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

[HoughMade]

Thoughtful and nuanced? That's no way to approach a problem that involves the balancing of the safety of specifically identifiable persons (life, liberty, property) vs. the freedoms of specifically identifiable person.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't do Facebook.

I don’t do it very well.

 

[HoughMade]

I don’t do it very well.

This one time back in college...I think they called it a facebook....

 

[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.

 

[Denny347]

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

DANGEROUS PERSON (IC 35-47-14-1)
- An individual who presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to
another individual; or
- An individual who may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another
individual in the future and the individual:
o Has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by
medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently
taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
o Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
WITH A WARRANT (IC 35-47-14-2)
- Apply to circuit or superior court with jurisdiction
- Prepare sworn affidavit that:
o States why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and
in possession of a firearm; and
o Describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
 the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
 another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information
obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
o The affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm
- If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm, the officer must file return within forty-eight
(48) hours after the warrant was served that:
o Date and time served
o The name and address of the individual named in the warrant;
o The quantity and description of any firearms seized. (IC 35-47-14-4)
WITHOUT A WARRANT (35-47-14-3)
- If weapons are seized during the normal course of law enforcement duties
- If person is believed to be dangerous (as defined above), submit a written statement to the
court of jurisdiction describing basis for belief
- Court reviews statement and may order firearms retained or released
AFTER FIREARMS ARE SEIZED
- Court holds a hearing within 14 days. (IC 35-47-14-5)
- Notification to individual from whom the firearm was seized and prosecutor
- Court determines by clear and convincing evidence if person is dangerous and firearms
should be retained (IC 35-47-14-6)
- If retained, law enforcement agency keeps firearm until further order of the court.
- Court shall also order License to carry handgun suspended. (IC 35-47-14-6(b))
o Notify ISP Firearms to insure this is completed
RETURN OF FIREARMS (IC 35-47-14-8)
- Person may petition for return after at least 180 days
- If denied at that hearing, must wait at least another 180 days
- If five years have passed, hearing may be held to destroy or permanently dispose of
firearms (IC 35-47-14-9)
SALE OF FIREARM (IC 35-47-14-10)
- After order for retention, Person may petition for an order directing LE agency to sell
firearm with proceeds (minus 8% administrative costs) to go to individual.

 

[traderdan]

People don't think about it.
And many will believe it just as they believe making guns "illegal" will magically get rid of all the guns, and all violence.

Right! The intervention of government is very rarely the answer. As far as I know..I have generally been accepted as perfectly sane. I have absolutely no criminal history...but a false claim made against me that brought about some confiscation of my property would be hard to tolerate. It would not be possible to prevent me from owning a firearm at all..unless I was confined in some way.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Right! The intervention of government is very rarely the answer. As far as I know..I have generally been accepted as perfectly sane. I have absolutely no criminal history...but a false claim made against me that brought about some confiscation of my property would be hard to tolerate. It would not be possible to prevent me from owning a firearm at all..unless I was confined in some way.

I hear what you are saying Dan. Go to post #91 of the link below, if this bill gets a hearing it will pass.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...75504-2020-legislative-session-thread-10.html

 

[DadSmith]

If a person is found to be dangerous to others and his firearms are confiscated why would they leave this dangerous person in our society? Why is this person not locked up behind bars? If said person is so dangerous taking his firearms is nothing they will get more somewhere else to do dangerous things to others.
So tell me how Red Flag laws work by leaving a crazy on the streets and in our neighborhood?

Or is it just another scam to confiscate firearms as they please from whomever they please?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If a person is found to be dangerous to others and his firearms are confiscated why would they leave this dangerous person in our society? Why is this person not locked up behind bars? If said person is so dangerous taking his firearms is nothing they will get more somewhere else to do dangerous things to others.
So tell me how Red Flag laws work by leaving a crazy on the streets and in our neighborhood?

Or is it just another scam to confiscate firearms as they please from whomever they please?

I’ve asked this same question.

 

[HoughMade]

I think the answer is obvious, but hey...talking points. It has something to do with a spectrum of behavior and threat and lesser to greater degrees of intrusions to freedom, and stopgap measures and, well, thoughtful and nuanced responses to dynamic situations.

 

[JettaKnight]

If a person is found to be dangerous to others and his firearms are confiscated why would they leave this dangerous person in our society? Why is this person not locked up behind bars? If said person is so dangerous taking his firearms is nothing they will get more somewhere else to do dangerous things to others.
So tell me how Red Flag laws work by leaving a crazy on the streets and in our neighborhood?

Or is it just another scam to confiscate firearms as they please from whomever they please?

What if the person is only dangerous to themselves, i.e. suicidal?

Also, I'm not sure if "dangerous" is binary, i.e. is or isn't.

 

[JettaKnight]

Right! The intervention of government is very rarely the answer. As far as I know..I have generally been accepted as perfectly sane. I have absolutely no criminal history...but a false claim made against me that brought about some confiscation of my property would be hard to tolerate. It would not be possible to prevent me from owning a firearm at all..unless I was confined in some way.

Have you not read the law? It's not just some anonymous tip that gets the deed done.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What if the person is only dangerous to themselves, i.e. suicidal?

Also, I'm not sure if "dangerous" is binary, i.e. is or isn't.

The point I think is being asked is if the person is truly dangerous to themselves or others, then ONLY taking away his/her guns is window dressing. Maybe that is what is necessary but one doesn’t need much of an imagination to conjure up other means for acting out that danger. If the person has expressed suicidal or homicidal threats, and they’re truly credible, then all sorts of devices capable of carrying out those threats ought to be confiscated...right? That is, unless this is a gun confiscation scheme disguised as a mental health initiative.

ETA: And I’m not even one of those that believe there’s NEVER a time when a person’s guns should be removed for safe keeping. There surely are. I AM one of the ones that believe this push for red flag laws is sophistry. It is using a means that has rare application to play the game of those law and order types to advance a means for making it easier to confiscate peoples’ guns, all [wink...wink...nudge...nudge] legal-like.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Have you not read the law? It's not just some anonymous tip that gets the deed done.

Thankfully here in Indiana it takes more than that. Unfortunately "knowingly providing false information" that someone is dangerous according to IC 35-47-14-1 isn't against the law, since being dangerous according to IC 35-47-14-1 isn't a crime.

 

[Denny347]

The point I think is being asked is if the person is truly dangerous to themselves or others, then ONLY taking away his/her guns is window dressing. Maybe that is what is necessary but one doesn’t need much of an imagination to conjure up other means for acting out that danger. If the person has expressed suicidal or homicidal threats, and they’re truly credible, then all sorts of devices capable of carrying out those threats ought to be confiscated...right? That is, unless this is a gun confiscation scheme disguised as a mental health initiative.

ETA: And I’m not even one of those that believe there’s NEVER a time when a person’s guns should be removed for safe keeping. There surely are. I AM one of the ones that believe this push for red flag laws is sophistry. It is using a means that has rare application to play the game of those law and order types to advance a means for making it easier to confiscate peoples’ guns, all [wink...wink...nudge...nudge] legal-like.

So, who is "wink...wink...nudge...nudge"ing?

It's almost exclusively used in conjunction with an immediate detention or a court ordered mental writ. This would not be used alone.

IC 12-26-4
Chapter 4. Immediate Detention
IC 12-26-4-1
Law enforcement officers; authority to apprehend, transport, and
charge an individual with a mental illness
Sec. 1. A law enforcement officer, having reasonable grounds to
believe that an individual has a mental illness, is either dangerous or
gravely disabled, and is in immediate need of hospitalization and
treatment, may do the following:
(1) Apprehend and transport the individual to the nearest
appropriate facility. The individual may not be transported to a
state institution.
(2) Charge the individual with an offense if applicable.
As added by P.L.2-1992, SEC.20. Amended by P.L.40-1994, SEC.55;
P.L.99-2007, SEC.129; P.L.4-2013, SEC.1.
IC 12-26-4-1.5
Court's authority to order an individual transported for
psychological evaluation
Sec. 1.5. If a court has reasonable grounds to believe that an
individual:
(1) has a mental illness;
(2) is either dangerous or gravely disabled; and
(3) is in immediate need of hospitalization and treatment;
the court may order a law enforcement officer to transport the
individual to the nearest appropriate facility for a preliminary
medical and psychological evaluation. The individual may not be
transported to a state institution.
As added by P.L.62-2012, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.4-2013, SEC.2.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think if someone is such a imminent danger to themselves or society that law enforcement issues a "red flag" to take guns away, the focus should be instead on arresting them and securing them in either a mental facility where an evaluation can be done by a doctor or in a cell and getting them in front of a judge so that the judge can make the determination on if one more minute of their freedom should be jeopardized.
If the person doesn't pose a threat as determined by a doctor or hasn't broken a law as determined by a judge then let them go. If they do, THEN take the guns. If they are locked up the guns aren't going to be used anyways.
Just like with "felons" who have served their sentences. If they are still a danger to society then lock them back up if they offend again. Maybe we need harsher sentencing.
Our justice system is so screwed up in this country. So no, I don't believe in punishing people before they commit crimes or are a credible threat. I do not support red flag laws or any other form of gun laws. Period. Not even background checks. If you commit a crime with a gun, you should be locked up. Throw away the key.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, who is "wink...wink...nudge...nudge"ing?

Those gun grabbers and “I’m all for the Second Amendment but-ers” that are pushing these laws all over the country now. If we really believe they’re doing this SOLELY for the safety of the public, I have some swamp land in Florida I want to sell you.

 

[JettaKnight]

Those gun grabbers and “I’m all for the Second Amendment but-ers” that are pushing these laws all over the country now. If we really believe they’re doing this SOLELY for the safety of the public, I have some swamp land in Florida I want to sell you.

So if this is true, then where is all the evidence of it here in Indiana?


To date, all I've seen is "well, it happened to an INGOer, but no comment", and "Guy's got some stuff on his Facebook page, if you can find it."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So if this is true, then where is all the evidence of it here in Indiana?


To date, all I've seen is "well, it happened to an INGOer, but no comment", and "Guy's got some stuff on his Facebook page, if you can find it."

My only suggestion is contact Guy Relford if you don’t want to set up a FB account. You might listen to his podcasts. He’s a member of this forum, maybe an IM to him?

 

[KellyinAvon]

My only suggestion is contact Guy Relford if you don’t want to set up a FB account. You might listen to his podcasts. He’s a member of this forum, maybe an IM to him?

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.