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

[Watchdog]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...] 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.