Posted on 08/20/2019 7:00:39 AM PDT by rktman
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as "red flag laws," have been at the forefront of the gun control debate. The idea is simple: if a person is deemed mentally unstable, and a risk to themselves or others, he or she can be stripped of their firearms. Typically, family members, doctors and law enforcement have the power to petition a judge to deem the gun owner mentally unfit to own a firearm, at least for the time being. Some states, like Florida, have already implemented these laws. While they sound great on paper, they have a number of practicality issues. The biggest one is the lack of due process.
Just last week, a man in Florida had his firearms confiscated simply because he had the same name as a criminal. That's right. A man was stripped of his Second Amendment right...because the police failed to differentiate a law-abiding citizen with a thug.
According to Ammoland, Jonathan Carpenter received a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services saying his concealed handgun permit had been suspended for "acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations."
Carpenter was forced to go to the Osceola County clerk's office to have a form filled out stating he wasn't the person law enforcement was looking for. At that point, the clerk instructed Carpenter to speak with the sheriff's office.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This is something I'd like to see the NRA's legal team involved in. Taking away someone's property should not be allowed without due process.
And if she declines to show up, or cannot be found?
We never did get a coherent explanation from the authorities. But it reinforced something that my dad said to me 40 or 50 years ago, “Simple stupidity rules the world.” If just one of the officers involved had even a smidge of common sense the entire dangerous boondoggle could easily have been avoided. Neither my wife or I have any criminal history; we haven't got any friends or associates with criminal histories. Yet theses idiots were just about to use a battering ram on our door and ran around our house guns drawn with fingers on their triggers and making a mess and a whole lot of noise.
What makes anyone think that better safeguards would be employed safeguarding people from having their rights taken away by gun grabbing bureacrats?
He deserved millions in compensation for the fascist action. The ones who made the “mistake” need to be fired. But won’t be.
BUMP!
Yep, clearly guilty until proven innocent. And best of all, he cannot prove himself innocent, he needs the accuser to say he is innocent.
Thanks lawmakers and law enforcers. Is there no common sense left anywhere in our system?
Really?
No, you don't. And this article illustrates why.
You were being funny with your first sentence, weren’t you? The only built in safeguards in the Governing process today are the Constitution. And unless it serves their purpose, those in power totality ignore it. That is the fact. You can believe the law makers that have never told the truth in their lives. Or you can believe your lying eyes. Of course, the Indians believed The Great White Father in Washington. Hell, if he was good enough for them to believe, he should be good enough for us. Right?
Guess I forgot the “sarc” tag.
“acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations.”
Domestic Violence is one of the primary components of red flag laws.
This is crazy. This case of mistaken identity is something the sheriff’s office ought to have been able to take care of - verify the guy’s identity and then inform the court.
Red flag laws scare me. It’s too easy for a neighbor (or anyone else) to make a false claim.
I don’t know what the answer is. Some people do need their guns taken away. I just watched an episode of “Fear Thy Neighbor.” Spat between two families in Texas. One guy starts shooting his gun at night in the side yard between houses. Sheriff says can’t do anything, it’s the guy’s property. Guy shoots house. Sheriff says can prove it was the neighbor who did it. Sheriff essentially tells family he can’t do anything until the guy shoots somebody. Guy shoots out electric transformer. Utility company collects bullet fragments. Judge says not enough evidence to issue search warrant to check guy’s guns. Guy threatens to kill whole family. Finally arrested for that, but released. Guy goes in at night and shoots mom, dad, and son. Daughter survives because light in her bedroom wouldn’t turn on. Parents die; son survives. It seems like it would have been a good thing to take away the guy’s guns, but he was so focused on this family that he likely would have stabbed them to death, bombed their house, or tried to kill them in some other way.
I think this type of temporary injunction was around before the newer Red Flag Law, but it’s very similar. They’ve been around a long time so I don’t think they’ll be found unconstitutional. The best action would be to get them repealed in the legislature.
Whining about temporary injunctions being unconstitutional isn’t going to work.
We’ll need statistics to show that Red Flag laws don’t help.
*****We’ll need statistics to show that Red Flag laws don’t help.******
The “Wright Rossi” study is a great place to start. It’s a study of 1958 criminals that show gun laws don’t do squat with the exception of disarming honest, law abiding citizens.
Wright Rossi study:
If you click on the highlighted text, scroll on the link, and then click on Chapter 11, page 210 “POST RELEASE GUN ACQUISITION” and read down you will find this:
“Under the provisions of existing Federal law, it is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm…Interestingly, most (73%) of the men in this sample were aware of this restriction….This notwithstanding, most of them did not anticipate much trouble obtaining a handgun upon release from prison. First, as in polls of the general public, most of the men (82%) of the men in our sample agreed that “gun laws affect only law abiding people, criminals will always be able to get guns.” In like fashion, a criminal who want a gun will get one, no matter how much it costs.”
Paraphrasing inmates responses later in the same chapter – three quarters of the prisoners polled thought they could get a gun with little or no trouble once they were released. Men who had already used firearms in crimes were even more confident of their ability to arm themselves....”
https://extranosalley.com/crime-guns-and-the-wright-rossi-report/
No these laws are unconstitutional.
Guilty before proven innocent, for one thing.
Further, rights stripped off heresay from an unknown accuser.
If you son’t reject the premise you’ve accpeted it’s correct.
Hell yeah they are unconstitutional.
And on top of that, the state violated his civil rights with their unconstitutional law, so he should sue the state for a lot of money.
And so should anyone else affected by this crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.