Guns seized by EPD in Evansville, Red Flag cited.

[MCgrease08]

There’s actually quite an extensive process. Whether it is constitutionally adequate due process or not will ultimately have to be determined by the courts.

Generally speaking, I have no issue with some sort of “red flag” law, but I would always place the burden on the authorities to prove that the seizure and continuing possession of the firearms is necessary. The owner would never have to prove anything to get them back.

This.

The suspect allegedly committed a crime by calling police and threatening to kill his wife who wasn't home at the time. The family reported his actions and expressed their concerns to investigators who felt there was enough evidence to get an arrest warrant issued and presumably a search warrant. The subsequent investigation of the home revealed what could easily be deemed a threat and the firearms were taken into police custody as evidence. So far I don't see any issue with that.

Now he'll have the opportunity to go before a judge to face criminal charges and potentially questions or evaluation of his mental fitness. I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that everything up to now is fairly standard. The firearms weren't seized based soley on a tip from family, but rather as the result of the suspect's actions.

If he's ultimately judged mentally competent and isn't convicted of a felony that he should get his guns back. If events play out that way and the state holds onto them anyway, then there might be a valid reason to get upset.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not sure if I'm regular, or in the cast of characters, but here goes:

Here's paragraph 1 of IC 35-47 Chapter 14 (AKA Laird Law) and a link below. House Bill 1651 provides more protections and adds transparency to the existing law.


IC 35-47-14Chapter 14. Proceedings for the Seizure andRetention of aFirearmIC 35-47-14-1"Dangerous"Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is"dangerous" if:(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injuryto the individual or to another individual; or(2) the individual maypresent a risk of personal injuryto theindividual or to another individual in the future and theindividual:(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) thatmay be controlled bymedication, and has not demonstrateda pattern of voluntarilyand consistentlytaking theindividual's medication while not under supervision; or(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would giverise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensityfor violent or emotionally unstable conduct.(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mentalhealth facilityor has a mental illness that is currentlycontrolled bymedication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for thepurposes of this chapter.As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.IC 35-47-14-2Warranttosearchforfirearm

https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-14/chapter-14.pdf

If you have any doubts, this can help...

 

[KellyinAvon]

If you have any doubts, this can help...

Thanks Doggy Daddy, it is all about the regularity...

 

[KellyinAvon]

This.

The suspect allegedly committed a crime by calling police and threatening to kill his wife who wasn't home at the time. The family reported his actions and expressed their concerns to investigators who felt there was enough evidence to get an arrest warrant issued and presumably a search warrant. The subsequent investigation of the home revealed what could easily be deemed a threat and the firearms were taken into police custody as evidence. So far I don't see any issue with that.

Now he'll have the opportunity to go before a judge to face criminal charges and potentially questions or evaluation of his mental fitness. I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that everything up to now is fairly standard. The firearms weren't seized based soley on a tip from family, but rather as the result of the suspect's actions.

If he's ultimately judged mentally competent and isn't convicted of a felony that he should get his guns back. If events play out that way and the state holds onto them anyway, then there might be a valid reason to get upset.

Good analysis MC. The Police came with an arrest warrant (that has due process). Paul Harvey moment coming on this story, just don't know if we'll see it.

 

[cobber]

Things Indiana's law does not do: disqualify a person from buying/owning/possessing other guns immediately after the seizure, and there is no provision in the law allowing a person to be reported on NCIC/NICS as a "dangerous" individual. Six months after a seizure, a person may petition the Court for return of the guns, and if they prove by a preponderance that they are no longer 'dangerous' the Court should return the firearms. After five years if the guns haven't been returned, the PD can seek a Court order to have the guns destroyed.

At all stages a hearing is required and the respondent has the right to contest the State's action. Many waive that by simply not showing up for court, or not challenging the State's petition.

Not sure the new generation of RF laws works quite like this...

This.

The suspect allegedly committed a crime by calling police and threatening to kill his wife who wasn't home at the time. The family reported his actions and expressed their concerns to investigators who felt there was enough evidence to get an arrest warrant issued and presumably a search warrant. The subsequent investigation of the home revealed what could easily be deemed a threat and the firearms were taken into police custody as evidence. So far I don't see any issue with that.

Now he'll have the opportunity to go before a judge to face criminal charges and potentially questions or evaluation of his mental fitness. I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that everything up to now is fairly standard. The firearms weren't seized based soley on a tip from family, but rather as the result of the suspect's actions.

If he's ultimately judged mentally competent and isn't convicted of a felony that he should get his guns back. If events play out that way and the state holds onto them anyway, then there might be a valid reason to get upset.

Not just whether he's mentally competent. A court could find that he poses an imminent danger to himself or others, or that documented evidence (e.g. a pattern of past arrests involving threats or acts of violence, or threats to harm himself) shows that he has a pattern or unstable or violent behavior. It takes some doing to get to the later status.

 

[Mongo59]

5 years in police storage? Doesn't that qualify as having been destroyed?

 

[churchmouse]

Wait a minute.

240 rounds / 10 guns = 24 rounds / gun

Damn right he should have his firearms seized! It's obvious he's nuts.

Nobody in their right mind would have less than 500 rounds PER firearm.

We need to clean these whackjobs off the streets before they hurt somebody.

I feel safer already.

Doug

PS - The 500 round rule naturally wouldn't apply to black powder. There the nutty factor is anything below 100.

PPS - Apply purple at your own discretion.

If this applies then many of us are in deep Doo-Doo

 

[Mongo59]

Exponentially...

 

[KLB]

5 years in police storage? Doesn't that qualify as having been destroyed?

You mean 5 years of the popo takin 'em out and playing with them at the range?

 

[Mongo59]

Even that would be better than having them propped up against the water heater.

 

[Libertarian01]

If this applies then many of us are in deep Doo-Doo

I was speaking "on average." Ya'll are 'posed to be psychic and know what I mean even if I don't say what I mean. Ya know what I mean?

The interwebz doesn't work without psychic ability.

 

[Hohn]

There’s actually quite an extensive process. Whether it is constitutionally adequate due process or not will ultimately have to be determined by the courts.

Generally speaking, I have no issue with some sort of “red flag” law, but I would always place the burden on the authorities to prove that the seizure and continuing possession of the firearms is necessary. The owner would never have to prove anything to get them back.

I'd agree with that under those conditions, but only if there was also a time limit as well. Like 90 days or something. The key here is "imminent danger." You can't be an imminent danger to someone for 90 days.

So if the guns are seized--only AFTER a rigorously scrutinized process with a very high bar to meet-- then the rightful owner gets them back AT NO COST, WITH NO BURDEN, IN A KNOWN PERIOD OF TIME.