That didn’t take long.
Colorado just used its ‘red flag’ gun seizure law for the first time — one day after it took effect - The Washington Post
We should have a thumbs down for this post.
I apologise, I can ask to have it removed.
No No No Red Flag Laws not your post. LOL
Ok. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I am a tad conservative when it comes to encroachment upon the 2nd Amendment. It just seems like 2020 is going to see an all out push against the 2A.
Colorado makes me sad. My Mother’s side of the family had a huge ranch there, I had my first real hunting experiences there. I was given my first real hunting rifle there. I learned my most important hunting lessons there.
I’ve always thought Colorado was the most beautiful state in the country, especially in the fall.
Just sad to see what it is now.
I hear you on Colorado @Zavier_D, I lived there for a little over 5yrs back in the 80’s/90’s and I loved it there. Agreed that it seems to have strayed away from their roots.
Back to you topic. I’d like to offer a counter opinion here. As a general rule, I’m not a proponent or fan of red flag laws and I think they have too much of a propensity to be abused. HOWEVER…
Based on the story (and granted it’s one sided at this point), it seems the correct actions may have been taken
Police were called out for a domestic abuse call that was made by the wife who informed the police
that the suspect had become violent with his wife and brandished a gun during the assault.
As police were interviewing the suspect, the suspect informed them that he was planning on doing
harm to himself or others (he stated he planned to “off himself” and that he was about to do something
“not good” and it was a good thing the police had gotten there.
In a situation like that I think I’m ok with police temporarily taking the man’s guns away. Granted a restraining order had not been filed yet and he had not been convicted of a domestic abuse crime (both of which would have disqualified him on the 4473), but at the point in time he certainly seemed to be displaying the behaviors that could reasonably lead law enforcement to conclude he was a threat at least in the near term.
The other thing is that the police just did not take one party’s word and then take action. The listened to the wife and the husband and then made a call (it sounds like primarily based on the husband’s own comments).
If no restraining order is filed and there is no conviction of a domestic abuse crime, ok fine he gets them back.
Maybe it’s not an equivalent analogy, but we’ve talked about someone busting through the door of your home at night. I don’t believe many of us were waiting for the individual to raise a gun at us and start firing before we started firing right? There was an immediate threat so we address it.
Seems to be a similar situation, there was an immediate threat so the police addressed it.
Now again, I’ll still say I’m not in favor of most of these laws as currently written as I think it will be too easy to abuse them and it does forego the suspect’s due process but I think there may be a place for a version of these laws and that in this case it seems they were used appropriately.
My two cents.
I agree with @JamesR.
Where these Red Flag laws bother me most is the middle of night kicking your door in and raiding your house based solely on accusations.
This situation is a very difficult one because if the officers leave and do nothing and something happens we would be asking why they didn’t take the guns.
I don’t disagree with you, what concerns me is the potential for abuse. As we see these laws used more frequently, I am concerned that a certain level of “societal acceptance” will creep in and cases will start becoming less well defined. As society as a whole will just start going “oh the police must have done there due diligence”.
I have a Forensic Accounting background. In the United States under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) we have what are called " Bright Lines". Which basically mean you can go to this edge of the line but no further. Under International GAAP, (which is being pushed hard) they follow the idea of interpretations of the principles. The problem is, what is one accountant’s interpretation is another’s violation.
Many do not realize or understand that the 2008 financial crisis was started by this exact issue. I even had an academic paper published on this (I was secondary author). So I am a huge proponent of “Bright Lines”. I have no problem with someone seeking every advantage they can, as long as they do not cross that “Bright Line”. My problem or issue with “Red Flag” laws is the ambiguity, discretionary, and potential for abuse.
That’s why I didn’t make a comment other than “didn’t take long”.
I actually disagree about taking a suicidal persons firearms. Hold up, keep reading past the controversial opener. Under ERPOs the cops come in and take the firearms, they leave knives, rope, electronic appliances and bathtubs, hoses and vehicles, prescriptions and cleaning chemicals, etc etc.
To me it makes a lot more sense to leave everything and take the person for help. What good does taking their firearms do if they just go hang themselves later? Or run a hose from the exhaust pipe of their vehicle into the cab?
Dead is dead and suicidal tendencies don’t disappear just because somebody’s boomstick was taken away.
That’s why I feel ERPOs aren’t worth the digital paper they’re “printed” on.
does introduce the irony that at some point we’ll be appreciating the services of the ACLU to withstand the misuse of a well intentioned but locally poorly employed governmental excess. In any case, watching closely allows us an opportunity to catch misuse early before it becomes a generally accepted practice worthy of federal legislation against the Second Amendment.
Yes, that there exactly is my concern as well @Zavier_D …it’s a slippery slope well intentioned path to hell…(or whatever the saying is).
Agree 100% 48hr observation/help does make more sense (Japan’s suicide rate is 2x the U.S. and they have extremely strict gun control, just almost no suicided by gun). However, as a society we’ll need to figure out how to fund those services (e.g. it’s probably less expensive to take the weapons).
I also wonder if we see that occur, if we’ll see an uptick in diagnosis that render the subject ineligible for from owning firearms (which also has the potential to be abused).
Anything can and will be abused against us unfortunately. I just think it’s infinitely dumb to take a persons guns and parade that fact around saying “We did something, we helped!” While simultaneously leaving a hundred different methods of suicide available.
I agree with you on that one. Take away one method of killing one’s self does not mean they will not choose a different method. From the article:
likening it to restraining orders for domestic violence cases and pointing to evidence that similar laws had reduced gun suicides in other states.
“Gun suicides” not suicides overall.
Also from the article:
to remove guns from risky people before they committed a crime.
Did we not learn anything from Minority Report? Just because there is a chance someone is going to do something doesn’t mean they will do something. Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty because someone things you might do something wrong.
This is a flaw in the entire firearms purchasing process in my eyes. If you are a veteran, or a civilian and having issues it’s almost a Catch 22, a literal no win scenario. Do you go ask for help, and risk losing your 2a rights forever? Or do you try to handle it yourself and possibly lose your life to your inner turmoil?
The entire mental health system needs to be overhauled and destigmatized.
^^^^^ This right here.
So this individual beat up his wife, threatened her with a gun, said it’s lucky the police arrived because he was going to do something bad to include “offing himself”…the come on scene and arrest him and he makes bond and is free the next morning.
We’re ok with his having access to a gun until his court date and he’s convicted of a crime?
I’m not happy with him having access to his wife during this time. He should be held for observation and not able to get to her with any sort of weapon.
As @Spence said:
If someone is as much of a threat as you indicated
is taking his guns away going to reduce his threat much? He’s already beaten up his wife (with fists I’m assuming), what does taking away his gun do to remove the threat of him killing her with his fists, a knife, his car, poisons, acid, a bomb, a pillow over her face? Or killing himself by hanging or with pills or carbon monoxide or driving his car into oncoming traffic?
The guns aren’t the problem in these situations. People need to get the right help. And being able to accuse someone of domestic abuse is very easy. (I am in no way invalidating true domestic abuse, I’ve seen people call the cops for real abuse and nothing happened to the abuser after the cops show up. I’ve seen women make false claims of domestic abuse to get their ex in trouble - the people making false claims should go to jail IMO.)
Taking the gun away doesn’t change the intent or desire of the gun owner. People intent on doing harm will just find a different tool.
So we’re going to no lock up everyone that is charged with domestic abuse until their court dates no bond allowed? We already have overcrowding in our prison systems, where will we “house” all of these individuals until their court dates (knowing those dates are often months off).
Agreed, he could use a knife or some other weapon. But if she had a gun, then at least she’d be the one brining the gun to the knife fight. Agree again that people need to get the right help and proper protection, however our system is currently not set up for it nor does it seem that we (royal we) are willing to pay for it. Agree again on the false claims of domestic abuse which is why of the two evils, taking away a persons guns temporarily or locking them up until trial date, I would think taking away the guns is the lesser of the two. Because to your point we can’t just not do anything either because we’ve also seen too many times where the accused batter does post bond and goes right back to kill their spouse.
You appear to be arguing both sides, @JamesR or just playing devil’s advocate.
You’ve given an example where he’s clearly a danger to himself and others, which I responded to. I did not say that everyone who was accused of domestic abuse should be locked up or even put under observation.
Also, giving the abused a firearm doesn’t mean they’ll be able to protect themselves and it does nothing to change the intention of those who are out to hurt others.
This isn’t a black and white, one size fits all solution.
I stand by my statement,