I don't live in a "red flag" state

I don't live in a "red flag" state

This is a discussion on I don't live in a "red flag" state within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So far, there have been no mentions of red flag orders that I have heard about here in Utah. That could change, of course, but ...

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
Like Tree119Likes

Thread: I don't live in a "red flag" state

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    7,330

    I don't live in a "red flag" state

    So far, there have been no mentions of red flag orders that I have heard about here in Utah. That could change, of course, but for the immediate future that appears to be not an imminent concern.

    However, I ran across this meme and I would think based up what I have heard and read about red flag orders, this would appear to be true. Those of you who live in states that have red flag orders may be able to shed some light on this subject?

    I don't live in a "red flag" state-red-flag.jpg
    So many weapons, so little time.

    Learning occurs only after repetitive, demoralizing failures.

    "Who needs your truth if it stands in our way?"
    General Alexei Yepishev, political commissar of the Soviet Armed Forces

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,065
    RF laws can be used against anyone. They will just have more negative repercussions for gun owners.
    G26Raven, seeker_two and CWOUSCG like this.

  3. #3
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Senior Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Staff lounge
    Posts
    21,234
    Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow.
    End the cycle of hatred, don’t give them a tomorrow."




    NRA Patron Member

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,733
    Utah, like most states does have a civil commitment law, including involuntary commitment and UT's seems to be a fairly reasonable one. This is something we don't talk enough about: All states already have laws to protect against dangerous individuals, but they do it with due process and using medical professionals to make a determination, both of which red flag laws do not.

    In UT, if the police or medical personnel consider a person a danger to himself or others, they can file an Emergency Application for Involuntary Commitment that allows them to hold that person for 24 hours. The form requires a police officer to certify the reasons why this person is a danger, what that person has actually done or said to to make him a danger. That officer will be held responsible for those statements.

    Within that 24 hours, a judge can be petitioned to extent that hold time until a full hearing with representation can take place. In no place in this process is there anything to do with guns. And it provides a bit of due process in an emergency situation. Personally, I think they should have to get a medical opinion and a judge's sign off also and under UT law, they can, but they are not required to.

    The bottom line is every state has these laws, they offer something closer to due process, they require a professional to attest, under signature, that the person in question has actually done something or said something that indicates generousness and they actually protect the community by getting the person off the street. So red flag laws are not necessary and do not provide the best protection for the community! I think we need to improve due process with Involuntary Commitment, but they are a better solution.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    7,330
    Jmf552, that was something I did not know about. Thank you.

    I have not heard or read about anyone being "civilly committed" since we have lived here. I am sure it has happened, probably up in Salt Lake, but it is not something that I can recall happening within our county or any of the adjoining counties (and I check the news locally every day).
    airslot likes this.
    So many weapons, so little time.

    Learning occurs only after repetitive, demoralizing failures.

    "Who needs your truth if it stands in our way?"
    General Alexei Yepishev, political commissar of the Soviet Armed Forces

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    Jmf552, that was something I did not know about. Thank you.

    I have not heard or read about anyone being "civilly committed" since we have lived here. I am sure it has happened, probably up in Salt Lake, but it is not something that I can recall happening within our county or any of the adjoining counties (and I check the news locally every day).
    Civil commitment laws used to be used a lot more, but are rarely used anymore. One of the problems is the lack of mental health facilities in which to put the patients. I'll bet most cops are not even aware of them and if they are, they are not encouraged to use them.

    FWIW, VA has a program for civil commitment of sexually violent predators. It does not excuse them from criminal prosecution and incarceration. After they are released from the criminal system, they can be re-incarcerated through civil commitment. My daughter used to be on the AG's team that represented the state in those proceedings. The AG has a special team, because local prosecutors are so unfamiliar with civil commitment. Interestingly, VA has a special facility to house these people. But if a gun owner were civilly committed for being dangerous, there would be no place to put him. It is also interesting that, according to my daughter, defense attorneys aren't familiar with civil commitment laws either. They often lose because they treat the case like a criminal proceeding, which it is not, and they get knocked flat on the law by the Assistant AG they are up against.

    Red Flag is an attempt to provide an illusion of security for the public while attacking gun owners, without the bother of any real accountability on the part of the complainant. It is both a gun grab, and a way to make gun owners "talk and act like the PC culture wants them to" or suffer the consequences. They don't protect the public from a dangerous person, they just take away some of the tools he might use and leave him even more agitated, without getting any mental health help.
    G26Raven, airslot and M1911A1 like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,834
    Since most people are unaware of existing laws, it's easy to get them to go along with new laws. There's probably a lot of duplication. That's why I recommended to my representatives that existing laws should be reviewed before adding more laws and to get rid of ineffective laws. I doubt that'll happen.
    G26Raven, OD*, airslot and 1 others like this.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

    Member SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

  9. #8
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    17,993
    Red Flag laws were written to be abused.

    When it goes on to the National level, it won't matter if your state rejected them or not.
    Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    https://www.facebook.com/baileysigna...?ref=bookmarks

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,690
    The only problem with that meme is that it is long on fear and short on facts. What the originator is betting on is that the vast majority of people will accept it and spread it without going to the trouble of ever looking at the actual laws. Currently there are seventeen states with "red flag" laws on the books.

    California,
    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 18140

    A law enforcement officer who requests a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order shall do all of the following:

    (a) If the request is made orally, sign a declaration under penalty of perjury reciting the oral statements provided to the judicial officer and memorialize the order of the court on the form approved by the Judicial Council.
    and
    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 18150
    (a)(1) An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

    (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family member” has the same meaning as in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 .

    (b) A court may issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order if the petition, supported by an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155 , and any additional information provided to the court shows that there is a substantial likelihood that both of the following are true:

    (1) The subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering the factors listed in Section 18155 .

    (2) An ex parte gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.

    (c) An affidavit supporting a petition for the issuance of an ex parte gun violence restraining order shall set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the petition, or the reason for believing that they exist.

    (d) An ex parte order under this chapter shall be issued or denied on the same day that the petition is submitted to the court, unless the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review, in which case the order shall be issued or denied on the next day of judicial business in sufficient time for the order to be filed that day with the clerk of the court.
    Connecticut,
    Connecticut General Statutes Title 29. Public Safety and State Police § 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others

    (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms and ammunition.  Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

    (b) 
    and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file.  In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider:  (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons;  (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself;  and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person.  In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person.  If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched.  The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer.  It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms and ammunition.  A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.
    Deleware
    Delaware Code Title 10. Courts and Judicial Procedure § 7702. Commencement of action;  procedure
    (a) A petitioner may request relief under § 7703 or § 7704 of this title by filing an affidavit or verified petition.
    and
    Delaware Code Title 10. Courts and Judicial Procedure § 7703. Emergency hearings
    (a) A law-enforcement officer may request an emergency lethal violence protective order by filing an affidavit or verified petition in Justice of the Peace Court that does both of the following:
    and
    Delaware Code Title 10. Courts and Judicial Procedure § 7704. Nonemergency hearings
    (a) A petitioner may request a lethal violence protective order by filing an affidavit or verified petition in the Superior Court that does both of the following:
    Florida
    1. Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent;
    Indiana
    Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-47-14-2
    Sec. 2 . A circuit or superior court may issue a warrant to search for and seize a firearm in the possession of an individual who is dangerous if:

    (1) a law enforcement officer provides the court a sworn affidavit that:
    Marlyand
    §5–602.

    (a) (1) A petition for an extreme risk protective order shall:

    (i) be signed and sworn to by the petitioner under the penalty of perjury;
    Massachusetts
    Section 131R. (a) A petitioner who believes that a person holding a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card may pose a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others may, on a form furnished by the court and signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, file a petition in court.
    Nevada
    Sec.21.1.A person shall not file a verified application for an ex parte or extended order:
    (a)Which he or she knows or has reason to know is false or misleading; or
    (b)With the intent to harass the adverse party.
    2.A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor
    New Jersey
    A petitioner may apply for relief under this section in accordance with the Rules of Court.

    b. A petition for a temporary extreme risk protective order shall

    include an affidavit setting forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the petition
    , or the reason for believing that they exist, and, to the extent available, the number, types, physical description, and locations of any firearms and ammunition currently believed by the petitioner to be controlled or possessed by the respondent.

    c. The court shall not charge a fee to file the petition.

    d. The court, before issuing a temporary extreme risk protective order, shall examine under oath the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce. The court, in lieu of examining the petitioner and any witness, may rely on an affidavit submitted in support of the petition.
    New York
    3. THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, SHALL SET FORTH THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE REQUEST AND PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY ORDER. THE COURT MAY CONDUCT AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OF THE PETITIONER AND ANY WITNESS THE PETITIONER MAY PRODUCE.
    Oregon
    (3) The petition for an extreme risk protection order must be supported by a written affidavit signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken under oath by the petitioner or any other witness the petitioner may produce.
    Rhode Island
    (e) A petition for an extreme risk protection order must be supported by a written affidavit signed by the petitioner under oath. The petitioner may produce sworn statements or testimony of other witnesses to support the petition.
    Vermont
    (a) A State's Attorney or the Office of the Attorney General may file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person's custody or control. The petitioner shall submit an affidavit in support of the petition.
    Washington
    (4) A petition must:
    (a) Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, accessing, or receiving a firearm, and be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by the respondent;
    So that bit about not being able to do anything about someone lying to get one is completely FALSE. In some jurisdictions perjury is punishable by up to ten years in prison.

    But of course facts like that don't support the very scary narrative some want us all to believe.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,065
    Well, that is assuming the local DA chooses to actually prosecute. Oftentimes that decision, makes the clauses mentioned by @mcp1810 , meaningless. Just like the rather strict federal laws that almost never get enforced that would keep felons in prison for just being in the possession of ammunition, not to mention an actual firearm.

    For people to be concerned about Red Flag laws, only makes sense. There are too many laws on the books to actually enforce them. So, prosecutors get to pick and choose when/how to enforce the law. A tragic situation.

    The question is, how many false claims have actually been prosecuted? That information is needed to show whether or not the concerns are valid or not. They also only apply to each individual district covered by the lead DA. When the lead DA changes, then all bets are off again...
    Bad Bob and G26Raven like this.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,690
    Rather than just how many false claims have been prosecuted how about what percentage of false claims have been prosecuted? Or can anyone show how many false claims have actually been made?
    G26Raven, M1911A1 and darbo like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,065
    I know of one case where an 8 year old was false flagged. If that doesn't show how bad the law is in that state, then what will?

    Here is an article back from October about the bad Florida law. It highlights what can happen when an elected official abuses their power. The Sheriff of Polk County isn't someone who should be in power. His overzealous reaction to situations should frighten everyone. He's a lit powder keg jumping to the worst conclusion due to a lack of common sense.

    Just think of it, 20% of the uses of the law were against children who CANNOT legally posses a gun. Sure, their parents can, but the red flag was not used on them...
    G26Raven likes this.

  14. #13
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    17,993
    Red Flag laws violate most of the Bill of Rights.

    Anyone that supports Red Flag is supporting the trashing of the Bill of Rights.

    It violates the right to free speech.
    It violates the right to bear arms and is an infringement.
    It violates the right of the people to be secure in their property.
    It violates the right that states No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless of presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury.
    It violates the right to a public trial without delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of charges against you.
    It violates the right to a jury by trial. Red Flag Laws assume that you are guilty of something.
    It violates the right of the people which states that certain rights shall not be construed or disparage others retained by the people.

    Are we supposed to feel better because some states make it unlawful for someone to purger themselves?

    Tell me how often that gets enforced?

    The list of abuses grows longer with each day.

    Anyone that supports Red Flag Laws is ignorant of human nature, history and all common sense.

    As any lawyer or judge will tell you in court...ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE.
    Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    https://www.facebook.com/baileysigna...?ref=bookmarks

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    404 Page Not Found
    Posts
    22,489
    @mcp1810 :

    Those rights of recourse are AFTERWARDS.

    How many complainants have been prosecuted for false claims?

    As many legislatures rush to write more laws, the meme may be accurate! It may be exactly correct on facts!

    @HotGuns summarized my thoughts on this succinctly, as well as @jmf552 , both of whom have spent time significant on this issue

    FIGHT against RFL!
    G26Raven, OD* and RETSUPT99 like this.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ: Buy These Stickers Here



    "If we suppose them sincere, we must pity their ignorance; if insincere, we must abhor the spirit of deception which it betrays." Alexander Hamilton

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    I know of one case where an 8 year old was false flagged. If that doesn't show how bad the law is in that state, then what will?

    Here is an article back from October about the bad Florida law. It highlights what can happen when an elected official abuses their power. The Sheriff of Polk County isn't someone who should be in power. His overzealous reaction to situations should frighten everyone. He's a lit powder keg jumping to the worst conclusion due to a lack of common sense.

    Just think of it, 20% of the uses of the law were against children who CANNOT legally posses a gun. Sure, their parents can, but the red flag was not used on them...
    Actually the request for the eight year old was denied.
    From the story you linked:
    The judge denied the order against the boy.
    And from the local ABC station,
    The judge denied the order against the elementary school student, but the I-Team found Polk County has successfully issued more than 400 red flag gun orders against people deemed a danger to themselves or others – including 20% involving children.
    https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/l...w-red-flag-law
    So do we care about the truth?
    Yes, an order was applied for. But the judge refused to issue it! How are they defining "children" ? Are they using the old Handgun Control Inc standard of under twenty five years old as being children?

    And as far as minors not being able to legally possess firearms you apparently do not know Florida law.
    From 790.17
    (2)(a) A person may not knowingly or willfully sell or transfer a firearm to a minor under 18 years of age, except that a person may transfer ownership of a firearm to a minor with permission of the parent or guardian.  A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
    From 790.22
    (3) A minor under 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his or her home, unless:

    (a) The minor is engaged in a lawful hunting activity and is:

    1. At least 16 years of age;  or

    2. Under 16 years of age and supervised by an adult.
    So what do we know now? No red flag order was ever issued for an eight year old and yes, minors can own guns in Florida.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •