Pence: Indiana’s red flag law could serve as blueprint...rest of the country

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I saw one on his Facebook that he had mentioned on the air. This example would be a crime today, because it’s knowingly providing false information about criminal activity. By the person‘s Facebook post, it clearly was SWATTing.

I don’t think we need to wait until someone gets their life ruined to make “knowingly providing false information to law-enforcement about someone being dangerous under the Laird Law” a crime.

Exactly. We have to keep in mind too, that simply because we don’t see it on the news or read it on INGO, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. There are many incidents that are misreported (and then forgotten about by the time the facts come out) or simply don’t make the news. Guys like Guy do this for a living. Until he gives me a reason to not trust him, if he believes this is important enough to take time out of his life to help craft legislation to stop it, I’ll trust him.

 

[JettaKnight]

Exactly. We have to keep in mind too, that simply because we don’t see it on the news or read it on INGO, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. There are many incidents that are misreported (and then forgotten about by the time the facts come out) or simply don’t make the news. Guys like Guy do this for a living. Until he gives me a reason to not trust him, if he believes this is important enough to take time out of his life to help craft legislation to stop it, I’ll trust him.

Agreed - A guy who spends day in, day out dealing with this would know... I just wish it was easier to know what he knows. Ya know?


So far, I've found this study by an Indi psychologist; I haven't had time to read it yet.

 

[bwframe]

A judge should have to sign off on any red flag complaint warrant in advance of an officer's visit where firearms confiscation is a consideration.

If an officer runs into an individual in the course of his duties that appears to be a threat to themselves or others, then that individual needs to be arrested for mental evaluation. At which time a judge will be presented with the evidence obtained to review if the individual's Second Amendment rights should be revoked.

That's pretty much how it is in Indiana...

Well OK. I guess I am mistaken then?

It was my understanding that a judge was not required to sign off on a firearms confiscation? I was under the impression that in Indiana an officer is sent to investigate a red flag claim and they determine whether firearms are confiscated at that time? Later a judge is involved to get firearms returned, if confiscation is contested?

 

[JettaKnight]

So far, I've found this study by an Indi psychologist; I haven't had time to read it yet.

At the risk of stirring this up again, I finally read that report.


TL/DR: In Indiana, the law had a noticeable effect in reducing suicide by firearm, with only a minor uptick in suicide by other means, i.e. "replacement".

The authors were not able to discern any effect on homicide rates.


I think someone stated that if you take away a person's guns then they will just find another way to kill themselves. At least according to this study, and in Indiana, that's often not the case.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It is a slippery slope.

Indiana has been doing just fine for about 200 years. Why do we need a new law?

Well, it was passed in 2005 (in Indiana), so it's not really a new law.

 

[bwframe]

Indiana's red flag law was passed as a feel good law reaction when everyone felt terrible about an officer being killed by a known crazy person with a record of bad actions. The claim at the time was that authorities could not legally take a troubled individual's guns away.

The bad part is that the law bypasses due process. A judgement call on firearms confiscation is made by whatever officer is sent to investigate rather than a judge prior to or at the time of the investigation.

Some claim that it's still due process to confiscate an individual's guns to then guarantee a quick judicial review.
While it is known that judges do overturn some officer's confiscation orders, no one seems to know actually how long and convoluted the process to actually get firearms returned is.

What we do know is that in Marion County, getting your firearms out of their property room will likely take a very long time and require legal representation for guns only held, not even confiscated.

 

[jamil]

Indiana's red flag law was passed as a feel good law reaction when everyone felt terrible about an officer being killed by a known crazy person with a record of bad actions. The claim at the time was that authorities could not legally take a troubled individual's guns away.

The bad part is that the law bypasses due process. A judgement call on firearms confiscation is made by whatever officer is sent to investigate rather than a judge prior to or at the time of the investigation.

Some claim that it's still due process to confiscate an individual's guns to then guarantee a quick judicial review.
While it is known that judges do overturn some officer's confiscation orders, no one seems to know actually how long and convoluted the process to actually get firearms returned is.

What we do know is that in Marion County, getting your firearms out of their property room will likely take a very long time and require legal representation for guns only held, not even confiscated.

Just to be clear. You’re now saying that Denny was incorrect. That the text of the law he posted isn’t what the law actually is. Yer basically Dennying Denny. Right?

 

[Brad69]

Ok we need some clear guidance on this!

My understanding is the following.

1. Brad goes nuts and is in the backyard throwing poo at the fence and wearing a thong.

2. Police show up and determine that I have in fact went some kinda nuts.

3. The fuzz calls Judge Lucy and says this dude is saying Alex Jones is not making anything up.

4. Judge Lucy signs a order and says take away his guns he may be a danger.

5. I get evaluated and declared sane and I was just being affected by the 5G network weapons returned.

 

[JettaKnight]

Just to be clear. You’re now saying that Denny was incorrect. That the text of the law he posted isn’t what the law actually is. Yer basically Dennying Denny. Right?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[bwframe]

You'll have to make your own decision on our friend Denny's claims vs what actually happens on Indiana red flag law gun confiscations.

I stand by mine though, until I'm proven wrong. Actual due process is not followed in Indiana's red flag law.

The officer on the scene passes judgement to remove an individual's second amendment rights rather than a court of law.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

You'll have to make your own decision on our friend Denny's claims vs what actually happens on Indiana red flag law gun confiscations.

I stand by mine though, until I'm proven wrong...

Do you even know what happens, or can you prove Denny wrong? I understand you don't like the law, but you are ****ting all over the memory of Jake Laird with your b.s.

 

[JettaKnight]

You'll have to make your own decision on our friend Denny's claims vs what actually happens on Indiana red flag law gun confiscations.

I stand by mine though, until I'm proven wrong...

"Make your own decisions"? That sounds like, "I'm going to play out a scenario based on my biases."


Why not just find some actual examples of what happens?


Denny has repeatedly explained what the law says, and what he knows about it from the LEO side. To which you repeatedly ignore that (or outright dismiss it publicly) and posit that the practice does not follow the law. I would think it's up to you to show some evidence that the practice meets your expectation that the law is being used as a backdoor confiscation scheme here in Indiana.


At least I've posted one study that shows the law has failed to have a measurable impact on homicides, but has reduced suicides.

 

[bwframe]

Do you even know what happens, or can you prove Denny wrong? I understand you don't like the law, but you are ****ting all over the memory of Jake Laird with your b.s.

I'm recounting what I have read right here on this forum.

You are mistaken if you think that anything I have said is a negative towards Jake Laird. I have the utmost respect for all officers. Yourself and any mentioned. I'm sorry you feel the need to accuse me of anything less.

 

[bwframe]

...The officer on the scene passes judgement to remove an individual's second amendment rights rather than a court of law...

Is this not true? Is this actual due process?


Please prove me wrong. I'll be more than happy to stand corrected.

I don't like this fight one little bit. The last thing I ever want to do is argue with our great resourceful INGO professional LEO's.

 

[Brad69]

So I can or cannot throw poop?

Will Judge Lucy have to sign off before or after the Polizie take my weapons?

 

[jamil]

You'll have to make your own decision on our friend Denny's claims vs what actually happens on Indiana red flag law gun confiscations.

I stand by mine though, until I'm proven wrong. Actual due process is not followed in Indiana's red flag law.

The officer on the scene passes judgement to remove an individual's second amendment rights rather than a court of law.

Okay. So say what are you saying then? He posted the text of law. We’ve all read it. Either way it requires a judge. Are you saying that the law says something different than what he posted? Are you saying that he’s interpreting it wrong and it means something different from what he says it means? Are you saying that it may be what the law says but that’s not how it gets enforced?

I’d really like to know what you mean here. Because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying he’s wrong. If so, what’s right? And what’s your evidence that you’re right and he’s wrong?

 

[JettaKnight]

So I can or cannot throw poop?

Will Judge Lucy have to sign off before or after the Polizie take my weapons?

I'm thinking that poo-chucking could impact your prosperity gospel scheme.


Or it might help it.

 

[jamil]

Do you even know what happens, or can you prove Denny wrong? I understand you don't like the law, but you are ****ting all over the memory of Jake Laird with your b.s.

Maybe it’s bull****. Maybe it’s an emotional issue because of the purpose for the law. But, c’mon. It’s not ****ting on the memory to say he thinks the law works differently than it works. That’s not an offense against the reason for the law. It’s a disagreement about what the law says or what it means, or how it’s enforced. He’s either factually right or factually wrong. I just find it astonishing that after a LEO posts what the law is, and even has talked about how he’s enforced it, that someone would just deny it. It’s just logically baffling.

 

[HoughMade]

 

[KellyinAvon]

Communist pride parade?