Read 'Em And Weep, Anti-Gunners: Dana Loesch Proves, Once Again, Why Red Flag Laws Are Dangerous
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/09/11/read-em-and-weep-antigunners-dana-loesch-proves-once-again-why-red-flag-laws-are-dangerous-n2552896?fbclid=IwAR0YPcZhCDrc9EtMTwLjonBjNf3be-oDDTPjOYEg8pcKCszm8amMT0dHku8
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as red flag laws, have been all the talk in Washington. Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to think red flag laws are the answers to the mass shootings taking place in our country.
The House Judiciary Committee proved once again that they don't understand or value the Constitution. They green lighted ERPOs, despite many Second Amendment advocates concerns over the lack of due process.
Talk radio host and pro-gun activist Dana Loesch compiled a Twitter thread giving Americans 10 reasons why we should all be against this move.
Ten reasons why you should oppose #RedFlagLaws, a brief thread.
1) #RedFlagLaws are an inversion of “innocent until proven guilty.” The standard of evidence is low and while state laws vary, many different people, not just family, can report you.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the bedrock of our justice system. Prosectors have a job to prove the defendant is actually guilty. With ERPOs, a person is deemed guilty and it's up to them to prove themselves innocent. Rather contrary to what our Constitution says.
2) You don't have to be in the room (and advance notice isn't required) for the petition to be granted meaning you must wait to defend yourself. Most laws provide no penalty for abuse and no state law allows for civil cause of action against false accusers.
We have no way to know that someone isn't going to use red flag laws for retaliation. Think of the ex-boyfriend or girlfriend who would love to get back at their 2A-loving former significant other. See how that could be a problem? There's nothing to keep them from lying and making false accusations.
3) Time varies as to how long until respondents can have their day in court. A study conducted on Indiana's law, which said 14 day wait, revealed that the average wait was 9 months. Rights delayed are rights denied.
Even when a person does finally have their day in court, it's not exactly something that is jumped on right away.
4) @davekopel , who has done excellent research on this, has noted that of the four states with the oldest gun confiscation laws, Connecticut, Indiana, California, and Washington, no research has revealed any statistical reduction in crime. #RedFlagLaws
(Also still No. 4) Furthermore, Kopel notes that nearly 1/3 of such orders are improperly issued against innocent people.
1,753
8:57 PM - Sep 10, 2019
And those states that have implemented these laws haven't had any reductions in crime. California implemented their red flag laws in 2016 yet we had the Thousand Oaks shooting last November, the Poway Synagogue shooting in April and the Garlic Festival shooting in July.
5) No advance notice is given ahead of serving a #RedFlag order. That worked out horribly for Maryland resident Gary Willis, who was shot and killed when answering his door early morning before the sun was up. This puts LEO in a HORRIBLE position of enforcing these orders.
1,737
8:59 PM - Sep 10, 2019
6) Counsel is not provided (Blumenthal draft does, it's of little solace considering), meaning you could be like FL man Jonathan Carpenter, who is waging an expensive court battle to clear his name and reclaim his property because his name was too similar to a drug dealer's.
1,733
9:00 PM - Sep 10, 2019
Florida resident Jonathan Carpenter's case is a prime example of red flag laws gone wrong. A woman filed a complaint against a drug dealer with the same name. Police came knocking on Carpenter's door, confiscated his firearms and then he had to go to court to prove they had the wrong person. It wasn't until he showed up in court, the plaintiff saw him and told cops they had the wrong person, that Carpenter was allowed to get his guns back.
7) We aren't arresting people, we're arresting guns. State laws ignore the very reason the petition was granted in the first place: danger resulting in violence or mental instability. No mental evaluations given, no charges for a crime.
8) How will confiscated firearms be stored? Local police will be tasked with figuring out storage and bearing the cost of any liability or insurance -- at a time when some struggle with budgets to afford body cams.
Our law enforcement agencies are struggling as it is to keep afloat and provide for their community. Taxing them with additional issues, like the liability of temporarily storing and protecting firearms.
Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
Replying to @DLoesch @davekopel
9) This isn't just about the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter if you're a "gun nut" or even own guns. The deconstruction of due process calls into question your 5th and 14th Amendment rights, too.
1,881
9:08 PM - Sep 10, 2019
Cherry picking what rights are worth keeping and protecting is dangerous. It creates a slippery slope for the government to come in and take away whatever right is important to you (whether it be your right to free speech, religion or even voting).
You can't be okay with forfeiting others' rights if you don't want yours forfeited down the road.
10) Lastly (not really, but I'm sticking to 10), if there is enough evidence to strip you of your rights THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE YOU or commit you. There are NUMEROUS other options to start fixing this problem WITHOUT sacrificing due process.
The biggest issue our nation has is the lack of law enforcement. Yes, we have cops, the FBI, the CIA, ICE but what we're missing is adequately enforcing every single law that's on the book.
Anti-gunners want to strip more rights guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment but they're not looking at the flaws that already exist, the biggest one being with background checks. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) isn't a completely wholesome system. Assuming a criminal decides to go through the "legal process" of purchasing a firearm, there's a chance that he or she may be given the green light when really they're a prohibited possessor. That's not something that will be fixed by adding another law. It's something that's fixed by enforcing the law and requiring every government agency, at every level, to provide their convictions to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which oversees NICS.
Recommended
WATCH: CNN Reporter Repeatedly Baits Justice Gorsuch To Bash Trump. But He Wasn't Having It.
Beth Baumann
The other issue is to stop letting people off with a slap on the wrist. If the court thinks you're mentally unfit or unstable enough to take away your firearms, there's a pretty good chance they have enough evidence to convict you of a crime. Right?
let's start by:
- demanding all agencies comply with reporting prohibited possessors to the federal database to stop ineligible people at point of sale.
- demanding prosecutors stop reducing charges and judges issuing weak sentences for felony gun crimes & reduce recidivism...
Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
Replying to @DLoesch @davekopel
... and let's demand that schools stop coddling dangerous offenders. When kids make rape lists on bathroom walls, have them evaluated. When they message classmates threatening to kill them, that's actionable, arrest them. ENFORCE THE LAW
We need to stop holding everyone's hand and get serious about addressing this issue. Until we, as a society, stop sweeping this under the rug, nothing will change. We need to make sure those who need mental help get it before it's too late. We need to come together and agree to say something when we see another person acting suspicious or they seem like they're in distress. How many times have we learned about acquaintances, co-workers and friends of mass shooters who thought something was off with the person but they never said anything? Far too many to count.
We need to remove the shame behind seeking mental health treatment. We need to tell people, especially young men, that it's okay to struggle and have issues but there's nothing wrong with asking for help.
https://www.rallyforourrights.com/new-jerseys-red-flag-erpo-law-has-been-used-more-than-once-a-day-since-it-became-law/
New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO Law Has Been Used More Than Once A Day Since It Became Law
Posted on September 15, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood
New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO Law Has Been Used More Than Once A Day Since It Became Law
I’ve been an outspoken critic of these “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order ERPO laws that have been spreading across the nation like a cancer. That’s not because I want to see guns in the hands of dangerous individuals. I don’t. But it’s because these new laws are so poorly and broadly written they are ripe for abuse and will put those who need protection the most at risk of being disarmed. Not to mention they are blatantly unconstitutional.
New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO law went into effect Sept 1, 2019 – just two weeks ago. According to data provided by the judiciary, it had been used 14 times by Friday, Sept 13. Of those, twelve of the orders were temporary, and two were final orders granted by a judge after the gun owner had had a chance to plead their case in court. It is unclear how many of those twelve temporary orders were awaiting a permanent hearing and how many had been dismissed due to false accusations. That information has been requested.
Similar to Colorado, New Jersey’s law has been sold to the public by stating it allows family members or law enforcement to petition the courts to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others. And just like Colorado’s law, this is completely untrue. Honestly, after reading through New Jersey’s actual legislation, it might even be a more serious lie as no family members are listed as the people who can petition the courts.
Here’s what New Jersey has defined as a “Family Member”:
“Family or household member” means a spouse, domestic partner, partner in a civil union couple, or former spouse, former domestic partner, or former partner in a civil union couple, or any other person who is a present household member or was at any time a household member; a person with whom the respondent has a child in common, or with whom the respondent anticipates having a child in common if one of the parties is pregnant; or a current or former dating partner.
Colorado’s law allows all those same people to petition for an ERPO, but includes a multitude of family members including step-parents and step-children, and even in-laws.
Reading through New Jersey’s legislation, it’s obvious these new ERPO bills are being written by the same lobbyist. Here are the similarities to what was passed in Colorado and will go into effect January 1, 2020:
• It’s free to file the petition. Nothing in the court system is free to file, and even a $10 filing fee would deter those using it as an act of revenge.
• The petitioner/accuser does not have to be present at either the temporary hearing or the permanent hearing, and the judge will base a decision off an affidavit of information.
• The party being accused is not informed of the proceedings and has no opportunity to defend themselves until after the firearms are confiscated.
• The temporary order is coupled with a search warrant. This means the very first time the party being accused is aware this is happening the police will be at their door, warrant in hand, ready to raid their home and take their guns – possibly even their life if there is resistance.
• Accusations of threats do not have to be firearms related. Someone can say they want to punch someone, and that is evidence enough to grant the order.
• There is no punishment for false accusers.
• There is no mental health component. Once the firearms are taken, forcibly if necessary, the person is left in crisis – something I find downright cruel to those who are truly in need of help. The only time mental health is mentioned in both New Jersey’s and Colorado’s legislation is when discussing lifting the order and returning an individuals guns. In this section it’s stated mental health treatment could be one of the deciding factors.
Unlike Colorado’s law which requires an automatic expiration hearing after 364 days, New Jersey’s law is indefinite.
The new laws differ greatly from Red Flag laws that have been in effect for many years. For example Indiana has had a Red Flag laws since 2005, and it requires a corroboration of evidence to even start the petition. Connecticut has had one since 1999, and it requires a mental health professional to be part of the petitioning process. That said, even those laws have been proven to be ineffective as Sandy Hook happened while Connecticut’s law was in place, and Indiana’s law may be having the opposite effect on suicide.
Who do you think is actually writing these Red Flag bills? Let us know in the comments.
NEW JERSEY: New “Red Flag” Gun Law Used to Take Guns Every Single Day
https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/09/new-jersey-new-red-flag-gun-law-used-to-take-guns-every-single-day/?fbclid=IwAR1q1FRr9OU9Vn2P8KUuQbUV9VNk151052M4J3d7T1XhSXf4pWiPlU_ZFQA
Newark, NJ — New Jersey only implemented their new Red Flag gun confiscation law on September 1st, but it’s already getting a workout.
Initial reports indicate that judges have signed off on a Red Flag gun confiscation order at least once every day since then.
As of Thursday, September 13th, judges had signed off on fourteen uses of the ERPO orders.
Of those fourteen orders, twelve were determined to be temporary, and two of which were permanent.
The two who lost their guns and gun rights permanently were given a chance to defend themselves in front of the judge.
But when you consider the short time frame this is all happening in, one has to wonder how much time and attention their cases are receiving before a permanent injunction was passed.
Always happy to have more power over law-abiding citizens, the anti-gun crowd is thrilled with the frequent usage of Red Flags.
Check out their delusional Attorney General’s comments at a public training event about how to implement their new Emergency Risk Protection Orders:
“We are not violating Second Amendment rights,” said Attorney General Gurbir Grewal at the event on Thursday, September 12th. “We are just enabling reasonable measures to promote public safety and to make sure we are keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them.”
Sure!
Except Red Flag gun confiscation laws ARE violating the Second Amendment in that they’re taking somebody’s guns away without any charges, trial, or conviction.
Red Flag laws also take away a citizens’ right to face their accuser. It takes away their right to defend their family from a violent attacker.
New Jersey is already facing nearly a dozen new gun-control laws passed by their leftist governor, Phil Murphy.
He has implemented Red Flags, banned magazines larger than 10 rounds, banned ‘ghost guns’ and more.
Just last week, he announced an executive order which stated that any gun manufacturer who does business with law enforcement in New Jersey must meet strict new requirements.
Additionally, any banking institution that works with the state of New Jersey must have policies that would enforce gun safety rules.
We know we’re preaching to the choir here, but if you’re in one of these loudly anti-gun states, it’s time to stand up and make these sellouts answer for their anti-American policies!