"Red Flag Law" Could Take Guns From Those Deemed Dangerous in North Carolina

[Watchdog]

It was only a matter of time.

Quoting from a story on WRAL.com, a Raleigh, North Carolina news site:

"North Carolina lawmakers will have the chance to debate new gun control legislation when the General Assembly session begins next week."

As of now, there is no bill, but one will most likely be introduced by a former judge, Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham.

This is similar to other bills that have passed in other states, bills strangely endorsed by the NRA.

Note that in this story, nowhere is it mentioned the reason that someone's guns could be seized.

Quoting the former judge:

"You have to prove by an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, that you know and have direct knowledge that a person is in direct possession of guns."

She does state that the person should be considered "dangerous" (quotation marks are mine), but leaves it wide open as to who can determine someone is dangerous for the purposes of reporting them to the authorities. She also leaves it wide open regarding what might be considered "dangerous".

I consider one of my neighbors "dangerous" because he's always leaning over the gas tank of his riding mower with a lit cigarette in his mouth while filling the tank...but I don't know if he has any guns or not. But still, I'd probably consider him a danger to himself and/or others.

I won't go on and on about this. Others can make the usual comments. As I said, no bill has been introduced yet, but it will be for sure. It will be a copycat bill, pure and simple. A blatant and transparent attempt to show that elected officials are "doing something" in an attempt to curtail gun violence, thereby fulfilling the will of the people who elected them. That's all the editorializing I'm going to do about it.

The Raleigh News & Observer refers to this potential bill as a "solution". Their editorial is copied from one that appeared in The Washington Post.

All my fellow North Carolinians should probably get busy contacting state legislators about this and voicing your opposition to it.

Don't wait until this bill is introduced.

We need to nip it, nip it in the bud.

[Muss Muggins]

Thankfully, I lost all of my guns in a tragic boating accident. Should never have tried to open that riverboat casino on four johnboats lashed together on the Mississippi . . .

[FlyTyinFool]

Washington State did this a couple (2-3) years ago.
Ratified by vote of the People.

Family member cries, "He's weird!" and Sheriff can take their weapons.
No PROOF needed.

[CCHGN]

Relax, it's the same as a Domestic Violence case. Has to go through a judge, all legal. Temporary. The shooter Cruz is a perfect example of a person who was a threat, was told to several entities: LEO(13 times), School Board, Mental Health Officials(3 times), DCF (twice) and finally the FBI (twice). NONE of then did anything and he killed 17 students. "Red Law" is a solution.

[ParadiseRoad]

...a similar bill was defeated very recently here in Colorado...

...just a matter of time though I think...

[Walkingwolf]

Any of these laws should mandate felony mandatory jail sentence for false reporting. Otherwise they are a swatters dream law.

[ExRanger714]

IMHO. as a NC resident, given the current political make up of our state legislature, it won't pass.

What a future General Assembly does is unpredictable.

[TomkinsSP]

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

Any of these laws should mandate felony mandatory jail sentence for false reporting. Otherwise they are a swatters dream law.

In addition to the Civil action suggested by WCCPHD. Permitting false accusations is horribly caustic to the rule of law.

Many moons ago a School Official got into a tiff with a citizen. When the School Board did not see it her way the Offical made a false allegation of child abuse. Ripped the community and school apart. Official was convicted of a felony, but I am not sure the falsely accused has fully recovered.

I guess Due Process is passe.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

Any of these laws should mandate felony mandatory jail sentence for false reporting. Otherwise they are a swatters dream law.

False reporting of a crime is already a criminal offense, but I agree, the penalties for such need to be much stronger.

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by stansdds

False reporting of a crime is already a criminal offense, but I agree, the penalties for such need to be much stronger.

No matter what, this new "Red Flag" thing is going to be abused by the haters and flakes like nothing that has ever come before it. Be prepared for the very worst, 'cause it could come at you out of the blue at any time.

[TomkinsSP]

Originally Posted by stansdds

False reporting of a crime is already a criminal offense, but I agree, the penalties for such need to be much stronger.

Hence "FELONY" and "MANDATORY JAIL SENTANCE".

WHERE the penalty is minimal (say a fine) or not regularly enforced it becomes a calculated risk in many emotionally laden legal situations (such as divorces and custody fights). Imagine the harm Antis could do if THEY had the ability to determine that YOU were dangerous. The litmus test could be picking up a copy of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN.

[Rpg]

I understand that Indiana has had such a law for a number of years and that it’s only been used 40 times.

Given how infrequently it’s been used, this sort of law is probably not either much of a solution to potential gun violence nor is it much of a threat to gun owners.

What this has become is a talking point for upcoming elections.

[k22fan]

Originally Posted by stansdds

False reporting of a crime is already a criminal offense, but I agree, the penalties for such need to be much stronger.

It is not a crime for a relative or police officer to report that they suspect you might become violent. As a practical matter that is all it would take to have your guns seized in Washington. The citizens' initiative that was passed here by local and out of state billionaires was written to be an anti-gunner's tool. Once seized it is extremely unlikely that a municipality like Seattle would ever return them. If you spent the thousands it would take to get a court to order your guns returned then guns that were in excellent condition when they were seized would could back scratched up after being stored in bulk containers and probably missing parts.

If the billionaires get one of these initiatives on your ballot do not vote based on the misleading ads you will be bombarded with. Critically read the text of the initiative!

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by Rpg

I understand that Indiana has had such a law for a number of years and that it’s only been used 40 times.

Given how infrequently it’s been used, this sort of law is probably not either much of a solution to potential gun violence nor is it much of a threat to gun owners.

What this has become is a talking point for upcoming elections.

... and Massachusetts has had likewise, at least effectively speaking. Cops can grab your license at any time for any reason (it's called "suitability")... no judge required... and your guns will go to the bonded warehouse ASAP where you are very unlikely to ever see them again.

What is changing is the promotion of this new "Red Flag" tool to the haters and 'flakes as a way to attack us terrible legal gun owners... instantly and with devastating results.

Time will tell how bad it's going to get with this new tool in place. I am not hopeful.

[scattershot]

I think it was Nancy Pelosi who made the sratement that all veterans are deranged in some way. Therein lies the problem with laws like this. Once it’s politicized, just a matter of time, the gun grabbers can seize any firearms at any time. This is the very definition of a slippery slope, and we don’t need it, however well intentioned.

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Its amazing how people are clamoring for this type of law, BUT if it were aimed at restricting any other civil right the same people would be rioting in the streets.

Well, in reality, the Constitution was designed to reflect the sentiments of the current Society, at all times. When the Constitution was ratified, most signers owned slaves and women were 2nd class subjects (objects?). Society changed and so did the Laws. FF to current times and THIS Society has agreed that there are some limits to some of the rights. We may NOT yell fire in a crowed theater( 1st A); Felons and mentally ill may NOT "keep and bear arms" (2A); IF LEO has "reasonable doubt" they may search your car or house (4A). With 9/11, you may be wire tapped and/or jailed indefinitely, etc. IN most states, If you're charged with domestic violence, your guns will be confiscated, temporarily, through a judge. IN Florida, it;s the same thing, it has to go through the Courts and a judge and they want to have 2-3 that agree( mental health, LEO, school board, DCF, etc). As with Cruz, EVERYBODY that knew him, agreed that HE was a ticking time bomb. When someone is TRULY a threat, folks around them know, there's NO doubt. Y'all sound like the anti gunners, when the "Castle Doctrine" was signed into law here in Fl. Let's just see how it pans out. Btw, some states have had it for awhile now and NO reports of "false witness".

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

Relax, it's the same as a Domestic Violence case. Has to go through a judge, all legal. Temporary. The shooter Cruz is a perfect example of a person who was a threat, was told to several entities: LEO(13 times), School Board, Mental Health Officials(3 times), DCF (twice) and finally the FBI (twice). NONE of then did anything and he killed 17 students. "Red Law" is a solution.

And, if they hadn't a formal policy in place between the school district and the law enforcement, where instead of court prosecution, they deferred to school 'punishment', and not give him a record, he would have failed the background checks.

[cybermgk]

We have been fighting similar Bills (and yes I do mean multiple) here in Illinois (and yes, I mean, I and others actively fighting). Original iterations were written with such low burdens of proof, little to no due process, particularly for 'emergency' orders.

Below are all things we fought to get changed and added to the bill. Still haven't gotten the weakness of language revolving around mental illness definitions. Mind you, in Illinois, they WILL pass a bill, as the General Assembly is heavily left (because of crookedness, corruption and Chicago).

1. The bill is now rightfully named what it is – a Firearm Restraining Order.

2. Ex Parte/Emergency Orders now require probable cause as burden of proof instead of reasonable cause.

3. Ex Parte order’s time limit for a hearing is now ‘as soon as possible, not to exceed 14 days’ and allows the respondent to request a continuance.

4. A search warrant issued by a judge is now required, rather than law enforcement search based on probable cause.

5. There is now an option to transfer firearms to a trusted friend, family member, or FFL. There was no option for this in previous versions of the bill.

6. ISP shall return the respondent’s FOID/CCL upon expiration or termination of the order rather than the respondent having to notify the ISP and request/appeal for return of the cards.

7. Restraining orders are for 6 months instead of a year.

8. Burden of proof has been increased to Clear and Convincing Evidence instead of preponderance of evidence.

9. Burden of proof for respondent to terminate the order is only preponderance of evidence.

10. Burden of proof for renewal of the order is increased to Clear and Convincing Evidence.

11. Penalty for petitioner filing false testimony has been increased to felony perjury instead of misdemeanor.

12. Denied orders will be expunged immediately.

13. Granted orders will be sealed after 3 years.

House Amendment 2 adds:

1. A suspension instead of revocation of a FOID/CCL .

2. Removes the ban on owning firearms while subject to a Firearm Restraining Order, so transferring to another person to hold does not require a transfer of ownership.


So, look CLOSELY at these bills.

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Most of the rights recognized by the US Constitution basically place restrictions on the Government. Yelling "fire" in a theater would not be covered as it is not a government function so this is a non-sequitur.

You're ignoring the SCOTUS and case law. ALL interpretation of laws are based on "Case law", not what you or anyone (mis)interprets, as the law.

Saying "lets just see how this pans out" is abject surrender.

No, it is NOT. It is based in the fact that there is NO "case law"where someone was falsely accused of "being a threat" by an Official, under the guise of the "Red Flag" law..

Its like saying the same thing when the anti's get enough votes to ban guns.

Now who's using the "straw man" argument? BTW, it's NOTHING like that. The "anti's" had POTUS and SCOTUS AND Congress in the 90's and guess what? NO ban on guns, even tho SCOTUS said that the 2A was NOT an individual right ( Natl Guard) and there WAS a ban on high cap mags, etc. I doubt that guns will EVER be outright banned in the USA.

In NC we have a similar law that addresses domestic violence. A person (almost always a man) can be jailed by an order issued by a judge, ex parte, with no right to confront the accuser or right to argue against the order until after the person has been jailed and until the next setting of court, which could be days. This order can and often does result in a person's guns being seized. There have been many instances of "false witness" in this area. Basically a mad spouse lies to a judge to gain an advantage in a child custody or divorce dispute.

Sux to live in NC, I suggest moving. In most States, there HAS to be obvious signs of personal attack. We do NOT have a right to "confront our accuser", except in Capital Crime cases (felony murder, etc) Lastly, "always a man"? Hmmm, IMO, no such thing as "always or "never". I've seen PLENTY of cases where the woman goes to jail

I would like for you to explain how an officer can search ANYTHING with "reasonable doubt." Vehicles may be searched with PROBABLE CAUSE and without a warrant due to a recognized exception that they are mobile. Searching a house without a warrant is nearly impossible and any exigent circumstances that precipitated such a search would be greatly scrutinized.

Hmmmm, I watch COPS and LIVE PD all the time and see it quite a lot. IF you witness an assault through a window and/or hear a fight or gun shots inside, you darn well BETTER get in there, with no warrant. I say "reasonable doubt", you say "probable cause", I guess I'm referring when it goes to court. The Police work for the courts and will do what the Courts tells them to do, or should I say, ALLOWS them or let them get away with. When i have to deal with a LEO, I remember that they're an "Officer of the Court" and act accordingly (read that, act as if I'm talking to a Bailiff, or a judge). FWIW, I notice a distinct "attitude" change when I mention that. Btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I darn sure know my way around a Court room. I've been around the block a few times and I'm smarter than the average bear....lol

[k22fan]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

[...] even tho SCOTUS said that the 2A was NOT an individual right ( Natl Guard) [...]

Was this phrase not proof read? It states the opposite of what the SCOTUS ruled in D.C v. Heller in 2008. If you doubt that read the summary that is the first page or two preceding the approx. 200 page ruling.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

. . . even tho SCOTUS said that the 2A was NOT an individual right ( Natl Guard) . . .

Prior to Heller, which held that the 2A did guarantee an individual right to possess firearms, SCOTUS had never definitively ruled on the issue one way or the other . . .

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by k22fan

Was this phrase not proof read? It states the opposite of what the SCOTUS ruled in D.C v. Heller in 2008. If you doubt that read the summary that is the first page or two preceding the approx. 200 page ruling.

Hmmm why would you automatically think the statement wasn't "proof read"? So much so that you'd post it? IF you read the whole thing, I said the "90's". You know, when the Clintons ruled the roost. True story. Look it up. I know 'cause I lived it...lol

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

The "anti's" had POTUS and SCOTUS AND Congress in the 90's and guess what? NO ban on guns,

Um, except for that pesky AWB of 1994.

[k22fan]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

Hmmm why would you automatically think the statement wasn't "proof read"? So much so that you'd post it? IF you read the whole thing, I said the "90's". You know, when the Klintonistas ruled the roost. True story. Look it up. I know 'cause I lived it...lol

I apologize. Rereading your comment to mean D.C v. Heller was still in the future your paragraph makes more sense. However, I believe Muss Muggins' was correct in the comment he made after quoting the same phrase of yours.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

Hmmm why would you automatically think the statement wasn't "proof read"? So much so that you'd post it? IF you read the whole thing, I said the "90's". You know, when the Clintons ruled the roost. True story. Look it up. I know 'cause I lived it...lol

There was no significant SCOTUS 2A case in the 90's. Which case are you referring to . . .

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by cybermgk

Um, except for that pesky AWB of 1994.

Yes, but not a TOTAL ban on guns ( what the poster was inferring) and "THE 1st LADY of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA" ( wow, how PC this place is) Who's name I won't mention, because I think she is a vile creature and a criminal, kept insisting that the 2A was for Militias ONLY..

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Its amazing how people are clamoring for this type of law, BUT if it were aimed at restricting any other civil right the same people would be rioting in the streets.

The proposed law has Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues, but apparently that can be overlooked if its "gun rights" that are being infringed.

No other right kills people.

[CCHGN]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

There was no significant SCOTUS 2A case in the 90's. Which case are you referring to . . .

EXACTLY. I'm talking about that case that never happened, that SCOTUS refused to listen to any case that had to do with the 2A, nor affirm that the 2A was an individual right, when the WH was saying it wasn't and sitting back and allowing the AWB to fly, because the Liberal majority agreed with it all.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

EXACTLY. I'm talking about that case that never happened, that SCOTUS refused to listen to any case that had to do with the 2A, nor affirm that the 2A was an individual right, when the WH was saying it wasn't and sitting back and allowing the AWB to fly, because the Liberal majority agreed with it all.

That's not what you originally stated here. You wrote this:

Originally Posted by CCHGN

. . . even tho SCOTUS said that the 2A was NOT an individual right ( Natl Guard) . . .

Pretty adamant statement above, which is completely at odds with "SCOTUS refused to listen to any 2A case." SCOTUS didn't hear a case, pro or anti 2A, that would have addressed the issue you claim they made a definitive statement regarding. Totally not the same thing . . .

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

No other right kills people.

I could make a pretty good argument about the right to vote, and one almost as good about every tenet of the First . . .

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Not only that, but when convicted of a felony the Second Amendment rights are the only ones which carry a lifetime loss. Felons can regain their rights to vote after being convicted of a felony, but once a convicted felon one loses their gun rights for life.

Well, that's not true of all states, and some times it depends on the crime. In Missouri, for example, the right to vote can generally be regained after release from supervision, but if the crime was a suffrage crime, the loss of the right is permanent (I know a fella' you could call). I would support something similar for gun rights . . .

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

...once a convicted felon one loses their gun rights for life.

That's the law. That's as it should be. Hopefully, it will always stay that way.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

That may be true in your state. In NC a felon is prohibited for life. It is a purchase and possession prohibition. So someone can't even pick up a firearm in NC if a felon.

Dude, read for content. My comment was about voting rights. Federal law supersedes state law with regard to firearms possession for convicted felons. You can't pick up a firearm in any state in the nation when you're a convicted felon, but you can vote in most . . .

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

Well, that's not true of all states, and some times it depends on the crime. In Missouri, for example, the right to vote can generally be regained after release from supervision, but if the crime was a suffrage crime, the loss of the right is permanent (I know a fella' you could call). I would support something similar for gun rights . . .

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

No other right kills people.

Neither does the 2nd. Possession of firearms do not kill people. None of my many guns have ever killed a person. People kill people.

But, I can easily make a case that 1st amendment exercise has killed a whole bunch of people. Let's put aside, for the moment, speech that fomented actual wars that led to people's deaths. Bullying speech among a whole lot of other has directly led to people committing suicide. That is just ONE direct example of speech directly causing death. Many others.

And Religions have directly motivated more people to kill others, than any other force, known to man, except maybe greed.

[cybermgk]

Originally Posted by CCHGN

Relax, it's the same as a Domestic Violence case. Has to go through a judge, all legal. Temporary.

You have obviously, never been on the receiving end, or known anyone that has, of an ex parte, temporary restraining order. They generally, in practice require a very low level of proof (often not even a preponderance of evidence level). These do go through a judge, yes. But, they bypass due-process for the accused, yet can STILL mean removal from a domicile, arrest for violating (when not even knowing it exists), and in some states impact your 2nd amendment rights. And, all it takes is a made-up story by the person requesting for that temporary order. It is one of THE most abused mechanisms in our court systems, and yes, very misandrist in it's application.

Most of these lethal order of protection bills are written as badly, with the same loose language, low burden of proofs, almost complete lack of due process for ex parte/emergency requests, with little repercussions for false allegations or abuse.

In many cases, they are clear attempts at bypassing the 2nd amendment to disarm people.

[Steve912]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

That's not what you originally stated here. You wrote this:



Pretty adamant statement above, which is completely at odds with "SCOTUS refused to listen to any 2A case." SCOTUS didn't hear a case, pro or anti 2A, that would have addressed the issue you claim they made a definitive statement regarding. Totally not the same thing . . .

He was catching up on COPS and Court TV, and made a mistake. Cut him some slack.

AFA the OP, sounds like a great bill to put a wife beater's
panties in a wad.

[Walkingwolf]

Originally Posted by WCCPHD

Not only that, but when convicted of a felony the Second Amendment rights are the only ones which carry a lifetime loss. Felons can regain their rights to vote after being convicted of a felony, but once a convicted felon one loses their gun rights for life.

That's not true in North Carolina, once a felon they lose their firearm rights. A felon can still own a gun as long as it is a antique firearm or replica. Actually there is a good number of states where convicted felons can own antique firearms.

ETA I am also pretty sure a convicted felon can own a nail "gun" in most states also. It is important to remember that the context of words are usually important when interpreting laws.

[Steve912]

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

That's not true in North Carolina, once a felon they lose their firearm rights. A felon can still own a gun as long as it is a antique firearm or replica. Actually there is a good number of states where convicted felons can own antique firearms.

There is something going in NC, for felons & firearm possession.

I knew a guy who did time in his younger days, for shooting and killing a man. He got over his wild youth and ended up living a pretty sedate life in NC, but ended up shooting another
guy (who was stabbing a gal on his front lawn--rough neighborhood) many years later. He said "the DA said it was a good shoot, and I get to keep my gun."

I asked him about that, and he said since it was a "war trophy"
(Tokarev he brought back from Vietnam), he was allowed to possess it, even as a felon.

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

That's not true in North Carolina, once a felon they lose their firearm rights. A felon can still own a gun as long as it is a antique firearm or replica. Actually there is a good number of states where convicted felons can own antique firearms.

That's true nationwide. No matter what the states say, federal law trumps firearms ownership. Muzzle loaders are all good. Modern black powder rifles, which can be converted to centerfire rifles, are not allowed . . .

[Muss Muggins]

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

ETA I am also pretty sure a convicted felon can own a nail "gun" in most states also. It is important to remember that the context of words are usually important when interpreting laws.

You mean like an air powered tool that hammers nails into shingles and 2x4's when the tool is in surface contact . . . ? Totally unrelated. Pretty sure they can buy and own glue guns as well . . .

[500SNW]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

That's true nationwide. No matter what the states say, federal law trumps firearms ownership. Muzzle loaders are all good. Modern black powder rifles, which can be converted to centerfire rifles, are not allowed . . .

Oh boy is that a confusing subject. Been there done that when a guy from New Jersey wanted to buy my BP cap & ball revolver. Best I could figure at the time was that in NJ it was considered a firearm-handgun and buyers living in that state needed to obtain a pistol purchase/permit and buy from another resident or an FFL. For me to ship it to a non-FFL private citizen in NJ would be a violation of NJ law and theoretically, if the transaction was discovered, they could issue a warrant for me. Didndoit. A bigger problem is that there are 50 states with their own rules. Here in Ohio, BP guns are considered firearms same as an AR or Glock. Here in Ohio the Mossberg Shockwave is considered an SBS by the State and ALLEGEDLY requires a FEDERAL Tax Stamp to own within state boundaries. Ehh??? How's that possible? I never understood any of this State vs. Federal gun stuff...nor am I passionate enough about it to risk going through the court system to prove my point that Federal Law trumps State Law.

[handejector]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

As of now, there is no bill,

Then why are we here?
If we start a thread every time an anti thinks or talks about restricting guns, this forum will be too cluttered to be of any use.

Originally Posted by handejector

Ideally, we should see nothing here that does not pertain directly to threats to or protection of or expansion of 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.
That means this forum is about PENDING LEGISLATION and responses from legislators or the actions of legislators or about PENDING CHANGES in carry permit laws and issues.
This forum is about ACTION that can and should be taken to protect or advance the cause of freedom.

We have a discussion going nowhere about a proposed threat to propose a threat.
Let's move on.