soda cushions

So we can use the poll tax to fund something else

We could tax everyone for their 4th and 5th amendment rights and fund police forces with the revenue

We can tax every letter people type and post on the internet and fund public schools

So let's tax all rights and balance the budget

No need for a poll tax

I already offered the change in my sofa cushions

So this post will cost you 2 cents per word that will fund education.

If you don't want to pay it then you hate children

And he is a racist...don't forget that...and a homophobe...throw that in.....and anti-muslim....just for fun...

 

[Flash]

Here is a great example of how the stupid Red Flag laws can screw someone and it is despicable. He had his CWP taken away and his firearms confiscated and the government knew he was the wrong man.

He was presumed guilty by the government, which is another BOR violation and now it will cost him serious money to prove that he is innocent.

Never trust the government with your rights. "Commons sense" gun control laws are never sensible.


Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity



Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity

St. Cloud, FL –-(Ammoland.com)- Last Wednesday, Jonathan Carpenter of Osceola County, Florida was sitting at home when a mail carrier knocked on his front door.

The postal carrier had Carpenter signed for a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Carpenter signed for it, but he was confused because he was not expecting anything from the state. He quickly opened it and was floored.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

It was apparent that the police had the wrong man, but Carpenter was in for his biggest shock yet. The Sherriff’s office told Carpenter he had to surrender his guns. Carpenter never even had as much as a hearing, yet he was losing his rights.

For Carpenter, he has to wait until August 27th for his day in court to start the process of getting his firearms rights back. To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away. He is currently seeking legal counsel.

 

[OldLady]

If it were a sidestep of due process WHY ARE THEY IN COURT?
There are laws for exigent circumstances that allow law enforcement to enter a building or residence without a search warrant. These involve imminent danger to a person or imminent destruction of property. Red flag laws are about imminent risk. Emergency. That is why it is called an Emergency order. There is a full evidentiary hearing scheduled ASAP. When I did Child Protective, almost all of our removals were Imminent Risk of Serious Harm. These also required Preliminary and Full Hearings within a set amount of time. It is how emergencies are handled. Would you rather have someone or many someones dead?

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a great example of how the stupid Red Flag laws can screw someone and it is despicable. He had his CWP taken away and his firearms confiscated and the government knew he was the wrong man.

He was presumed guilty by the government, which is another BOR violation and now it will cost him serious money to prove that he is innocent.

Never trust the government with your rights. "Commons sense" gun control laws are never sensible.


Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity



Florida Man Has Firearms Rights Taken Away Over Mistaken Identity

St. Cloud, FL –-(Ammoland.com)- Last Wednesday, Jonathan Carpenter of Osceola County, Florida was sitting at home when a mail carrier knocked on his front door.

The postal carrier had Carpenter signed for a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Carpenter signed for it, but he was confused because he was not expecting anything from the state. He quickly opened it and was floored.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

It was apparent that the police had the wrong man, but Carpenter was in for his biggest shock yet. The Sherriff’s office told Carpenter he had to surrender his guns. Carpenter never even had as much as a hearing, yet he was losing his rights.

For Carpenter, he has to wait until August 27th for his day in court to start the process of getting his firearms rights back. To him, he had the presumption of innocence taken away. He is currently seeking legal counsel.

See..... to people who are against the private ownership of guns....you just showed a feature, not a flaw, in this system....

 

[2aguy]

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

A total of 12 times in 2018....... for that you want to weaken the Bill of Rights? Of course you do......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Red Flag laws have more to do with the suppression of free speech than saving lives.

 

[OldLady]

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

A total of 12 times in 2018....... for that you want to weaken the Bill of Rights? Of course you do......

States that have had the law long enough to have statistics report it is effective in preventing suicides. That happened a lot more than 12 times in 2018. It has most likely been effective in stopping killing sprees or domestic violence murders, but those are harder to "prove," since folks don't normally admit that was their plan.

If the plan is adopted nationally, I know you will continue to say there is no evidence it prevents anything, but it is one piece in a very complicated many piece puzzle that can help prevent gun deaths. It is such a no brainer. Who doesn't want

 

[Blues Man]

The person that the accuser names doesn't have to be in court and in fact can be told over the phone that he is getting his guns confiscated.

He then in usually 2 weeks has to go to court and prove he is innocent of these charges. There is absolutely no burden of proof placed on the state or the accuser.

There is no court ordered court funded psychological evaluation, there is no presentation of evidence.


By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A will allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind. This ex parte order, which strips the accused of their Second Amendment rights, will be issued by a judge based on the brief statement of the petitioner. The accused will not be afforded the chance to appear in court to defend themselves against the allegations when the ERPO is issued. These orders may be issued without any allegations of criminal behavior.

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

Yeah sure respecting people's rights is just farting around

Let's just tear up the constitution.

We should let everyone go to court with no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

No presumption of innocence because you can see the future right?

I suppose that's just fine until it's you getting your rights trampled on .

 

[Blues Man]

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

A total of 12 times in 2018....... for that you want to weaken the Bill of Rights? Of course you do......

States that have had the law long enough to have statistics report it is effective in preventing suicides. That happened a lot more than 12 times in 2018. It has most likely been effective in stopping killing sprees or domestic violence murders, but those are harder to "prove," since folks don't normally admit that was their plan.

If the plan is adopted nationally, I know you will continue to say there is no evidence it prevents anything, but it is one piece in a very complicated many piece puzzle that can help prevent gun deaths. It is such a no brainer. Who doesn't want

Suicide isn't a crime

and may have might have could have isn't good enough reason to shit on the constitution

 

[MarathonMike]

This article looks at the cost of getting your Right back after you have been attacked with a Red Flag Law......

This being the case.....before any Red Flag law is passed there needs to be a law that mandates that all expenses, fees, and pay lost due to time of from your job to fight these cases is paid for by the state, and if the Red Flag law is used criminally, from the accuser...

The cost involved is one reason those who oppose gun ownership love this idea...

Defending Against a Red Flag Confiscation Will Cost You Thousands - The Truth About Guns

Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.


To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

That makes sense. And perhaps all the legal fees incurred by innocent civilians defending themselves against the Mueller Inquisition should also be paid by the state. Or out of Mueller's pocket.

 

[OldLady]

In most states, family members are the primary "reporters," so they certainly have more than "minimal contact" with the respondent. The judge will take into consideration EVERY warning above, because judges are there to uphold the laws, not subvert them. Taking away a person's guns is serious business. I think those of you who are fighting taking guns from suicidal/homicidal people in crisis are doing a great disservice to our judiciary. At least the judges I've known are smart enough to know a "con job" when they see one. That's what you're afraid of, isn't it?
Connecticut has had red flag laws for ten years. Do you hear a lot about people complaining their guns were taken away? I haven't, and you'd think around this board, anyway, those kind of complaints would be front and center of attention.

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

Yeah sure respecting people's rights is just farting around

Let's just tear up the constitution.

We should let everyone go to court with no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

No presumption of innocence because you can see the future right?

I suppose that's just fine until it's you getting your rights trampled on .

You're not listening. This is NOT the case and I'm done trying to explain it to you.

no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

 

[Blues Man]

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

Yeah sure respecting people's rights is just farting around

Let's just tear up the constitution.

We should let everyone go to court with no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

No presumption of innocence because you can see the future right?

I suppose that's just fine until it's you getting your rights trampled on .

You're not listening. This is NOT the case and I'm done trying to explain it to you.

no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

Yeah it's pretty tough to defend such a flagrant violation of the constitution

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

These petitions are almost never denied so the judge isn't really considering anything but the testimony of a person who is not a mental health professional.

So you live in CT and look up every instance of a red flag law being used or abused?

I don't have the means or the time to scour court orders do you?

And then that person has to prove himself innocent even though there are no criminal charges filed against him

Red flag laws are a blatant and disgusting violation of the Constitution.

Each law is slightly different, but in California, for instance, the judge has to consider all of the following factors before signing an Order:
For example, in California, when filing a petition for an order, the court must consider the following evidence:32

• Threats or acts of violence by the respondent towards self or another within the past six months
• A violation of a domestic violence emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition
• A violation of an unexpired domestic violence protective order within the past six months
• Any conviction for any crime that prohibits purchase and possession of firearms (Even if a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to a criminal conviction, an ERPO may be necessary to require the individual to relinquish his or her firearms. Read more about disarming dangerous people in our report, Keeping Illegal Guns Out of Dangerous Hands)
• A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months

California courts are also authorized, but not required, to consider any other evidence that is indicative of an increased risk for violence, such as:33

• Unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
• Use or threats of physical force against another person
• Prior arrests for felonies
• History of violations of domestic violence protective orders
• Police reports and conviction records of criminal offenses within the past six months that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or documentary evidence of ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
• Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons

This is not just about someone saying "I'm scared" or "I'm pissed off" and deciding to contact law enforcement to file an order to steal someone's guns.

Judges just rubber stamp these protection orders because there is no negative outcome for doing so

And nowhere in that "evidence" is there any professional evaluation.

The accused is just deemed guilty and then the burden of proof is on him not on the accuser.

Yes. That's how it works in emergency situations. The whole idea is that something may be imminent. While you fart around getting a psych eval (who says the gun owner will even agree to one?) our friend is out shooting up a bar or his workplace or killing himself before his guns get taken away.
Great move.

Yeah sure respecting people's rights is just farting around

Let's just tear up the constitution.

We should let everyone go to court with no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

No presumption of innocence because you can see the future right?

I suppose that's just fine until it's you getting your rights trampled on .

You're not listening. This is NOT the case and I'm done trying to explain it to you.

no evidence, no proof and point the finger at anyone they want and call them guilty.

And you are wrong....this guy lost his Rights because his name was the same as a criminal...

Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity

ust last week, a man in Florida had his firearms confiscated simply because he had the same name as a criminal. That's right. A man was stripped of his Second Amendment right...because the police failed to differentiate a law-abiding citizen with a thug.

According to Ammoland, Jonathan Carpenter received a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services saying his concealed handgun permit had been suspended for "acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations."

Carpenter was forced to go to the Osceola County clerk's office to have a form filled out stating he wasn't the person law enforcement was looking for. At that point, the clerk instructed Carpenter to speak with the sheriff's office.
-----


Carpenter had never met the woman in question and never lived at the address listed in the restraining order. Moreover, other than being white, he looked nothing like the man the terrorized the woman.

The man in question is 5'8. Carpenter is 5'11. The alleged drug dealer is 110lbs. Carpenter is over 200. The man has black hair. Carpenter is completely bald. Last but not least, the man in question is covered in tattoos, and Carpenter only has a few.

Even though it was evident they had the wrong man, Carpenter was forced to hand over his firearms. There was no hearing or any kind of court proceeding.

--------

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.

Carpenter's firearms had to remain in police custody until the plaintiff can say, in court, that he's not the man that she filed a complaint against. He'd then have to petition the court to get his firearms back...and he would have to bear the cost. Carpenter will get his day in court later this month.

What's happening to this man is the exact instance Second Amendment supporters have worried about. This very instant is what we've talked about, time and time again. What if Carpenter needed to defend himself between now and his court date? He couldn't, because the government failed him. He's having to prove himself innocent in a country where everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has anyone considered the effect these laws will have on free speech?
People less willing to make... controversial... statements in fear of having the sheriff show up and take their guns?
Does anyone think the left hasn't considered this and is part of its support for same?

 

[2aguy]

Has anyone considered the effect these laws will have on free speech?
People less willing to make... controversial... statements in fear of having the sheriff show up and take their guns?
Does anyone think the left hasn't considered this and is part of its support for same?

When seat belt laws were first enacted, they were sold with the lie...." The police won't be stopping you if you aren't wearing a seatbelt, but if they notice you aren't wearing one, they will just warn you...." Now....they can and do stop people for not wearing seat belts......

The slippery slope isn't a fantasy, it is a tried and true tactic of the left...... they know the war against normal people is a war of inches and yards.....and they will fight for those inches and yards and show no mercy.