Red Flag For You, Not Known Gang Members...

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!
  • Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,146
    113
    North Central
    Colorado Republican Ken Buck offered up an amendment designed to disarm known criminals.

    Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member.


    Buck said,

    My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.


    But Democrats couldn’t quite stomach the thought of grabbing guns from people known to commit a significant percentage of America’s violent crimes and most of the criminal instances of “gun violence.”

    Democrats objected with reasons that sounded very familiar to Republicans.
    GOP lawmakers have staunchly opposed “No Fly, No Buy” proposals Democrats have tried to pass in the House in recent years because the lists flag the wrong people.
    Like the no-fly lists, which have erroneously flagged many innocent individuals as terrorists (including the late Sen. Ted Kennedy), the gang databases are often inaccurate, Democrats said.


    Just to recap the Democrats’ logic here, governmental agencies are competent enough empower them to violate the due process rights of people suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future…but they’re not nearly proficient enough to finger known gang members and grab their guns.



    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/c...ood-for-joe-sixpack-but-not-for-gang-members/
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,003
    77
    Porter County
    I have no issue with them taking that out. It is no different than the no-fly list. There is no due process involved in putting people on either list. It really isn't the same as what the Red Flag laws are supposed to do. They suck as well, but there is at least the illusion of due process there.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,146
    113
    North Central
    I have no issue with them taking that out. It is no different than the no-fly list. There is no due process involved in putting people on either list. It really isn't the same as what the Red Flag laws are supposed to do. They suck as well, but there is at least the illusion of due process there.

    To be clear on my position, I do not support any of this, red flag laws, no fly lists, nor using known gang lists without probable cause.

    That said this post is to expose the F*****g Hypocrisy of those who do support red flag and no fly lists.

    The article did state the amendment includes probable cause and if the Dems force this down our throats have no objection to it being added. In for a penny, in for a pound, might as well trash as many amendments as possible if they are going to trash one of them. Why should freedom of association be more sacred than illegal seizure of property without cause and the violation of second amendment rights?
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,003
    77
    Porter County
    This isn't even about freedom of association. People get put on those lists that don't belong there at all. Wrong name, same name as someone else, etc etc. In many cases the people on the list don't even know they are on it.

    I would not want to screw more people over just because some other people are getting screwed. In the end, all of those getting screwed are gun owners. That is a bad thing.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Hopefully this sort of news will open people's eyes to the lack of due process in some red flag laws, including our own.

    It's a bit unnerving that Indiana's red flag law is used as the good example when it obviously bypasses due process.
     

    Sigblitz

    Grandmaster
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 25, 2018
    14,583
    113
    Indianapolis
    Hopefully this sort of news will open people's eyes to the lack of due process in some red flag laws, including our own.

    It's a bit unnerving that Indiana's red flag law is used as the good example when it obviously bypasses due process.


    My ex said he's going out drinking with his new girlfriend. Someone should impound his car.


    Example. NO, I was not married to a dude.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Hopefully this sort of news will open people's eyes to the lack of due process in some red flag laws, including our own.

    It's a bit unnerving that Indiana's red flag law is used as the good example when it obviously bypasses due process.


    A judge should be making the decision to confiscate firearms, not any random officer sent to a scene for any random complaint. There should need to be a warrant issued by a judge for red flag confiscation, the same as for a search.

    Our fine officers should not be asked to make legal and or medical red flag decisions like this on the spot. It's not their job, nor are they qualified to do it.
     
    Last edited:

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    A judge should be making the decision to confiscate firearms, not any random officer sent to a scene for any random complaint. There should need to be a warrant issued by a judge for red flag confiscation, the same as for a search.

    Our fine officers should not be asked to make legal and or medical red flag decisions like this on the spot. It's not their job, nor are they qualified to do it.
    Just like depriving a person of their freedom, I need PC. I do not have to get a judge signed warrant to make an outright arrest as long as I have PC. I too must have PC to take the guns and prepare that PC (just like an arrest) for a judge/hearing. I cannot search a house (without permission) to find guns without a warrant. That didn't change. We've had this law on the books for around 15 years now. I think we do a pretty good job with it. Police officers HAVE to make legal and medical decisions every day. It's required of us.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Just like depriving a person of their freedom, I need PC. I do not have to get a judge signed warrant to make an outright arrest as long as I have PC. I too must have PC to take the guns and prepare that PC (just like an arrest) for a judge/hearing. I cannot search a house (without permission) to find guns without a warrant. That didn't change. We've had this law on the books for around 15 years now. I think we do a pretty good job with it. Police officers HAVE to make legal and medical decisions every day. It's required of us.

    For it to actually be due process, the officer needs to report that PC to a judge who decides to issue a warrant for firearms confiscation or not.

    Isn't there variation on individual officer's interpretation of PC? The same with getting "permission to search?"

    How exactly is the wording of getting permission to search? Is there variation? Intimidation?

    What about the officers who personally don't believe anyone should be allowed to have guns? Is an anti-gun officer's biased opinion still considered legit for firearms confiscation?

    If a red flag report investigation has the "suspect" answering the door with firearm in hand, is that PC for confiscation? On the belt? By the door?

    What if the red flag "suspect" doesn't answer the door at all, ignoring the office seeking to investigate?

    Are any of these cases ever turned around by the judge and confiscated firearms returned?
     
    Last edited:

    Denny347

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    13,415
    149
    Napganistan
    For it to actually be due process, the officer needs to report that PC to a judge who decides to issue a warrant for firearms confiscation or not.
    That is your opinion of what Due Process is

    Isn't there variation on individual officer's interpretation of PC? The same with getting "permission to search?"
    It's possible as we are not robots but PC is pretty cut and dry. Do the actions meet the state statue?

    How exactly is the wording of getting permission to search? Is there variation? Intimidation?
    Wording of permission? Um, "Can I look for ...such and such?" Intimidation? Sigh....

    What about the officers who personally don't believe anyone should be allowed to have guns? Is an anti-gun officer's biased opinion still considered legit for firearms confiscation?
    If the PC exists then it is not a biased opinion. The PC stands on it's own. Are you suggesting that a biased officer would LIE to creat PC? Highly unlikely

    If a red flag report investigation has the "suspect" answering the door with firearm in hand, is that PC for confiscation? On the belt? By the door?
    It's fact dependent. There are an infinite number of variables that would support PC.

    What if the red flag "suspect" doesn't answer the door at all, ignoring the office seeking to investigate?
    We go inservice and try back later.

    Are any of these cases ever turned around by the judge and confiscated firearms returned?
    Of course. I've seen it in Mental Health Court. Not my case but someone else's.
     
    Top Bottom