At the risk of not being Miss Congeniality here, i did this countless times as a night command duty officer, well before red flag laws had been enacted. Inevitably these seizures followed violent domestic violence incidents, so plenty (too much) evidence of what had transpired was plainly visible.
By this time we would have arrested the assailant had he been present when we arrived. In most instances he would have fled the scene knowing full well we would again arrest him as we had in countless prior such calls. (Note: Virginity is a rare commodity in the law enforcement world. By the time we get to them, they have done it before).
We would, whenever possible, get the on call judge to place the bail out of reach to at least keep the suspect in custody over night if we had made an arrest. Judges were extremely cooperative about this.
I would also have a notation attached to the chain of custody sheet stating the firearm(s) were to be released only pursuant to court order. I wanted to prevent defendant or defense counsel from gaining the release of the firearms based solely on demand. I also wanted any magistrate considering such an order to be forced to read the crime report. I also wanted no blood on our departmental hands, and this was a way to attain that secondary objective.
Never in any of this did I consider the 2A rights of the defendant. My justification was the emergency exception rule, for which I had more than sufficient evidence. My sole intent was to save lives.
Looking back, I never received any negative kickback or response from any quarter.
My troops of course loved it. They did not care much for domestic abusers either.
Needless to say, I have no regrets about doing this.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
The type of situations you describe are a bit different than what is allowed under so many of the "red flag laws" that we are discussing here.
Based on your descriptions of the situations where you and your officers got involved, you already had significant HISTORICAL evidence to support your taking the enforcement actions against the individuals you described.
HOWEVER, that isn't what we are talking about here. The "red flag" laws that so many of us are opposing don't require any objective historical EVIDENCE, or even ANY evidence of any kind, in order to be enforced.
All that these laws require is an unsubstantiated, SUBJECTIVE statement that a lawful gun owner made some kind of "threat", and the gun owner is immediately presumed guilty and their gun rights are revoked without any due process.
This kind of situation invites abuse by anyone with an axe to grind against an otherwise lawful gun owner. Especially since there is absolutely NO accountability provisions or any penalties for making FALSE statements to invoke these red-flag laws against anyone, anytime, and for any reason.
So people can easily abuse these laws as a weapon against anyone they want - to get revenge, or otherwise punish someone for any reason. They are ripe for abuse by an estranged spouse or partner or even an anti-gun neighbor who wants to "get even" for any reason.
Currently these red flag laws are written in such a way that they practically invite people to make false claims to weaponize the legal system against any firearms owner, anytime they want to, for any reason they want to, without any accountability, And once they do, the firearms owner then ends up having to prove their innocence - rather than having to be proven guilty.
That is completely the opposite of the most fundamental principles of our justice system. Our legal system is predicated on the idea that everyone is presumed "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Red flag laws are the exact opposite of that principle. Under these laws, based on one person's accusations, a gun owner is presumed to be - and TREATED as if they are - guilty, without ever even being given a chance to confront their accuser OR present an argument in their own defense.
Guilty until proven innocent is NOT how our justice system is supposed to work, but that is how the "red flag" laws work. They turn our justice system completely on its head, and they are totally un-Constitional.
That is why we need to oppose them IMO. These laws need to be re-written to give the accused the presumption of innocence, an opportunity to confront the accusers, and present a defense BEFORE law enforcement can treat someone as guilty.
At the very least, in all cases where there is a red flag law seizure, there should be a hearing within 24 hours to give the defendant due process - including the opportunity to confront their accuser(s) and to defend themselves. If the preponderance of evidence indicates that the accuser made false statements to invoke the red flag law, then THE ACCUSER should be held criminally liable and prosecuted for it.
If a few people suffer some serious consequences for false statements invoking red flag laws, that will be a deterrent against false reporting. That should provide an appropriate check against abuse of these laws.
JMO.
> 
