Colorado just used its ‘red flag’ gun seizure law for the first time — one day after it took effect - The Washington Post

I don’t disagree with that statement, but it does give them one less avenue. Maybe taking the gun away isn’t the answer, maybe locking them up until trial isn’t, but it seems we should do something. (maybe provide the victim an loaner gun? :slight_smile: )

1 Like

Spend a lot of my growing up there… the current situation makes me sad too.

1 Like

^^^ thank you THIS.

1 Like

Going to counter with… so we’re going to remove the legally owned property of everyone that is not even charged with a crime (as in this case, he wasn’t charged) and make them wait for a hearing to get their legally owned property back even though they weren’t charged with any crime?

… which brings up another point. Because if they confiscate the gun he had on him, and the guns he had in the house now she has no firearm to protect herself from him when he’s released (since he wasn’t even charged).

Now when he takes his fists or a knife to her, what’s SHE supposed to do?
Maybe the house-gun was legally his, but it was in her house, and she may have been able to use it to defend her own life. Except now she can’t bring that force-leveler into the situation.

From a circumstance I know about personally - they WILL insist on taking all firearms from the household, regardless of the legal ownership. They will disarm EVERYONE in the residence.

2 Likes

No. But maybe violent crimes that rise to a certain level where there is ample physical evidence and witnesses. E.g. Police arrive on scene to a domestic and it’s he said/she said with no physical evidence…not action. They arrive on scene and one of the parties is clearly battered, the other party is drunk and belligerent and then maybe yes. (or to @Dawn 's point we lock them up until trial but that seems cost prohibitive).

I wasn’t aware they removed ALL guns from the residence which I would not be in favor of (for exactly the reason you state) and again IF there were going to be any such laws like this it would need to ensure that that does not happen.

2 Likes

@JamesR - these are generally interpreted to mean guns they have access to, and in the residence means ‘has access to’ in most interpretations. Its not about legal ownership, its about access… they are effectively a ‘prohibited person’ so everyone around them is impacted.

I am really not a fan of legal action that doesn’t rise to the level of charges, but does rise to the level of property confiscation - can’t go there. 30 years ago I dated a DEA agent for a very brief time and he talked about the best laws ever written were the ones that allowed them to roust drg dealers, consfiscate everything involved in the crime - cash, guns, drugs, cars, houses, EVERYTHING on scene where the deal was done or where any part of the transaction sequence occurred… and they didn’t have to convict, didn’t even have to charge in a lot of cases, and they NEVER had to give anything back. Detaining people on a cop’s word was enough to take everything they had. He thought it was great, a perfect tool for law enforcement. He thought that since they’re drug dealers they didn’t deserve any more protection than they got. He thought that people buying drugs got what they deserved. It didn’t bother him that there was no recourse for those that were wrongly accused, and that there was no due process for any of them. His opinion as a DEA agent was sufficient, in his mind, he knows what goes on, and “otherwise these people could walk with no penalty”. Judge, jury and executioner (or consficator) all on his personal opinion. VERY SCARY. That was the day I stopped dating him.

In the case of the domestic violence you’re talking about, if its egregious enough to take a person’s property without due process, its egregious enough to charge. There’s no half-way on this for me. If there’s ample evidence and witnesses, charge them. Either you’re entitled to due process or you’re not… and in this country we are.

2 Likes

But charging them does not disallow them from posting bail and having access to the victim again. That’s where I think a majority of the issues come from. Charges are made, but so is bail.

2 Likes

@JamesR if charges are made, there MAY be evidence for it, and now you are engaged in due process. I’d argue that 16 day (or 30 day or 60 day depending on the state) day-in-court to address the confiscation isn’t adequate. More importantly, IIRC in the case in Colorado (or perhaps another one I read in the last day or so) charges were NOT filed. Not clear if there was an arrest or not, but there was no charge.

And there’s still the issue of effectively disarming others in the household.

2 Likes

So if there’s no charge then why would there be a removal of the guns? (maybe I missed something).

I guess my position is this. If there is enough evidence to charge someone with a violent crime and we cannot detain them until a trial date, I MIGHT be ok with removal of fire arms from that individual (not from everyone in that residence) UNTIL said trial date.

If there is evidence that the individual is a threat to themselves (suicide) I agree with Dawn that there should be an initial commitment/evaluation of the person for 24-48hrs, but I’d also be ok with a temporary removal of their gun until such time they receive the help/treatment they need.

They’ve actually talked about this topic a couple times on The Gun Collective. I like a couple of their ideas around voluntary programs vs the mandatory ones legislated.

2 Likes

Lets be brutally honest. Law enforcement can hold individuals for X amount of time before being required to charge anyone. I believe the golden standard is 72 hours. Now I’m not going to speculate as to this offense or that, but that 72 hour hold could effectively be used to get others away from a potential abuser, it could be used to allow someone to sober up from drugs or alcohol or even just get in a better frame of mind to where maybe they don’t want to commit suicide anymore (there are a lot more examples that can be used here honestly).

We have tools to help, we don’t need to confiscate property under false flags to do so. Because of this, I will never find myself in agreement with ERPOs.

There are simply better ways to handle things and I firmly believe these ERPOs are just another tool in the antigunners toolbox to take firearms from people.

3 Likes

I agree with Dawn, Zee and Spence. You can’t just go take away the guns. The person is the issue so if there is enough evidence to take the guns, take the person instead. Of course in NY they can’t set bail anymore so the person can simply walk until the court date. That said, taking the guns will not deter someone from harming another. They will find a way.

2 Likes

YEP! Exactly! But that’s what they did. No charge, but they took his guns.

Now maybe this is a guy who shouldn’t have them but if that’s the case where’s the charge? Regardless if hes a good or bad guy, where’s the due process??!!

1 Like

Everytime I come across red flag laws, i talk to someone who almost convinces me these are a good idea. Take guns away from people who may be a danger to themselves or others. People use the Parkland shooter (“spoken to” > 30 times by various authorities before he went on a shooting rampage) as an example of a method to get guns away from people without waiting for them to shoot up the place first. Because often these mass shooters haven’t done anything illegal yet.

But then i stop & take a minute…

They only remove the guns (that they know of/can find) from the person. Leaving this person who is a danger to themselves or others sitting there. That person gets no help to solve whatever problem they are having, so what have you done other than maybe temporarily remove some of the means that they may do harm?

The victim no has to incur (probably considerable) cost to hire a lawyer to get their stuff back. I think one or two states allow for a public defender, the rest do not. And public defenders are pretty used to defending actual criminals (can you say plea deal?). This will impact poor people more than any other demographic who will be faced with defending themselves (likely losing) and losing whatever they’ve invested in those firearms OR paying money they dont have to get them back. And HOPE that whoever red-flagged them doesnt do it again. which leads to…

SWAT’ing is a thing now. And AFAIK, none of the existing red flag laws have any punishment for false claims (see the guy in MD who died because a family member just didnt like guns). And because of the extremely low level for burden of proof, most judges will just pass the ERPO because “better safe than sorry”.

And of course, we are literally trampling on several Constitutional Amendments regarding unreasonable seizure, due process, right to face an accuser, etc, etc.

And ultimately, I dont know what the answer is. With or without red-flags, there will be situations where someone innocent gets harmed in a scenario where the other option would have worked better. What are the options that anyone (LEO, family, friend, neighbor) can use to help someone who may be a danger to themselves or others?

^^^YES. Been SWATed, it wasn’t much fun.
All of this is why I have a problem with them.

1 Like

I am to the point where I do not trust anyone in the government any farther than I can throw them (and most of them are fatter than I am if not in actual weight then on what they stuff themselves with from the government teat).

2 Likes

Thought this was interesting.

2 Likes

@Spence – those in the mental health field (which I am not) will tell you that there is a difference between guns and other tools for suicides. Almost everyone who attempts suicide regrets it – most attempts are cries for help. Guns, unfortunately, are almost always lethal, so there is no second chance. Anecdotally, one hears that many who gave suicidal signs are grateful when help comes, even when the guns are taken away temporarily.

1 Like

That might be one of the biggest reasons Red Flag Laws will never be a good thing (IMO). There are no checks and balances. Our forefathers knew that we need to have checks and balances to make sure laws aren’t abused. (Which is one reason I’m shocked that we don’t have term limits but that’s a whole other can of worms.)

2 Likes

Studies say that anywhere between 1%-17% of the population are narcissists. People who have an axe to grind and will say nd do anything to “get you back”. Basically make a law the puts honest people in the crosshairs and caters to liars. Sad…

3 Likes

I’ve heard that, but I’ve personally witnessed other tools be more effective. Arteries don’t close on their own, carbon monoxide poisoning kills quietly and painlessly. And once a noose tightens around your neck there’s not much you can do.

Coincidentally i know two guys with metal plates in their heads from attempted suicide by gun.

2 Likes