'Red Flag' Gun Laws: Are They An Effective Tool?

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 23 months ago

   Sparked by the recent Buffalo shooting, the governor of a state that already had Red Flag laws, as an option, has made a filing mandatory. Without a pro or con intent, that seems to say that any police response to a relevant complaint will automatically result in the confiscation of any known guns until a hearing occurs.
   
   Here's the relevant text:
   
   "The New York State Police shall ensure that its sworn members are trained and instructed to file an application for an extreme risk protection order . . .
   
   All sworn members of the New York State Police must file an application, which shall be sworn, and accompanying supporting documentation, setting forth the facts and circumstances justifying the issuance of a temporary extreme risk protection order when there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others . . . "
   
   The last part seems to contradict what came before it. It used to be an optional choice; if the officer thought there was probable cause. The previous text and the governor's announcement statement made clear it was now mandatory, no choice. So what's up with the "probable cause" in that last text?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Either way, one is presumed guilty enough to lose their Constitutional rights without any trial or evaluation outside of a possible one by a cop on the beat.
      
      Whichever one is followed, my bet is that it will be found unconstitutional.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 23 months agoin reply to this

         You made me look. It seems the constitutionality aspect is open for argument. Some sources say no, and point to a SCOTUS decision, related to a case of a spouse making the claim, that did violate the 4th.
         
         And then there are others that say under strict conditions—relative to who provided the information, RFL, (red flag laws), laws could be constitutional.
         
         You are probably right about coming court challenges.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 89

   GA Andersonposted 23 months ago

   Aside from the constitutionality aspect, could RFLs, (Red Flag laws), be a reasonable effort?
   
   Consider the two extremes of positions: The worst-case scenario that it is a blatant grab of a constitutional right—with all the worst-case complaints coming true, or, the best-case scenario where the inconvenience of a few day's loss of that Right might stop a mass shooting.
   
   The worst-case scenario says cops can't be trusted to fairly make the call. The best-case says the cop is one of the best to make the call; they are on the scene evaluating the immediacy of a situation, and, the person in question.
   
   I think it was a description of Florida's RFL that has me thinking they might be worth a try. In their determination of the 'cause' for confiscation, they speak of probable cause and reasonable cause. Probable cause would be a policeman's evaluation or an unconnected concerned citizen's evaluation, (claim), and could be grounds, but a spouse or family member, or even a neighbor, who in the policeman's mind might have 'an ax to grind' would be a reasonable cause and would not be grounds for confiscation. In short, an angry spouse, relative, or neighbor can't just make a claim and be accepted.
   
   To consider RFLs reasonable demands a little faith and tolerance. A little faith in our police and judicial system, and a little tolerance for a few days of inconvenience. If RFLs do become abusive as a tool for vengeance or control I think they could be stopped by the courts, just as the 'stop and frisk' laws were.
   
   I'm still working on this, but I think RFLs could be a reasonable and workable tool—to at least try.
   
   GA

   replyreport