|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 22, 2019, 01:59 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: January 23, 2017
Location: Central KY
Posts: 52
|
Vermont's Red Flag Law (NPR Story this morning)
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/75306...r-red-flag-law
This is one of those scenarios, where in my opinion, a red flag law is totally applicable. This guy flips his lid, goes out back and starts threatening suicide and suicide by cop. Clearly a man with intent and a means to execute, I think I could stand behind the law since there was eyewitness testimony to support him being 'flagged'. I don't know if I could make a valid argument to NOT take his guns away from him, seeing that he's not in a great frame of mind. What if they'd left him with his guns and he'd snapped later, hurting his girl or her kids? There's no way to prove that he WOULD have, which is the rub, isn't it? I don't know man. We like to argue that the real problem with guns isn't guns, but rather the human condition, which we all know is true. But if a red flag law isn't the solution, what is the palatable solution from a legislative perspective? You can't make lack of morals or lack of IQ illegal. I think if red flag laws are written very VERY carefully with a focus on mental health and means to recovery, they could *cringing slightly* "do something". Any version of a law that permits a biased judge to sign an order on merely "hearsay" should of course be rejected. Reluctantly submitting in 3..2..1..
__________________
~Mark NRA Benefactor 2018 |
August 22, 2019, 02:14 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,756
|
I'm missing the obvious apparently.
My problem with "red flag" laws and ERPO's are when someone gets a "feeling" that another is a risk. The subject of this article wigged out, gun in hand, and opened up a 2+ hour standiff with police. How does this man's episode relate to any ERPO? His breakdown resulted in a incident that required his being detained by LE. ERPO's continue to be unconstitutional nonsense.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss. |
August 22, 2019, 02:19 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
I'm in the middle on this. There DOES need to be a way to identify people who are in a mental state to be a threat to themselves and others. However, I don't like that it is tied as a "firearms" issue. Florida has long had the "Baker Act" whereby a doctor or relative could convince a judge that a person was unstable enough to warrant evaluation. That person could be held for a number of days (I think 3) in a mental facility where they are evaluated for mental stability. That law has been in effect for decades and I think it has been invaluable - especially in the case of young adults that were reported as unstable by their parents.
|
August 22, 2019, 02:20 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
So the guy received a DUI, fought with his girlfriend then went off the deep end, shooting and endangering first responders.
Revoke his firearms rights for life. Who may initiate an extreme order of protection: .California: Family, household members and law enforcement •Colorado: Family, household members and law enforcement •Connecticut: One state attorney or any two police officers •Delaware: Family, household members and law enforcement •District of Columbia: Family, household members, mental health professionals and law enforcement •Florida: Law enforcement •Hawaii: Family, household members, teachers, medical professionals, coworkers and law enforcement •Illinois: Family, household members and law enforcement •Indiana: Law enforcement •Maryland: Family, household members, certain health professionals and law enforcement •Massachusetts: Family, household members and law enforcement •Nevada: Family, household members and law enforcement •New Jersey: Family, household members and law enforcement •New York: Family, household members, school administrators and law enforcement •Oregon: Family, household members and law enforcement •Rhode Island: Law enforcement •Vermont: State attorneys or the office of the state attorney general •Washington: Family, household members and law enforcement https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-ar...lemented-them/ Many states have long had provisions in their state laws for confiscating firearms. Oklahoma has an Extreme Order Of Protection mostly aimed at stalkers and wife/girlfriend beaters. If the judge checks block ten of the order the perps guns are gone. Last edited by thallub; August 22, 2019 at 02:33 PM. |
August 22, 2019, 02:21 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: August 19, 2019
Posts: 58
|
The ERPO seems rather superfluous in this case. He violated Springfield's public nuisance ordinance (II ~ 7.26) and discharged a firearm while in a stand off with police. Vermont has traditionally not heavily regulated firearms, but discharge in proximity to a public road has always been prohibited, so that may be a further violation of the law.
|
August 22, 2019, 02:29 PM | #6 | ||
Member
Join Date: January 23, 2017
Location: Central KY
Posts: 52
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~Mark NRA Benefactor 2018 |
||
August 22, 2019, 02:30 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
A man who is arrested after screaming at and threatening people with a gun, shooting at them, and threatening suicide doesn't need a red flag law.
He can be arrested, and involuntarily held for observation. He committed a misdemeanor, and can be prohibited from possessing firearms during his sentence, which can be up to six months. The RFL added nothing useful to this case.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
August 22, 2019, 04:10 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Many years before my state enacted its red flag law, I walked into the shop at my local range one day and found, on the landing right inside the entrance door, a HUGE gun safe. I asked the owner if he had bought out someone's estate. Nope. One of his regular customers had a restraining order filed against him, so he had to surrender his guns. The local PD wasn't in a position to take custody of that many firearms and be responsible for their condition, so they worked out a deal where the entire gun safe, with all the guns, would be held at the range until the restraining order either expried, or the guy had to sell the guns.
The safe sat there for quite some time and then, one day, it was gone. These so-called "Emergency" Protective Orders aren't necessary. I think every state has always had the ability to separate someone who is a genuine threat, to himself or to others, from his firearms. The big deal with the red flag orders is that (by design) they do an end run around due process.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
August 22, 2019, 05:43 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Taking their guns wouldn't have worked though. In most of the US all you need to buy a gun is money and a cell phone. Taking their guns would just mean them going out and getting another. Another issue is that within my state is that felons are generally not prohibited persons. The felony has to be violent. I know they are in violation of Federal Law but the state and locals give two whiffs about Federal Law. It is not all unusual to see well armed gang members on social media who are not in violation of State or Local laws. If the police can't keep the guns out of the hands of people running a criminal enterprise there is no way they can keep some random guy with mental illness from having a gun.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
August 22, 2019, 06:25 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
I don't doubt there have been problems of the kind you describe and local to you, it's just that those events shouldn't suggest that your local authorities lacked laws to deal with these people. Parkland happened in FL, which has a red flag law.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
August 22, 2019, 07:44 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
No matter what the behavior may be, if it is even the smallest amount drug induced than the person will not be getting committed or even see a mental health professional. They may get arrested and briefly go to jail if the behavior warrants a PI charge but even that likely won't happen as the PI law here is quite concise. Being intoxicated does not warrant removal of firearms based upon the legal code either. Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
||
August 22, 2019, 08:03 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
August 22, 2019, 08:49 PM | #13 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
Quote:
About the same time there was another incident, involving another couple. Same deal. Wife had a restraining order against the husband. Husband was stalking her. At some point, he used his pickup truck to cut her off in traffic. He then got out of his truck, walked over to her car, and shot her. Restraining/protective orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Why anyone thinks another type of restraining order, with a fancy new name that includes the word "EMERGENCY" so everyone will know how urgently important it is, will have any different results is a mystery to me.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
August 23, 2019, 07:43 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
How about..'threatening people, screaming about threatening people, threatening to commit suicide'..all documented, filmed, and arrested..he's released later after calming down..then a week later wants to buy a gun...????
Or he owns lots of guns already..do nothing? How about the political zealot, who actively posts on 'social media' about committing mayhem...and is known to local authorities.. And next week he walks into a LGS and wants to buy a AR type weapon and 1000 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines..or owns an AR and lotsa ammo already... Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..NOT saying RFL good or bad BUT some, I think, assume a RFL means all guns seized permanently after a girlfriend complains about a boyfriend, type thing.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” Last edited by USNRet93; August 23, 2019 at 07:51 AM. |
August 23, 2019, 08:38 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..
Love this part. Let's have to hire an attorney and then go defend ourselves in court, then rehire said attorney to go back to court to regain seized personal property. Just how much is this going to cost? As much as some peoples seized guns? More than the value of some peoples guns to were they will not hire an attorney to go back to court to regain their property? |
August 23, 2019, 12:19 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
So then, after the guns are gone, there will be a hearing (in my state, I believe it's within two weeks ... during which time the schlubb is unarmed and deprived of his/her means of self defense), at which the schlubb may appear and try to argue why he/she is not a threat, and why his/her firearms should be returned. The process is bucking a stacked deck. Yes, I understand that you can point to one case of a guy who is standing in the street naked, screaming about how he's going to kill every ___ he sees, and you say, 'Yeah, these nutcases need to be prevented from having weapons." I respectfully submit that for every one such case, there will be hundreds of cases in which an unhappy ex-significant other (wife/husband/BF/GF/spurned stalker) conjures up a fictitious complaint as a means of harassment or revenge. And, since many of these cases come down to he said/she said, and we're in the era of "She must be believed," trying to show a judge who has already been convinced that you're so dangerous your guns had to be taken away instantly, before you even appeared before him/her that you're actually not the bad guy your schizophrenic ex- portrayed you as can be a difficult, uphill battle. That's the problem. These red flag laws turn due process on its ear.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
August 23, 2019, 01:45 PM | #17 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
RFLs don't properly do anything extra in this circumstance. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People are going to make you feel uncomfortable. That isn't a sound basis for suspending their civil liberties. Quote:
If someone is guilty of menacing or assault, he should be prosecuted for those crimes. If someone is incompetent, let's have a doc and a court do their jobs. "What about something that might not turn out well?" is a construction that will strip the rights of those not politically situated to defend themselves.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
August 23, 2019, 02:04 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,768
|
I am totally against these red flag laws BUT since other objects have also been used in murders and mass killings such as motor vehicles, knives, gasoline and blunt objects like hammers and bats why are they not specified in the red flag laws also and instead of just firearms?
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
August 23, 2019, 03:45 PM | #19 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|||
August 23, 2019, 04:01 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Quote:
and the specifics that he must defend himself against (in your state)? Or is a non-specific Red Queen thrown down, and he has no idea of the underlying cards? |
|
August 23, 2019, 04:01 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
These many issues is exactly what I wrote in the letter to my US Senator and US Representative.
As I believe the people in Gov't. that write these laws are all attorneys, they are writing these laws for other attorneys, Job security for certain. Let's keep the court docket full. It doesn't need to be a relative to initiate one of these, Could be a co-worker or neighbor PO'ed because your dog peed on his favorite rose bush. There is just way too much room for abuse and misuse with these laws. |
August 23, 2019, 05:45 PM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
August 23, 2019, 07:59 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Does that give him fair notice of the nature of the complaint? Maybe. If the petitioner was clear thinking an candid in his written allegations, things should get pretty clear. If the problem is that the petitioner is not lucid and candid, a different process may follow. I've seen a petitioner who is the client of a social service agency for people with debilitating psychiatric problems file for a protective order stating the he fears harm from the respondent, P. Schlubb. Only when it came up for hearing a couple of weeks later does the court learn that Petitioner's real gripe is that P. Schlubb moves Petitioner's furniture while he sleeps and has been the mastermind orchestrating everything from large failures to petty annoyances in petitioners life. A social worker tired of hearing about it, and in return for not having to hear about it again, coached the Petitioner on what to say to get an order. So, you'll have social services apparatchiks who think they are underpaid getting rid of their own headaches by shunting their workload onto courts.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
August 24, 2019, 07:51 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Unless you mean what you said->
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
August 24, 2019, 08:10 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
|
|