Jump to content

Cliff's Red Flag Thread


Recommended Posts

This image^^^is proudly pulled... from the Tom Ray Database.

 

Hey Mikey. Thanks for your solid posts elsewhere this morning.

Quote

‘Extreme Risk’: Seattle police have seized 43 guns from people deemed to be a danger under year-old law

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/extreme-risk-seattle-police-have-seized-43-guns-from-people-deemed-to-be-a-danger-under-year-old-law/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Seattle law is a good idea. It certainly seems like some bad events could be prevented by such a law...

but

In the USA, such a law is currently unconstitutional.  Itbis against the rules in this country to infringe on the right to and bear arms.

so

if you think Laws like the illegal one in Seattle shoujd be legal, campaign to amend the Constitution then AFTER THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO ALLOW THEM campaign for new infringing Laws. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Yeah, and that's why our Red Flag proposition failed. The gun guys wanted to keep guns away from emotionally ill people, the gun grabbers wanted to keep guns away from emotionally ill people. But the proposal was written inexpertly, in a way that left ambiguity to how and when weapons would be confiscated and how and when people would be defined as emotionally ill and lose that right.

It's not reasonable for the grabbers  to think they can write laws that will pass without this ambiguity, and it's not reasonable for the gun guys to think that unambiguous laws can be written without their cooperation. So we're left with armed psychopaths.

This is where politics is fucking the whole thing up. Back when the NRA wanted to distance themselves from politics, back when they were planning to move to Colorado Springs, this could have probably been avoided. A sporting organization would have helped figure out the law. There is low-hanging fruit. We don't need to figure out what to do about "assault" weapons or bump stockaaaaa, or concealed carry. We just need to make some changes on the things which both sides agree. And then, as the political venom slowly drains from the mess, I'll bet that the psychopaths will look to other methods of destruction too. They chose guns for politically-motivated insanity because guns are politically motivating. The Red Flag laws are a no brainer if they can be done in a functionally compromised way. And if that's all that comes out of some kind of bipartisan effort, then that will be a lot.

We even did it with knives, and with minimal trauma ... ballistic knives are pretty much illegal all over the country, and they can't cross state lines without fouling Federal law.


Do you have a link to the law you're talking about that you could share, Cliff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Do you have a link to the law you're talking about that you could share, Cliff?

Cripes man. YOU pulled it up about a week ago. Remember? You had some comments on the wording. Ring a bell?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Cripes man. YOU pulled it up about a week ago. Remember? You had some comments on the wording. Ring a bell?

I just figured someone who wanted to discuss the subject might provide a link.

The fact that I asked you three times for one before researching it myself previously does nothing to negate that thought.

We can see how much you really want to discuss this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mikewof said:

I pointed that out in an earlier post in this thread. Gun safety doesn't mean making the weapon less deadly, it means making the culture and community safer.

For instance, the gun community and industry should be proactive in developing good laws, like an effective Red Flag law, that isn't killed in the State House.


I knew this thread was going to be needed.

Every time you try to distract from a gun ban discussion with this topic, I'll bring it here and ask this question:

Cliff, do you have a link to any such legislation that you'd like to discuss?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


I knew this thread was going to be needed.

Every time you try to distract from a gun ban discussion with this topic, I'll bring it here and ask this question:

Cliff, do you have a link to any such legislation that you'd like to discuss?

We already did this. But, I'm happy to go again if you like ... 

1. It's not a distraction, it's the meat of the discussion.

2. Here is the link to the proposed law: https://www.scribd.com/document/377824929/HB-1436

3. Now you respond with something like "Hey, no wonder that didn't pass, it has this and that problem!"

4. Then I respond with something like "Yeah, that's my point. If your team had been proactive about writing an effective Extreme Risk Protection Act, then maybe it could have passed, right?"

5. Then you copy and paste my response in a completely different thread.

Let's do this Normy!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mikewof said:

We already did this. But, I'm happy to go again if you like ... 

1. It's not a distraction, it's the meat of the discussion.

2. Here is the link to the proposed law: https://www.scribd.com/document/377824929/HB-1436

3. Now you respond with something like

On 5/18/2018 at 6:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I got tired of waiting and found the legislation he was talking about.

Seems pretty reasonable. The order can be granted based only on a preponderance of the evidence and without any opportunity to contest the order, but at least it requires a sworn statement that convinces a judge.

It mostly gets better from there: hearings must be held promptly, the subject of the order can contest it and if that happens the petitioner has the burden of proof by "clear and convincing evidence" that the order is necessary.

I didn't go over it with a fine tooth comb but this was the only part that bothered me:

Quote

(k)  CORROBORATED EVIDENCE OF THE ABUSE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR ALCOHOL BY THE RESPONDENT;

Any use of a Schedule 1 substance like cannabis is abuse by definition. I know Colorado has changed their laws but that doesn't make federal laws go away.

 

4. Then I respond with something like "Yeah, that's my point. If your team had been proactive about writing an effective Extreme Risk Protection Act, then maybe it could have passed, right?"

5. Then you copy and paste my response in a completely different thread.

Let's do this Normy!

 

The meat of a gun ban discussion is the gun ban, not some other issue.

And "you didn't play nice on some other issue elsewhere before" is not a reason to pass a gun ban. It's just whining over a loss.

I edited the above because my actual words are a lot more accurate representation of what I would say than your caricature. And my words show the opposite of what you want to show: they show a willingness to discuss and consider this issue. And that's what I'll do in this thread. And if this issue pops up in another thread, yes, I'll copy and paste it into this one again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The meat of a gun ban discussion is the gun ban, not some other issue.

And "you didn't play nice on some other issue elsewhere before" is not a reason to pass a gun ban. It's just whining over a loss.

I edited the above because my actual words are a lot more accurate representation of what I would say than your caricature. And my words show the opposite of what you want to show: they show a willingness to discuss and consider this issue. And that's what I'll do in this thread. And if this issue pops up in another thread, yes, I'll copy and paste it into this one again.

Cutting and pasting avoids discussion. Gator was fond of that.

I asked you some time ago if you supported some kind of imminent danger, aka Red Flag legislation. I believe that you wrote that you did. This "ban" is something that supposedly enjoys support from your team. And yet, it wasn't passed, in large part because the people who wrote it were not of "your team." Had the bill been written with some genuine bilateral support, then it probably would have passed. But it wasn't, so it didn't.

If you genuinely have a willingness to discuss this issue, then go ahead. You haven't actually done that yet. In fact, it seem that you have promised in the underlined bit above that your "discussion" and "consideration" of this will be yet more Gator-style cut-and-paste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OK, I do have something new to add to the discussion.

This was the only part that bothered me:

Quote

(k)  CORROBORATED EVIDENCE OF THE ABUSE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR ALCOHOL BY THE RESPONDENT;

Any use of a Schedule 1 substance like cannabis is abuse by definition. I know Colorado has changed their laws but that doesn't make federal laws go away.

I didn't bring this up before because there were so many other things about the law that bothered me. Including, well, nothing.

So do you want to talk about the one part that bothered me or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our unlikely law does raise a couple of legal issues noted in that article. Seizing guns that belong to someone other than the target of the order and protecting the privacy of minors are two big ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, OK, I do have something new to add to the discussion.

This was the only part that bothered me:

Any use of a Schedule 1 substance like cannabis is abuse by definition. I know Colorado has changed their laws but that doesn't make federal laws go away.

I didn't bring this up before because there were so many other things about the law that bothered me. Including, well, nothing.

So do you want to talk about the one part that bothered me or not?

You had a similar complaint about the failed Colorado bill, maybe even the same complaint. I guess if you push me, I can go hunt up your response from a few weeks ago. But I believe that your memory has failed you in your bolded bit above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Our unlikely law does raise a couple of legal issues noted in that article. Seizing guns that belong to someone other than the target of the order and protecting the privacy of minors are two big ones.

So, are you suggesting that maybe you should have been involved with forming the bill in the early stages, rather than complaining about the horses that ran out of the gate when someone left it open?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:

You had a similar complaint about the failed Colorado bill, maybe even the same complaint. I guess if you push me, I can go hunt up your response from a few weeks ago. But I believe that your memory has failed you in your bolded bit above.

Dig real hard in post 11 above if you don't wish to search. That's where I pasted it.

You still don't want to talk about my one complaint, after I posted in the other thread, reposted in post 11, and reposted in post 13? Why are you avoiding it?

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

So, are you suggesting that maybe you should have been involved with forming the bill in the early stages, rather than complaining about the horses that ran out of the gate when someone left it open?

Except that bill was formed in a panic this year. You remember this year, right? Another year in which my elk can't be listened to because we favor murdered children?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You mean like the one Governor Skeletor signed this year?

It doesn't have a lot to do with the topic ban on our .22's.

As you can see, passing it has not resulted in grabberz stopping their campaign to ban and confiscate our .22's.

For something that nearly all of you gun guys think is a good idea, why have so few U.S. States been able to pass Red Flag laws? Even my own weed-smoking lefty haven state couldn't get it passed.

How many States have managed to pass a Red Flag Law?


I don't know. I suspect the grabberz in your state have completely lost the trust of the nutterz with that stupid magazine ban. Just a guess, I don't live there. You tell me why your state couldn't get it done.

I don't know how many states have passed such a law. Don't much care either. I've had to deal with an actual crazy person and understand that laws like that are (rarely) needed.

Banning our .22's because they're "weapons of war" is stupid and never needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


I don't know. I suspect the grabberz in your state have completely lost the trust of the nutterz with that stupid magazine ban. Just a guess, I don't live there. You tell me why your state couldn't get it done.

I don't know how many states have passed such a law. Don't much care either. I've had to deal with an actual crazy person and understand that laws like that are (rarely) needed.

Banning our .22's because they're "weapons of war" is stupid and never needed.

To my memory, I think only two or three states have managed to pass a red flag law.

Again, you and your side have supported the idea. But the laws haven't passed because you and your side haven't generally been proactive in helping to draft these laws. It's still us-vs-them, and a law enforcement officer was murdered in our state by someone whom everyone around him knew shouldn't have guns because of his emotional illness, yet there was nothing they could do to disarm him. The "grabberz" tried to get a law on the books on their own, surprise, surprise, it failed.

Yeah, there are contentious issues. But there are issues that both sides can agree. Too many otherwise intelligent men and women on your side are treating this like a game, with all sorts of variations on the "0.22" argument. Laws can't get enacted, psychopaths still have ready access to guns, but hey! Twenty-two, right guy! Those dead children weren't running around on your farm, so what's the bother, right Normy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Dig real hard in post 11 above if you don't wish to search. That's where I pasted it.

You still don't want to talk about my one complaint, after I posted in the other thread, reposted in post 11, and reposted in post 13? Why are you avoiding it?

Except that bill was formed in a panic this year. You remember this year, right? Another year in which my elk can't be listened to because we favor murdered children?

So now you remember your objection to the law, but you didn't remember it before?

This game is so much fun!

So you want me comment on the Controlled Substance part? Yeah, better wording would have been better, that's my point. Effective laws are formed with cooperation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mikewof said:

To my memory, I think only two or three states have managed to pass a red flag law.

Again, you and your side have supported the idea. But the laws haven't passed because you and your side haven't generally been proactive in helping to draft these laws. It's still us-vs-them, and a law enforcement officer was murdered in our state by someone whom everyone around him knew shouldn't have guns because of his emotional illness, yet there was nothing they could do to disarm him. The "grabberz" tried to get a law on the books on their own, surprise, surprise, it failed.

Yeah, there are contentious issues. But there are issues that both sides can agree. Too many otherwise intelligent men and women on your side are treating this like a game, with all sorts of variations on the "0.22" argument. Laws can't get enacted, psychopaths still have ready access to guns, but hey! Twenty-two, right guy! Those dead children weren't running around on your farm, so what's the bother, right Normy?

It managed to pass in FL somehow. I'm not sure why your elk can't get your act together elsewhere.

Banning our .22's is not really a game to me. I'm glad that it's difficult to enact something as ridiculous as calling this a weapon of war:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Don't Red Flag Gang Members!
 

Quote

 

House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.

“The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.”

Democrats objected with reasons that sounded very familiar to Republicans.

GOP lawmakers have staunchly opposed “No Fly, No Buy” proposals Democrats have tried to pass in the House in recent years because the lists flag the wrong people.

Like the no-fly lists, which have erroneously flagged many innocent individuals as terrorists (including the late Sen. Ted Kennedy), the gang databases are often inaccurate, Democrats said.

 

TeamD is right to reject that proposal because of that nasty due process problem that plagues their efforts to make the secret terrorist lists into secret denial-of-rights lists.

However, the proposal does seem similar to Jeff's idea that a red flag order to confiscate guns should also include confiscation of a person's voter registration card. Something I would also like to see applied to the secret terrorist lists. As mentioned previously, it would be nice if both halves of the Duopoly saw some real need for due process. That's obviously not going to happen if the stated "need" is upholding second amendment rights. But voting rights are another matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any instantiation of a red flag process MUST include a provision for the object of that label to have that determination reviewed in court.  This review shouldn't preclude the immediate surrender of firearms, but, it absolutely must provide for making the accused immediately whole again should the review determine that the accusations weren't sufficiently supported.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

New Data Suggest Florida Cops Have Broad Power to Take Away People's Second Amendment Rights

Well, yeah, they now do.
 

Quote

 

...

When police sought final orders, which they did in 93 percent of the cases, judges issued them 96 percent of the time in cases where the outcome was known. Final orders, which typically last a year and can be extended for another year, are supposed to be based on "clear and convincing evidence" that the respondent "poses a significant danger of causing personal injury" to himself or others. Theoretically, that test is much harder to satisfy than the "reasonable cause" standard for an ex parte order (although the threat no longer has to be "in the near future"). Yet respondents persuaded judges to restore their Second Amendment rights just 4 percent of the time.

Respondents usually did not even try. "In 76% of cases," the GLC report says, "respondents agreed to the final orders prior to the hearing." In other words, "full hearings where both parties had the opportunity to present evidence in front of a judge occurred in only 24% of cases." The GLC says "the frequency with which final orders were agreed to by stipulation without a hearing likely minimized the administrative burden these orders placed on the courts while still providing the key elements of due process and ensuring that respondents had notice and an opportunity to be heard."

How can there be due process when three-quarters of the respondents never even presented their side of the story? You might surmise that respondents gave up without a fight because the police had strong evidence against them, but that is not necessarily true. In these cases, people who have already lost their Second Amendment rights are confronting a complicated and intimidating process, and they are doing so without the aid of a lawyer unless they can afford one and find one in time. Colorado is the only state with a red flag law where respondents have a right to court-appointed counsel if they can't pay for a lawyer or choose not to hire one.

...

 

I think we should go the Colorado way on legal representation.
 

Quote

 

...

The GLC says 55 percent of the Broward County cases, which include petitions filed by 14 city police departments as well as the county sheriff, involved homicide threats, 48 percent involved suicide threats, and 18 percent involved both. The report describes about half a dozen cases with compelling facts. One involved an "easily agitated" young man who routinely brought guns and a "heavy workout plate" to church despite requests that he stop doing so, expressed hostility toward organized religion, and talked about committing acts of violence. Another case involved a man who owned 40 guns and "had made multiple threats about harming himself and attempting suicide." Readers are invited to conclude that all of the cases were as clear-cut as these, which seems doubtful.

Judging from the GLC report, Florida is giving police a lot of power to determine who should be allowed to retain his Second Amendment rights. That faith can be misplaced, as illustrated by some of the cases I discussed in a recent Reason feature story about red flag laws.

...

 

The linked feature story did have a case of a cop making up a bunch of BS to get a red flag order on a man named Velasquez.

Quote

Based on an affidavit that was highly misleading and in some respects blatantly inaccurate, Circuit Judge Bob LeBlanc issued a temporary risk protection order against Velasquez. But at a hearing about two weeks later, when Velasquez finally had a chance to defend himself, LeBlanc found the city had failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Velasquez posed "a significant danger."

So yeah, there are bad cops in the world who can and do perpetrate some injustices. That's a problem with the cop, not the law, and the judge did what judges should do in such cases.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

New Data Suggest Florida Cops Have Broad Power to Take Away People's Second Amendment Rights

Well, yeah, they now do.
 

I think we should go the Colorado way on legal representation.
 

The linked feature story did have a case of a cop making up a bunch of BS to get a red flag order on a man named Velasquez.

So yeah, there are bad cops in the world who can and do perpetrate some injustices. That's a problem with the cop, not the law, and the judge did what judges should do in such cases.

  

  

So profound. Now all you have to do is apply this to MLK’s gun permit denial.

you are intellectual debris and “cliff” lives in the ghost database 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

More made-up BS reversed by another judge.
 

Quote

 

...

Morgan's estranged wife, Joanie, claimed he was depressed, suicidal, and obsessed with the apocalypse, which he thought was imminent. She said he was stockpiling food, gold, guns, and ammunition in anticipation of the end times; that he talked about seeing, hearing, and wrestling with demons; and that he had performed a ritual that involved rubbing "oils" on their children and the walls of their house. She reported that he was abusing the drugs he had been prescribed for chronic pain, had talked about dismembering his former wife, had intimated he would do the same to her if she ever disrespected him, and had threatened to kill her with succinylcholine, a paralytic agent used during surgery and intubation.

On the strength of such claims, Joanie Morgan obtained a temporary domestic violence protection injunction, an involuntary psychiatric evaluation order under the Florida Mental Health Act (a.k.a. the Baker Act), and a temporary "risk protection order" under the red flag law, which authorizes the suspension of a person's Second Amendment rights when he is deemed a threat to himself or others. All three were ex parte orders, meaning they were issued without giving Kevin Morgan a chance to rebut the allegations against him.

But when it was time for a judge to decide whether the initial gun confiscation order, which was limited to 14 days, should be extended for a year, Morgan got a hearing, and the lurid picture painted by his wife disintegrated. By the end of the hearing, in an extraordinary turn of events unlike anything you are likely to see in a courtroom drama, the lawyer representing the Citrus County Sheriff's Office, which was seeking the final order, conceded that he had not met the law's evidentiary standard, and the judge agreed.

...

 

I'm still having trouble working up a good PANIC over our red flag law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Right to Get Guns Back Once Temporary Anti-Stalking Injunction Is Dismissed
 

Quote

 

[Mr. Wolfe's] argument is fairly straightforward: the only ostensible basis for seizing his firearms was the ex parte injunction entered on Ms. Newton's petition; when the court later dismissed and denied her petition, that injunction was dissolved; since there was no lawful basis for the sheriff to continue holding his firearms, and since his case was over, he should not have to attend an evidentiary hearing to have his property returned to him….
...
But we would be obtuse if we failed to recognize why the court ordered the kind of hearing that it did. This was a hearing where Mr. Wolfe's video or live appearance was mandatory so that the court could compel him to provide testimony under oath and then watch and listen to his responses. Clearly, the court had something it wished to inquire about, and it wanted Mr. Wolfe's sworn answers to its questions…. All of which leads us to the inescapable deduction that the court was ordering this evidentiary hearing not to facilitate the return of Mr. Wolfe's seized firearms, but to decide whether there was some independent reason Mr. Wolfe's firearms ought not to be returned to him.

That was not a decision the circuit court could make. The case between Ms. Newton and Mr. Wolfe was over and the court's order was final. The court had no lawful authority to compel Mr. Wolfe to testify as a prerequisite to what should have been the purely ministerial act of returning his property to him.

 

This case began and ended last March. Took a while for an appeals court to conclude the obvious, but it's good that they finally did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...