How is INDIANA "Red Flag Law" not discussed more here?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MinuteManMike

    Expert
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Oct 28, 2008
    1,062
    83
    Lawrence, IN
    I didn't even know Indiana had this law in effect until this week. I just did an INGO search and only 3 results, none discussing the law itself.

    This piece from a year ago seems to sum it up pretty well.
    https://www.indystar.com/story/news...g-national-attention-but-does-work/355132002/

    That really shocks me. It seems egregiously overreaching and short on anything resembling "due process". It seems worse than what most other states have.

    We have this and no right to carry. I am starting to feel more than a little disappointed in this state.
     

    d.kaufman

    Still Here
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Mar 9, 2013
    14,716
    149
    Hobart
    Its been discussed in a few threads. Someone will be along shortly with links, especially to the current thread dealing with current bill in the works.
    Yes Indiana has a red flag law. Its called Lairds law.
    There is currently a bill, that looks like its going to pass, that will strengthen due process for those flagged by the law. It will definitely be better than whats in place now, and a bill that should be supported, especially over whats in place now.

    And 1 note is that if you didnt even know we had this law in Indiana, i would say thats a good thing. Meaning it obviously isn't being abused to the point it is all over the news daily.

    Edit: Here's a link that discusses the current bill in progress. You'll have to read thru but its there.

    https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t/463120-2019-legislative-session-thread.html
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,792
    150
    Avon
    I didn't even know Indiana had this law in effect until this week. I just did an INGO search and only 3 results, none discussing the law itself.

    This piece from a year ago seems to sum it up pretty well.
    https://www.indystar.com/story/news...g-national-attention-but-does-work/355132002/

    That really shocks me. It seems egregiously overreaching and short on anything resembling "due process". It seems worse than what most other states have.

    We have this and no right to carry. I am starting to feel more than a little disappointed in this state.

    Hello MMM. The "Laird Law" as it's known here in Indiana has been on the books since 2005.

    There's a lot of info on the 2019 Legislative Session thread (link below.)

    HB 1651 is proceeding through the wickets at 200 W Washington Street. It provides significant improvement over current Indiana Code as far as due process protections, strengthening the language in Indiana Code, and establishing liability for damage or loss of firearms due to negligent handling or storage when seized.


    https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...63120-2019-legislative-session-thread-37.html
     

    d.kaufman

    Still Here
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    128   0   0
    Mar 9, 2013
    14,716
    149
    Hobart
    Someone will be along shortly to tell us how lucky we are to have it.

    Definitely not lucky to have it but do see the current bill proposed a significant improvement over whats in place right now.
    We all now how hard it is to get rid of bs laws once they're in place, so anything that helps protect our rights better, is an improvement
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,792
    150
    Avon
    Someone will be along shortly to tell us how lucky we are to have it.

    I see your purple, and I know where you are coming from brother. Below is a copy/paste from my crib sheet I used Wednesday:

    [FONT=&quot]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    [FONT=&quot]
    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/FONT][/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot](4[SUP]th[/SUP]/due process clause 5th)[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]I read this because while HB 1651 seeks to make important changes to Indiana Code, it is important to remember where we start, and that is with the US Constitution.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Because we never called it a "red flag" law. It was "Jake Laird's Law".

    Laws named after people are horrific but we have discussed it over and over, including Redington 1 and Redington 2.
     

    Mongo59

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jul 30, 2018
    4,448
    113
    Purgatory
    One would have to ask, does talking your way through your worst nightmare repetitively help you sleep better at night?

    The human psychological makeup is a strange thing...
     

    MinuteManMike

    Expert
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Oct 28, 2008
    1,062
    83
    Lawrence, IN
    I must confess... (1st time logging in since I posted) that obviously, since this law isn't being abused in Indiana that we are, indeed, somewhat lucky.

    I just do not like how it seems it by its very nature lends itself to abuse.
     

    Hawkeye7br

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 9, 2015
    1,363
    67
    Terre Haute
    It’s a pretty effective means of manipulating people and vilifying your opposition.

    Personally, I am in favor of a so-called “red flag” law in abstraction...I just haven’t seen one I like yet.

    I'm too am ok with the concept as a version of "See something, Say something" to prevent a horrific and meaningless act of violence. As always, the devil is in the details. What criteria is used, how are guns removed (and just as important, how are they cared for) a quick court date, and there should be a short & automatic deadline for the proper return of the guns. There should also be substantial penalty for malicious reporting. Otherwise, every ex-wife, jilted lover, angry neighbor (his grass clippings fell in my yard!!) can abuse the intent of the law.

    When getting divorced 30+ years ago, opposing lawyer claimed I had been a patient at a mental institution. We had gone to a marriage counselor. I had made the appointment and agreed to pay the bill so that made me the "patient". The counselor was a member of the county mental health association, and the counseling took place in her office. Ergo...I had submitted myself into mental health institution. It was all crap and the judge saw right through it, but that's a classic example of how easily a well intended law can be abused.

    I hate poorly written legislation. My dad taught me to take the time to do it right and you won't have to make the time to do it over.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    It’s a pretty effective means of manipulating people and vilifying your opposition.

    Personally, I am in favor of a so-called “red flag” law in abstraction...I just haven’t seen one I like yet.

    Laws named after someone are often a response to one very negative event, and then legislating by anecdote begins. Here's a decent article from about the emotional impact of naming laws after dead people.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/be-wary-of-emotionally-charged-laws-named-after-dead-people

    The article notes how South Carolina passed a law in 2017 preventing new laws from being named after people or animals. However, the same legislature that passed the law can repeal the law in a later session. Occasionally we see bills introduced in our legislature purporting, for example, to require certain topics to go through interim study committees. Same problem: a sitting of the Indiana General Assembly cannot control the actions of a subsequent General Assembly (unless, of course, they get a constitutional amendment passed, like our newly minted Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, Article 1, Section 39. It's right there in our state Bill of Rights.)
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I'm too am ok with the concept as a version of "See something, Say something" to prevent a horrific and meaningless act of violence. As always, the devil is in the details. What criteria is used, how are guns removed (and just as important, how are they cared for) a quick court date, and there should be a short & automatic deadline for the proper return of the guns. There should also be substantial penalty for malicious reporting. Otherwise, every ex-wife, jilted lover, angry neighbor (his grass clippings fell in my yard!!) can abuse the intent of the law.


    That is the trick, to address the mental illness present in the gun culture you have to address that not all mental illness we see on-line, at the range, or at the gun shop is (most often this is Asperberg's or low-grade Autism/PDD-NOS that we see): 1. dangerous, 2. needs governmental force to be addressed.

    I am in favor of the recent amendments to the Laird Law. I hope they are enacted.
     
    Last edited:

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,792
    150
    Avon
    That is the trick, to address the mental illness present in the gun culture you have to address that not all mental illness we see on-line, at the range, or at the gun shop is (most often this is Asperberg's or low-grade Autism/PDD-NOS that we see): 1. dangerous, 2. needs governmental force to be addressed.

    I am in favor of the recent amendments to the Laird Law. I hope they are enacted.
    Kirk, you and I agree on this. We don't agree on what's a good beer, but we agree on this.
     

    Sigblitz

    Grandmaster
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 25, 2018
    14,583
    113
    Indianapolis
    Laws named after someone are often a response to one very negative event, and then legislating by anecdote begins. Here's a decent article from about the emotional impact of naming laws after dead people.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/be-wary-of-emotionally-charged-laws-named-after-dead-people

    The article notes how South Carolina passed a law in 2017 preventing new laws from being named after people or animals. However, the same legislature that passed the law can repeal the law in a later session. Occasionally we see bills introduced in our legislature purporting, for example, to require certain topics to go through interim study committees. Same problem: a sitting of the Indiana General Assembly cannot control the actions of a subsequent General Assembly (unless, of course, they get a constitutional amendment passed, like our newly minted Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish, Article 1, Section 39. It's right there in our state Bill of Rights.)

    What was sold as a natural right, people actually voted for government control.....subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly
    I voted no. Of course I knew the sheep would take the bait.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    So-called Red Flag laws mandate the removal of guns but no other potentially lethal objects. This establishes that these laws are anti-gun, not pro-safety.

    During my long-ago law dog days in Ohio we had a law we called a "state mental hold." If we became aware that a person was engaged in some sort of behavior that was hazardous to themselves and/or others, and that behavior seemed to be caused by mental or emotional illness, we could take that person into custody and take them to a mental health facility to be evaluated. We didn't abuse this law and it allowed us to avert many potential tragedies.

    The difference was that we removed the disturbed person from ANYTHING that they could use offensively, and we did not have to confiscate, catalogue or store an indeterminate number of firearms. If the person was evaluated and released, a court did not have to return their property.

    Doesn't it make more sense to remove the person rather than a small percentage of items with which they could do harm?

    Not if the object of the law is to make an end run around the Constitution.


     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    So-called Red Flag laws mandate the removal of guns but no other potentially lethal objects. This establishes that these laws are anti-gun, not pro-safety.

    During my long-ago law dog days in Ohio we had a law we called a "state mental hold." If we became aware that a person was engaged in some sort of behavior that was hazardous to themselves and/or others, and that behavior seemed to be caused by mental or emotional illness, we could take that person into custody and take them to a mental health facility to be evaluated. We didn't abuse this law and it allowed us to avert many potential tragedies.

    The difference was that we removed the disturbed person from ANYTHING that they could use offensively, and we did not have to confiscate, catalogue or store an indeterminate number of firearms. If the person was evaluated and released, a court did not have to return their property.

    Doesn't it make more sense to remove the person rather than a small percentage of items with which they could do harm?

    Not if the object of the law is to make an end run around the Constitution.

    We do have a "state mental hold." Emergency detention.

    Also, isn't it a bit more intrusive on individual rights to lock a person in secured hospital confinement than it is to take some of their most dangerous things away by court order?

    HEA 1651 is a net improvement, bolstering due process for the subject of the order and specifically requiring law enforcement to not damage the individual's firearms while in police custody. We have had a "Red Flag" or "Jake Laird" law since 2005, when Kenneth Anderson murdered Laird and injured several other officers in 2005.

    Here are some informational slides created by an ISP attorney in 2012 and updated in 2018.
     
    Top Bottom