quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
As I said, the predictable babble about gun confiscation aside, this has gone on for years. And it went unnoticed by everyone, apparently, until such time the pols and media made a big deal about it.

The tired “just following orders” crap is just that. It’s amusing that people scream “enforce the laws on the books” each time there is a mass shooting, and when it happens, the same people hypocritically scream about it as well.

This is nothing new, fellas.

Maybe so, but damn if it doesn't feel different now. I don't have as much time in as you (just turned over on 15 years), so admittedly less insight via the distance perspective, but things feel different now. Maybe it's me, which is depressing.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It’s amusing that people scream “enforce the laws on the books” each time there is a mass shooting, and when it happens, the same people hypocritically scream about it as well.

Most, if not all of the recent mass shootings were committed by people who went through the system legally to obtain their guns. I see no issue with that as it is impossible to craft any law that would catch every single nutjub without completely destroying personal liberty for everyone else.

We have (and have had) an ongoing mental health problem in this country. Unfortunately for most of us, political correctness and progressivism have rendered an environment that will not and can not deal with this minority of the population in a reasonable, lawful, manner. These 'Red Flag' laws are just unconstitutional knee jerk nonsense, and accomplish little to nothing other than putting a whole lot of people at risk. The only way the root problem ever gets solved is if we as a society grow the hell up and come up with a means to ID, treat, and where necessary, institutionalize people who are ticking time bombs. I'm not going to hold my breath on that ever happening in my lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Except in these cases, there doesn't have to be any incident involved to begin the process.

This has been going on for the last three or four decades (last 23 that I know of) except that it is called a mental warrant. The same criteria right now to get a mental warrant by a friend or family member is used to get this "red flag" or whatever it is.

Mental warrants have stood up in courts for years, and I'm sure that this will too. Mental warrants are much harder to get than protective orders, because in most cases society is the "victim" not a specific person. The level to get a judge to sign off is pretty high, and then most of the time the examiner kicks the person back home.

Every state has a version of it, and to say it "wouldn't fly here" is pretty short sighted.

Whether it holds up in court or not (and why shouldn't it given the current behavior of most courts), its still going to result in both citizens and officers getting shot. Its bad policy, but I believe its specifically designed to result in the aforementioned shootings which will move the ball forward toward the real desired outcome....draconian gun control laws on everyone.

Had nothing to do with the guy ACTUALLY being crazy? Got it. Cause reasonable people always go for a gun after putting it down and fight the police forcing them to shoot him. You can expect people to make pie in the sky defenses, emotionally link it to gun confiscation or control, make the assertions that he wasn’t crazy, but at the end of the day, without this law, he likely would have been shot on a mental warrant. Cops get killed on mental warrants. But, this “streets will run red with blood” emotional blaming of the tool and not the person is familiar.

Call it what you will, this is nothing new and the streets haven’t ran red with blood. The mere thread title claiming “murder” tells you all you need to know. It is to play on emotions. Grab a gun, fight the police, gets you shot more often than not. To call it murder shows the agenda.

Is that what 'really' happened? All we have is the media's reporting on it and we know they have no agenda or bias on the topic. And how many times do the media just outright get it wrong?

Again, whether these retarded 'laws' hold up in court or not, they completely side step due process. And most gun owners I've met are enormous fans of due process. If a neighbor I might have pissed off after exchanging words because my dog shat in his yard can report me as a potential threat, and the cops show up in the wee hours of the morning to collect all my firearms, you can bet your ass I'm gonna be pissed, and being half asleep, I too may behave a bit differently than I would at 12 noon.

IMO there is no valid defense of these types of laws.

I believe I see the fundamental problem. You and your neighbor “having words” and him calling you in as being mentally ill isn’t a mental warrant. The level of evidence is way higher. Now, I realize the next step in this is the “do you truly trust the government” angle, but again that is not what is being discussed.

Mental warrants are nothing new.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It’s amusing that people scream “enforce the laws on the books” each time there is a mass shooting, and when it happens, the same people hypocritically scream about it as well.

Most, if not all of the recent mass shootings were committed by people who went through the system legally to obtain their guns. I see no issue with that as it is impossible to craft any law that would catch every single nutjub without completely destroying personal liberty for everyone else.

We have (and have had) an ongoing mental health problem in this country. Unfortunately for most of us, political correctness and progressivism have rendered an environment that will not and can not deal with this minority of the population in a reasonable, lawful, manner. These 'Red Flag' laws are just unconstitutional knee jerk nonsense, and accomplish little to nothing other than putting a whole lot of people at risk. The only way the root problem ever gets solved is if we as a society grow the hell up and come up with a means to ID, treat, and where necessary, institutionalize people who are ticking time bombs. I'm not going to hold my breath on that ever happening in my lifetime.

Yes.

The problem is and always have been on mental warrants is that no one talked to each other. Not the local, staties, or the feds. Damn sure not the hospitals. Mental warrants call for supporting evidence from a tending physician in most all cases.

Man, I get the fact that this scares people because they don’t understand it. I would be the same way if I haven’t been around it all my adult life. In my years, I have never seen this abused. Matter of fact, it is used sparingly. Something changes, I ll be the first to say so. But, as I have said many times, protective orders are the things that concern me.

quote:

The level of evidence is way higher.

I've had a lot of experience with warrants involving DV's. That takes an actual event to trigger although the standards are pretty low. Nothing more than a sense of fear.


Now in this case, the subject has a mental issue? They will spend a few moments discussing it before the warrant is issued. Will it be an actual ,physician making the call? Don't bet on it. They will revert to para professionals such as used for "crisis management".


True, in some cases the concern is valid and past horrific incidents showed the warning signs were ignored for too long.


But will they be used in some cases simply for retribution by someone with an ax to grind and a dislike of firearms in general? you bet.


As in DV cases, no judge in their right mind will deny the issuance of the warrant. they will play it safe and dump it on the courts. Meanwhile, what is the cost to those subjected to prove themselves fit? Who covers that cost? Let the state pick up the tab.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Now, I realize the next step in this is the “do you truly trust the government” angle, but again that is not what is being discussed.

Although this may sound counter intuitive, I trust the vast majority of the LEO's I know and/or have come in contact with, but I most assuredly do not trust the government entity behind them.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Now, I realize the next step in this is the “do you truly trust the government” angle, but again that is not what is being discussed.

Although this may sound counter intuitive, I trust the vast majority of the LEO's I know and/or have come in contact with, but I most assuredly do not trust the government entity behind them.

Completely fair.

how is this different from 'swatting'?

final result is the same

giving it a fancy name doesn't make it right

A while back I made a statement which I didn't realize looked like ambivalence concerning the red flag law. I can see that now and didn't mean it that way. Apologies. We do agree we do not support laws which infringe on rights without due process and lawful cause to remove them.

There can be 2 separate ways to comment here. One on yet another shitty and poorly written law, and another of the possibilities of who choose poorly. My intent was the latter.

I was trying to discuss was what we do not know. If the victim contributed to the outcome? We don't know how family thought, or if the threat was real, or what officers were faced with. Until then my objection was the thread title which used "murdered" (mentioned previously) w/o the substance to be sure.

Where we already have laws that cover issues of people with mental problems, domestic violence and such, I am willing to give latitude and trust to the LE folks.

Where "feel good" and "knee jerk/emotional" pushed through laws, acts and what not, that are not scrutinized for overstepping, eroding, or otherwise taking free people's rights, are those which I have problems accepting and will push back every time.

(and a lot of this goes back to the GDC's opening the floodgates of mental health institutions and putting people back on the streets, as well as allowing those who should be held in facilities to roam, and do as they will, until the shit hits the fan.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
(and a lot of this goes back to the GDC's opening the floodgates of mental health institutions and putting people back on the streets, as well as allowing those who should be held in facilities to roam, and do as they will, until the shit hits the fan.)

Cruz (the Parkland shooter) is a perfect example of this. 60+ visits to his home by multiple government agencies prior to the shooting and nothing was done to stop it. In Florida, had one of those agencies Baker Acted Mr. Cruz (maybe when he was cutting himself), that single act would have updated to NICS and prevented him from buying the AR he used to gun down the students at Parkland.

These Reg Flag type laws remind me of the quote..."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Space saver.

Thanks jljones. The problem with much of the reporting around stuff like this isn't that it is deliberately bad, but rather that it omits so much that is necessary to know.

What is missing from the reporting, and what is critical to know if any of this (at least as implemented in Maryland) is constitutional, is the due process around the issuance of the order by the judge.

The disarming of the truly dangerous is understandable. The risk of the pissed spouse, ex-spouse, shunned partner, greedy kid, angry neighbor, etc., turning these cases into SWATTING situations is what is most disturbing. If we, being rights oriented gun owners, understand the level of process necessary for the issuance of such an order by a judge, and understand the process to contest such orders, there would be somewhat less concern about these laws.

The worry, obviously is about abuse of this system, safeguards in place to prevent such abuse, and worry that, particularly in liberal or more authoritarian states, recovery after the fact will be problematic, particularly if the practical reality of the situation is "they only have to assert I'm crazy to take them, but I have to affirmatively prove I'm sane to get them back."

No one wants taking the guns to be too easy, or the standard for return of the guns to be too hard. Personally, I think that the "emergency" nature of the process is itself problematic and that unless the subject is waving a gun around and threatening people, there needs to be a hearing before the confiscation. From the facts presented here, it doesn't appear the the guy who got shot was actively in "crisis" as the treatment folks say, at the time of the raid. Rather, he was in bed, in which case, he wasn't a risk to anyone. Serve him with a subpoena for a hearing later in the day, rather than raid his house and take his things without notice or opportunity to contest.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The worry, obviously is about abuse of this system, safeguards in place to prevent such abuse

The permanent removal as of today requires hospitalization in a secure mental facility for a period longer than 72 hours by a judge's signed order. That reporting triggers the person to get flagged in NICS as a prohibited "mentally defective" person. At that point, if they attempt to buy a gun, they are treated just like a convicted felon who attempts to purchase, and they are arrested on federal or state charges for the attempted purchase.

Getting the loons to that point is difficult. And it is a cost thing, not a public safety thing. They just don't have the space in facilities to house the criminally insane. The judge's order takes the person to a "trained" mental health person to where they screen the person. At that point, the screener conducts an interview. 99 percent of the time the person goes back home after about 15-20 minutes. On the rare occasion, the psychiatrist fills out more paperwork, and again a judge reviews and signs it or doesn't. At that point, the person is off for a 72 hour hold. During that 72 hours, the person is evaluated, and if it is deemed the person needs to stay longer, a judge has to sign off on it again. That's the system that has been in place as long as I have been on the job and it exactly mirrors the federal system.

The bar to get them there is high. Years ago, I responded to a guy in traffic that was causing a problem. I showed up, and the dude had jumped in front of a semi screaming that he wanted to die. He sees me, and runs toward me with a trash can lid screaming "FUCKING SHOOT ME". I hit him with OC and he folded up. I got him looked at by EMS, decontaminated a bit, and off to have him evaluated which is an hour drive. Mind you, this is on car cam as it was long before body cam days. I fill out all the necessary paperwork, and after about five minutes the doc comes out and says that I can take him home. I'm all but livid at that point and tell the doc to watch the video. He says he doesn't need to because he was crazy then, and not now. I took him home per the order. He hung himself the next day.

The mental health system is broken. Post Parkland, the only thing that has changed is now they have to admit it publicly.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The mental health system is broken. Post Parkland, the only thing that has changed is now they have to admit it publicly.

Truer words have never been spoken, but even after the recent string of mass shootings, I still don't think a majority of elected officials are willing to admit how broken the mental health system is. And the reason for that is because they have zero ideas how to fix it, and anything they might suggest would be used against them politically by one group or another. These Red Flag laws and the continual leftist banter about universal background checks leads us farther away from any real real solutions to the actual problem(s).

quote:

The permanent removal as of today requires hospitalization in a secure mental facility for a period longer than 72 hours by a judge's signed order. That reporting triggers the person to get flagged in NICS as a prohibited "mentally defective" person. At that point, if they attempt to buy a gun, they are treated just like a convicted felon who attempts to purchase, and they are arrested on federal or state charges for the attempted purchase.

Thanks. Things are similar here with the Baker Act, which allows 72 hour confinement in Florida. My question is more around the due process / judicial standard for determining about a "red flag" gun grab. By nature, these appear to be ex-parte; i.e., the complainant is given an injunction by the judge and the police confiscate the weapons before the defendant / gun owner has any ability to contest the process. In the case you describe, the crazy person is brought before a professional before a commitment order is made. In the Maryland red flag case, the judge makes a preliminary decision based on the statement of the complainant, orders the police to confiscate the guns, and then the defendant has to prove later, in court, that he or she is entitled to have the guns back.

It used to be that getting an ex-parte order was pretty tough. It seems to me that the Maryland standard is a bit loose. All that is required is a specific complaint filed in court from: 1) a health care professional; 2) family member; 3) baby mommy or daddy / date); or 4) LEO. The defendant isn't notified, the order is given, and cops show up before dawn to get the guns. That's not a "crisis" situation as a crisis is happening now, not the day after the judge's order at 0500.

I get why this is on the books, and I understand that LEO need some enabling statute to take guns from the truly dangerous, but I fear that this will be abused. Reports indicate that in the first month, 114 petitions were made, and 36 resulted in confiscation orders. That's a 31% approval rate, so maybe the judges are being somewhat careful in granting these things, but as noted below, the Florida Baker Act commitment rate (not exactly an apples to apples comparison) is <1%, so judges in Maryland are much more likely to seize guns than judges in Florida are to order a civil commitment.

I hope I'm wrong, and I agree with bigdeal when he says he has great respect for, and faith in the individual LEO's he has encountered, but has little faith in their leadership, or in the judiciary.

I have to agree; I'm a lawyer, and I don't much trust judges with this one. There is no upside on the part of the judge in letting the gun owner keep the guns, and there is plenty of potential downside if the judge doesn't approve the confiscation order.

In the Maryland statute, there are criminal penalties for malicious reporting. The only way this law won't be abused is if a few people go to jail for trying to screw a gun owner, and given the overcrowding of the jails and court system, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The real test will be whether or not most of those 36 get their guns back, or not. In 2010, there were 140,000 involuntary Baker Act commitment proceedings. Less than 1% of those hearings resulted in the person being civilly committed for mental health danger. I struggle to see why the Maryland number 31% should be higher than the Florida number <1%.