SCOTUS accepts Red Flag case

[LoboGunLeather]

Admin Edit-
Stick to the topic. Leave the Covid arguments and all other societal problems out of it.



/////////////////////////
original post:


SCOTUS Accepts Case Dealing With Warrantless Gun Seizures

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a writ of certiorari and will hear a case involving so-called "Red Flag" laws.

While the connection to 2A rights is clear, this case rises on 4A issues, specifically searches and seizures done under Red Flag court orders.

A case to keep an eye on.

[deadin]

This will be interesting to follow.
I can see the reasoning for such a law, but I also see many ways it can be abused.

[deadin]

Those red flag laws are easily abused and seem unconstitutional and wrong headed to me.

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

[Racer X]

It is an ugly Catch 22. You are innocent until you have actually committed a crime. Then its too late.

[LoboGunLeather]

Originally Posted by Racer X

It is an ugly Catch 22. You are innocent until you have actually committed a crime. Then its too late.

Absolutely true, but the alternative is the practice of prior restraint, another prohibition under that pesky old Constitution.

[Mrnurse]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??
__________________ If your taking away my 2nd and 4th rights ...YES. Boil the frog a little at a time. Im sick of it.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather

Absolutely true, but the alternative is the practice of prior restraint, another prohibition under that pesky old Constitution.

The Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits possession of a firearm due to a domestic violence conviction is an ex post facto law expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. That pesky fact did not stop Congress from passing it in 1996 and the courts upholding it. Many federal law enforcement officers/agents and military personnel lost their jobs due to it.

[Mrnurse]

OH BTW I worked Psych VA and Civilian (RN/NP)Hospitals and have had a court order for 72 hr Observation on several Pts. Red flag laws are like those Used against Trump and others, Un- Constitutional. You can have people sent for Psych eval if they are exhibiting Classic Psych Signs.... a Evil violent person ( Absent of Signs/symptoms) in its-self is NOT a Psych issue, its a Violent evil person self generated.

[Injunbro]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

We can twist it the opposite direction just as easily: Are you saying because you think your neighbor is crazy he should be disarmed? Are you qualified to declare anyone crazy? I think anyone who lives in CA, NY, MA or any city are crazy... By the way there's no law saying it's illegal to be crazy, only to harm other people.

[message_board_expert]

A related read dealing with police abuse of the second amendment right: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...clash-cops-win

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Yes.

Or at least he has to do it in front of credible witnesses.
Besides, if he takes a shot at you, you can shoot back.
How would you like it if he filed a complaint ( falsely ) against you for threatening him, having YOUR GUNS seized, and then he kicks your door in some night and shoots YOU because he knows you have been disarmed?

[Sistema1927]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Yes. That is how a free society operates, or at least how it ought to operate. We don't deprive people of their rights just because they may harm you. Then again, one man's crazy may be another man's sanity.

[LostintheOzone]

Red flag laws (ERPO) are unconstitutional. They may give the police a tool to disarm an individual that might be planning a criminal act with a firearm but that still doesn't make them constitutional. It's that simple.

The SC isn't going to judge the usefulness of the law to LE, just how it squares with the constitution.

[vt_shooter]

It's a tough argument. We tell society not to take our guns because of the evil acts of crazy people, and instead demand that society control the crazy people. But how do you control the crazy people if there are no red flag laws of any kind? Just playing devils advocate, I am against red flag laws because of the immense potential of abuse. So how do we address the crazy people, e.g., the high school student who's made threats to do immense harm to fellow students, if we have no red flag laws? Maybe it should be easier to implement red flag laws against younger people since those are the ones that shoot up schools? But can it be argued they have less rights simply because of their age? I don't have any ideas that I'd want to defend.

[kbm6893]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

No. He’s saying that due process must be given before a constitutional right is taken away. So if your crazy neighbor waves a gun or threatens to shoot you, then he would be arrested for menacing and the guns taken after he was arrested. If he is found innocent or the charges are dropped, the guns are returned.

Substitute any other right for the 2A and these laws would never get off the ground. Imagine your 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th amendment rights being taken away without due process because somebody made an accusation against you. Imagine those rights being taken without your day in court.

I get the reason for the laws. Fortunately, the crazy person usually commits an actual crime other than the opinion of the accuser that he is unstable. So arrest him for an actual crime and let due process follow. The way it is now, no judge is going to risk not issuing the order to remove the guns. He doesn’t want to be in the paper if something bad happens. So the guns are taken and 60 days later you have to spend thousands on a lawyer to get your legally purchased property back, all without ever being accused of a crime

[S-W4EVER]

+1. Well said, kbm6893.

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Are you saying that your neighbors gun rights should be taken away before they commit any crime?

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Originally Posted by vt_shooter

It's a tough argument. We tell society not to take our guns because of the evil acts of crazy people, and instead demand that society control the crazy people. But how do you control the crazy people if there are no red flag laws of any kind? Just playing devils advocate, I am against red flag laws because of the immense potential of abuse. So how do we address the crazy people, e.g., the high school student who's made threats to do immense harm to fellow students, if we have no red flag laws? Maybe it should be easier to implement red flag laws against younger people since those are the ones that shoot up schools? But can it be argued they have less rights simply because of their age? I don't have any ideas that I'd want to defend.

It is a totally bogus argument that you can deprive someone of their God given rights because you do not like them.

[mike from st pete]

Lost is the fact that laws are to be used as a way to punish those that ACCUTALLY break the law.
Laws do not prevent crime they give society a way to punish criminal behavior

[stansdds]

I am glad to hear that the SCOTUS is taking up this issue and doing it now rather than waiting. They may take up additional issues regarding the 2A as well as other issues involving the dilution of constitutional rights. I think some on the court see the handwriting on the wall regarding the future makeup of the court.

Virginia's ERPO law went into effect on July 1 of this year. I recently received an alert from the VCDL indicating that in the tiny city of Colonial Heights, two people had been reported to the police as having intentions of committing suicide. Instead of trying to get help to these two individuals, the police arrived and confiscated their firearms. I have news for the Colonial Heights PD, there is more than one way to commit suicide. Confiscating property in the absence of a crime is not an answer, it is a reaction driven by emotion and without logic or constitutional support.

[Muss Muggins]

Back to the case at hand, it's not dealing with Rhode Island's Red Flag law, since it was never invoked. Police simply lured the victim to a mental evaluation on the promise they would not seize his two handguns. He underwent the evaluation, was deemed no danger to himself or others, returned home, and found that his two handguns had been seized without a search warrant or a Red Flag law court order. This case is about yet another exception to the search warrant requirement, not about a Red Flag law . . .

IBTL . . .

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy

If he's crazy, they should take him away. There are already procedures for that, probably Constitutional.

The main reason for proposing special procedures regarding guns is to use hoplophobia to allow the Constitution to be ignored.

[jag312]

Originally Posted by Collects

Those red flag laws are easily abused and seem unconstitutional and wrong headed to me.

All it takes is a bitter ex girlfriend lying, and all your guns may be seized and it will cost lots of time, money and aggravation to get them back.

My main objection to Red Flag Laws is that there is no criminal penalty for making false accusations. My son's mother liked to call Internal Affairs with "The Accusation of the Month". All nine IA investigations were total bovine manure.

[handejector]

Stick to the topic. Leave the Covid arguments and all other societal problems out of it.

[Fastbolt]

From the linked article ...

... in essence the Court is being asked to decide if a “community caretaker” exception to the Fourth Amendment applies in this case.

Not sure how this case is being thought to consider "red flag" laws. Not involved in the case.

This is a straight up 4th amendment case, including the "community caretaker" exemption and the seizure of personal property without a warrant under the specific involved circumstances.

[message_board_expert]

The Caniglia case so closely parallels the Heller decision that the plaintiff
is entitled to summary judgement. The Second Amendment elements are clear. The man had guns in his possession, in his home, a constitutionally protected area as confirmed by Heller. The issue would be a matter of stare decisis under the Second.

[Muss Muggins]

The Circuit Court of Appeals thought differently, although reluctantly. As always, interested parties are allowed to submit amicus briefs, so, if you’re feelin’ froggy, as the saying goes . . .

Originally Posted by message_board_expert

The Caniglia case so closely parallels the Heller decision that the plaintiff
is entitled to summary judgement. The Second Amendment elements are clear. The man had guns in his possession, in his home, a constitutionally protected area as confirmed by Heller. The issue would be a matter of stare decisis under the Second.

[message_board_expert]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

The Circuit Court of Appeals thought differently, although reluctantly. . .

Since Heller, lower courts have formed a pattern of erroneous decisions against plaintiffs in Second Amendment cases which are then subsequently overturned by SCOTUS and invariably favoring plaintiffs and gun rights.

[steelslaver]

You may well think your nieghbor is crazy and your neighbor may well think you are. You call the police and report the crazy stuff he has done and they take his guns. Fine. But, what if he calls the police and tells them YOU have done a bunch of crazy stuff. Then they take YOUR guns.

Point is anyone with a telephone can call the police and say some one is crazy or that they have done crazy stuff. Just where IS THE LINE AND MORE IMPORTANT WHO DRAWS IT?????

[bushmaster1313]

A link to the papers at the Supreme Court is here:
Link to SCOTUS Docket

Link to Petition asking Scotus to hear the case

Originally Posted by steelslaver

Point is anyone with a telephone can call the police and say some one is crazy or that they have done crazy stuff. Just where IS THE LINE AND MORE IMPORTANT WHO DRAWS IT?????

^^^This is the crux of the issue before the Supreme Court

The exact question presented is this:

Whether the “community caretaking” exception
to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
extends to the home.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by steelslaver

Point is anyone with a telephone can call the police and say some one is crazy or that they have done crazy stuff. Just where IS THE LINE AND MORE IMPORTANT WHO DRAWS IT?????

^^^This is the crux of the issue before the Supreme Court

The exact question presented is this:

Whether the “community caretaking” exception
to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
extends to the home.

[ISCS Yoda]

There's a little bit of a side issue other than the community caretaker issue. In interrogations I think it is understood that to get the information that they want the police can lie to someone in custody. But this gentleman was not, literally, in custody. He made a deal with the police. They violated their agreement. After agreeing to NOT take his guns they took them behind his back. I'm a big pro-law enforcement guy as a rule but dirty tricks belong somewhere else, not in a citizen's living room. It's offensive to the very core of the Fourth Amendment. I don't see this as a Second Amendment case.

Moral of the story for you shooters and gun collectors out there is simple. If you're going to misbehave with a firearm (and that silly move he pulled telling his wife to shoot him is certainly misbehaving) don't have ALL of your guns where the police can find them. So, if you have to go to court to get your guns back at least you can still have your defensive tools available.

Clearly, if he only had two, and they were in plain sight, well, as noted, I am a law enforcement fan, but trusting the police to NOT take your guns is like trusting your pooch to not eat your steak that you left on the coffee table. It's a reflex!

[Golddollar]

Put "Gary Willis of Ferndale, MD killed when police served Red Flag Order" into Google or Bing and see what turns up.

[ISCS Yoda]

Originally Posted by Golddollar

Put "Gary Willis of Ferndale, MD killed when police served Red Flag Order" into Google or Bing and see what turns up.

I did it. I'm not a big fan of red flag laws but I'm not a big fan or idiots who refuse to comply with police instructions and get themselves killed accordingly. He was irate? Of course he was irate. Still, the police come to your home, even if it's because your 4th ex-wife called them because she saw you with with another woman and she's ticked off, you still cooperate with the police. That's what you do.

Your Fourth Amendment rights, never mind your Second Amendment rights, don't give you the right to be a flaming jerkwad.

And I'll stop right there so I don't violate the order, because I could!

Stick to the topic. Leave the Covid arguments and all other societal problems out of it.

[S-W4EVER]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

?.. Police simply lured the victim to a mental evaluation on the promise they would not seize his two handguns. He underwent the evaluation, was deemed no danger to himself or others, returned home, and found that his two handguns had been seized without a search warrant or a Red Flag law court order...

I know it happens and it’s not illegal but I always did my best to avoid lying to people. I worked uniform patrol my whole career and I always felt that lying to people will catch up to you, sooner or later. Word gets out and pretty soon you’re not effective as a peace officer.

[Miami_JBT]

Originally Posted by Mrnurse

OH BTW I worked Psych VA and Civilian (RN/NP)Hospitals and have had a court order for 72 hr Observation on several Pts. Red flag laws are like those Used against Trump and others, Un- Constitutional. You can have people sent for Psych eval if they are exhibiting Classic Psych Signs.... a Evil violent person ( Absent of Signs/symptoms) in its-self is NOT a Psych issue, its a Violent evil person self generated.

Donald Trump and Rick Scott championed Red Flag Laws. The Democrats aren't at fault with this one. The GOP is.



Violating the 4th Amendment to to after one's 2nd Amendment is horrible. The biggest gun grabbers in FL are Republican Sheriffs. Polk and Pinellas counties are super aggressive and they're heralded as Republican Superstars. Hell, a good chunk of them enforced have been against minors. The kid posted something nefarious on social media and the Sheriff's Office goes after the parent's guns.

Vermont went so far as to take an uncle's guns away because the kids planned on burglarizing the place. They didn't live there, have keys, had legal access, etc.... they just knew that their uncle had guns. The two kids were caught before they took action since they were ratted out by a friend. The police in Vermont still red flagged the guy.

[LostintheOzone]

My main objection to Red Flag Laws is that there is no criminal penalty for making false accusations.

There is in this state and I would suspect other states as well. That still doesn't make ERPO laws constitutional.

It sounds like the police were using the ERPO threat as a way to confiscate weapons. That's double messed up and could be labeled coercion. I wouldn't want to be the police chief that did that after the city has to deal with a law suit.

[delcrossv]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Yep. Absent some other evidence that puts the individual in a prohibited class, that's usually the way it works.

[smoothshooter]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

What if someone considers YOU “the crazy neighbor”?

[steelslaver]

Some people would view anyone who owns a gun "crazy"

More people would view some one who owns 12 guns "crazy"

Does the label "gun nut" ring a bell.

Aren't "Mall Ninjas" really a bit crazy?

I talk to the deer who come around my yard. Does that make me crazy?

My neighbor feed them apples and complains to me that my deer eats his wife's flowers. Is he crazy?

If some one says "he should be shot" talking about the mayor, should I call the police so his guns are taken away?

The mother of my children thought I descended from Antilla the Hun, when she left shouldn't she have been able to call the police and had my guns taken away?

[M29since14]

The notion that there is essentially no punishment for willful false accusations seems true enough to me, any provisions in law notwithstanding. I have an extremely hard time envisioning an elected prosecutor bringing charges against an “emotionally distressed” girlfriend/soon-to-be-ex-wife who makes such an accusation and it is later proven to have no merit. You lawyers, tell me realistically, would you prosecute such a case? And how? In addition to being “mechanically absurd,” it likely would be political suicide.

If I were king, red flag laws, like no-knock searches, would not exist here. There is no benefit to these concepts that outweigh the extraordinary danger they present to personal liberty - and safety. Not a lawyer. JMHO.

[Bozz10mm]

It doesn't make sense that anyone, maybe someone you've angered, girl friend, boy friend, ex wife, brother, sister, neighbor, etc., can just call up anonymously and claim you have firearms and are a danger to society. It is the equivalent of swatting. Do they send a SWAT team to confiscate your firearms at 3 am with a no-knock entry?

Or does a sheriff show up one morning, knock on the door, and politely say that someone has filed a complaint and would you please give him all your guns?

There is no due process. Warrant issued without probable cause. Then you play hell getting your property back when the accusations are proved unfounded.

[JDinAZ]

I will just leave this here. As to not go on a Pro 2A rant as i am known to do. Will just say, per the Cornerstone Supreme Court Precedent there should be zero guns laws. Federal, State, or otherwise.

Marbury v. Madison Case Summary: What You Need to Know

Marbury v Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, February 1803

see opinion pg 138 halfway down on left in margin

"An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a Law"

PDF Link
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-service...srep005137.pdf

In short summary with broader wording

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by JDinAZ

I will just leave this here. As to not go on a Pro 2A rant as i am known to do. Will just say, per the Cornerstone Supreme Court Precedent there should be zero guns laws. Federal, State, or otherwise.

Marbury v. Madison Case Summary: What You Need to Know

Marbury v Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, February 1803

see opinion pg 138 halfway down on left in margin

"An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a Law"

PDF Link
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-service...srep005137.pdf

In short summary with broader wording

I would agree, but that was in a time well before the constitution became a "living, dynamic, and evolving" document.

[JDinAZ]

Originally Posted by stansdds

I would agree, but that was in a time well before the constitution became a "living, dynamic, and evolving" document.

i have noticed that direction also. sure has tried to take its toll on american freedoms and constitutional rights.

which is why we the people need to get the basis and principals re-solidified as intended. original intent is paramount to the republic. our unconstitutional loss, of some 2a rights, has been questionable, to say the least.

[CA Escapee]

Originally Posted by jag312

My main objection to Red Flag Laws is that there is no criminal penalty for making false accusations. My son's mother liked to call Internal Affairs with "The Accusation of the Month". All nine IA investigations were total bovine manure.

Maybe there's no criminal penalty where you live, but there is in Colorado. There's a case that's already settled here in Colorado where a woman tried to play the Red Flag card on a cop who shot and killed her son in the commission of a crime.

In CO the person filing the report has to be related to the the dangerous person or in a relationship with them. The woman claimed that she and the cop were in a relationship because of the police investigation of the crime her son committed. The case was tossed and she was prosecuted for her efforts.

A side note: The woman has a history of misinterpreting laws and has lost plenty of court cases in the past.

[Bob T]

Originally Posted by deadin

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Maybe You are crazy and need to have Your collection confiscated.

[two-bit cowboy]

I've read and pondered the OP's link and all of your thoughts all evening.

I can't make this square peg fit into the round hole of the Second or the Fourth Amendment.

No warrant. The police officers clearly stole the man's property.

I'm finding it hard to believe this arrived to waste the time of our Supreme Court justices.

Every thread needs at least one photo.

It's too bad Lew Horton went out of business this year. They could have initiated a "4th Amendment Issue" to pair with this 1989 "2nd Amendment Issue" Chiefs Special.

Slàinte mhòr

[jtcarm]

Originally Posted by vt_shooter

It's a tough argument. We tell society not to take our guns because of the evil acts of crazy people, and instead demand that society control the crazy people. But how do you control the crazy people if there are no red flag laws of any kind? Just playing devils advocate, I am against red flag laws because of the immense potential of abuse. So how do we address the crazy people, e.g., the high school student who's made threats to do immense harm to fellow students, if we have no red flag laws? Maybe it should be easier to implement red flag laws against younger people since those are the ones that shoot up schools? But can it be argued they have less rights simply because of their age? I don't have any ideas that I'd want to defend.

So how exactly are red flag laws going to stop a HS student, who isn’t old enough to own a gun?

And yes, they do have less rights, because under the law they have not reached majority.