Red Flag law question

[coltle6920]

First off there was a fairly recent story about an 84yr old Korean Vet who was employed as a school crossing guard. He was having lunch with a friend at a diner and made a comment that children could be shot because the security guard at the local school was leaving his post to take a break. Or something like that.The waitress overheard parts of the conversation and called the police. The police took the Vet's cc card and confiscated his firearms.

Seems pretty routine as far as most Red Flag cases go even though this was a complete overreaction on the waitresses side due to the fact she wasn't in on the entire conversation.

I would assume that the Red Flag laws vary to some degree on a State by State basis so I have a question for the members here.
What might happen if the Vet didn't have a cc card or own any firearms at all?

 

[Jessie]

The waitress wasn't the one who over reacted.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

What would have happened if the vet had no cc card or firearms? Probably still would have had armed cops at his house tearing it apart to search for any firearms, and his cc permit would likely be cancelled.

And yes, it wasn't the waitress who overreacted, it was the officers receiving and responding to the call and proceeding to a judicial order without anything that might be termed an investigation, as well as a judge issuing the order on little more than speculation and hearsay, and finally a state legislature who enabled such extra-constitutional behavior by passing the so-called "red flag" law to begin with.

But that is the whole point of "red flag" laws; ex-parte judicial proceedings with no notice to the affected person and no opportunity to respond or confront accusers prior to being subjected to search and seizure as a prophylactic measure to assure public safety. Due process of law turned upside down, guilty until proven innocent, deprivation of liberty and property without recourse (except at significant effort and personal expense after the fact).

Just discussing the facts, not engaging in political commentary here.

 

[Jessie]

I agree Lobo, it wasn't really the Cops either. They did what the law said to do. THATS the problem, like you said.
We don't go curtailing Constitutional rights because of what somebody may have heard.
No, no, no!
This needs to be fixed.

 

[Absalom]

Well, a bit difficult to find some real facts, but it looks like this wasn't really a red flag case in the legal sense.

The vet as a crossing guard was actually employed by the police department which suspended him after the waitress made her report. Then the police chief personally took his license (no indication this was a carry permit), drove to his house and collected his guns. As soon as it became clear that he hadn't made a threat, they handed his guns over to his son-in-law. There seems to have been no judge involved. No word on what kind of guns.

And about a week ago the chief reinstated him to his job as a crossing guard. Apparently there was a lot of community pressure. I wonder how much of this was local politics. The vet used to be a police officer himself, the whole thing started when he criticized their current school resource officer in public for leaving his post, and the chief in fact felt a need to expressly defend that officer's performance when he announced the vet's reinstatement.

Strange story all around, but probably not a good case study for red flag laws.

 

[stansdds]

I think it was more political than judicial. Once it was found that he was not making threats, were his firearms and permit returned to him? From what I have read, his firearms were handed over to a family member who works in a gun shop with instructions to sell the firearms.

 

[johngalt]

I think it was more political than judicial. Once it was found that he was not making threats, were his firearms and permit returned to him? From what I have read, his firearms were handed over to a family member who works in a gun shop with instructions to sell the firearms.

It seems strange that authorities can order a 3rd party to dispose of someone else's property. The family member should sell them back to the original owner for $.01.

 

[Texas40]

Illegal confiscation and sale of another's property.

RFLs will do little to stop violence if anything. They will however cauze many people to lose their property through illegal seizure.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bozz10mm]

Red flag laws are in direct violation of the 4th amendment. This is exactly the kind of thing it was written for. I don't know how they get away with it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's like "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" don't mean anything.

 

[joeintexas]

Anytime I read anything that pertains to Red Flag Law I just cringe. Folks this can happen to any of us that own even one firearm much more so if we own more than one or if we reload ammo or repair firearms. What' next, a picture of John Wayne in your home indicates you're a violent person. Scary times.

 

[cbore]

I think it was more political than judicial. Once it was found that he was not making threats, were his firearms and permit returned to him? From what I have read, his firearms were handed over to a family member who works in a gun shop with instructions to sell the firearms.

This what is to fear, when taking a citizen's guns without due process becomes just another political tool to be used and serves no true value preserving the public safety.

 

[Wise_A]

Anytime I read anything that pertains to Red Flag Law I just cringe. Folks this can happen to any of us that own even one firearm much more so if we own more than one or if we reload ammo or repair firearms. What' next, a picture of John Wayne in your home indicates you're a violent person. Scary times.

It can happen to anyone, period.

 

[johngalt]

Red flag laws are in direct violation of the 4th amendment. This is exactly the kind of thing it was written for. I don't know how they get away with it.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's like "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" don't mean anything.

Drug laws were pretty much the nail in the coffin of both the 4th and 5th long before the red flag laws.

 

[Telecaster]

Only the people involved can answer the question of what if the man owned no guns.

 

[Rudi]

As I look at the Bill of Rights these laws must be struck down and soon! They have a chilling effect on the 1st. amendment. Direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th!!!!!!!!!!!! That's HALF of the first 10!!!! I can not believe this....!

 

[Kanewpadle]

I find it irritating that cowardly law makers intentionally put cops in harms way to "protect the public".

There will eventually be a high profile event in which law enforcement tries to confiscate somebody's guns and a major shootout happens. The media will label citizen as a bad guy that owned guns and extremists will label law enforcement as trigger happy. No attention will given to the politicians that enacted such a stupid law.

 

[daglockman]

Where it is going with red flag laws....

 

[stansdds]

Where it is going with red flag laws....

In all likelihood. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat the mistakes.

 

[delcrossv]

As I look at the Bill of Rights these laws must be struck down and soon! They have a chilling effect on the 1st. amendment. Direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th!!!!!!!!!!!! That's HALF of the first 10!!!! I can not believe this....!

"Tyranny of the Majority" in action. We want action NOW! And we don't care what rights need to be stepped on to get it.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

"Tyranny of the Majority" in action. We want action NOW! And we don't care what rights need to be stepped on to get it.

Democracy is a bitch when you in the minority.