Many due process questions about the so-called "red flag" law.
Do I understand that a person's gun rights may be denied on the
Word of ONE "Health Care Professional"?
Glad I am in Georgia, gnats and all.
I am not going to even try to make a legal interpretation of the new red flag law. A-1181
But it sort of says that
(a) if a health care professional has a duty to warn that a patient is going to hurt someone (the duty to warn is old law), the health care professional must under the new law report this to the police chief but not give over clinical information.
(b)The police chief may then use this information to determine if the person is not fit to own guns under New Jersey Law.
(c) If the police chief makes the determination, the matter then gets referred to a judge to make the same determination.
(d) If the judge makes the same determination, the judge "may order" that any guns owned by the person must be surrendered to law enforcement and may order that the surrendered guns are to be "disposed" under the law of seized goods.
(e) If there is probable cause to believe that the ordered surrender was not complied with, the judge may order the guns seized.
Read fairly, the law seems to say that if a health care professional gets wind of a threat by a patient, the health care professional must report it to the police, and if the patient is a gun owner, the police is then allowed to run the same kind of exhaustive background check that takes place the first time you try to buy any gun and each time you try to buy a pistol.
Thus, a health care professional by themselves cannot cause a person's guns to be seized, but in practice that is likely what will happen
An amended version of the bill is
here, I am not sure what actually passed
*******************
Also new is A1217
a version here
And I am not rendering a legal opinion on this one either.
This very complicated law seems to allow a domestic partner, family member, etc., to petition a court for a protective order to force a person to surrender their guns and ammunition, first temporary and then permanent.
In other words, it sort of says that almost anyone in any present or former relationship can go to a judge and say:
So-and-so is really a danger,
They have guns, and
Their guns should be taken away -- Right Now!