2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on May 17, 2021, 01:29:31 PM
-
Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.
Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner. Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.
Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam. A court order is NOT a warrant. Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed. Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.
This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines. It was UNANIMOUS!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html
-
Looks this like this will also stop the age old game of cops doing cash seizures and forcing you to prove the money is legit. IIRC there are podunk towns in the middle of nowhere that used to survive on confiscating from folks rolling thru their town on the way to somewhere else.
-
I suddenly feel a need to celebrate some Freedoms
(https://blueridgechristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/We-the-people-and-Eagle-1280x640.jpeg)
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/74882771.jpg)
-
Best take I have seen on this ruling.
Now someone please take a warrantless FISA electronic surveillance case to court on this issue.
-
Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.
Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner. Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.
Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam. A court order is NOT a warrant. Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed. Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.
This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines. It was UNANIMOUS!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html
Problem is that this is Hawaii. The American Constitution doesn't mean what it says,
it means what Democrat Party says it means.
Confiscations will continue, You will go broke going to court, and losing time at work.
Property taxes pay for most of the costs of the government, to be used against you.
They don't care if they lose the court case, your guns will be rusted when you finally get them back
in a few years. They consider that a win, even if you were to win a lawsuit, the cops don't care,
they don't pay the settlement, Taxpayers do.
-
Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.
Police must have a valid warrant in order to seize private property, specifically guns, from an owner. Without a warrant, the seizure is unconstitutional.
Many current red flag laws that include a "hearing" issue an "order" to confiscate guns pending a mental fitness exam. A court order is NOT a warrant. Warrants require that a crime has been committed, or a crime is suspected to have been committed. Red flag laws are intended to take guns from people BEFORE any crime has been committed.
This was not a ruling that split along ideological lines. It was UNANIMOUS!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/supreme-court-fourth-amendment-case-firearms/index.html
It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.
However it does seem to clearly indicate that cops can't go searching your home for firearms without a warrant, especially with such weak cause. If officers found the man holding the firearm when they went to check on him they may have been allowed to take the firearm, I didn't see that specific question addressed. This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.
-
surprised that this is reported on CNN, don't see it on Fox or OAN or NewsMax.
from the CNN article, it does sound seriously hopeful, but then, it's CNN, and it's also democrat high times. I don't have high hopes.
-
It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.
However it does seem to clearly indicate that cops can't go searching your home for firearms without a warrant, especially with such weak cause. If officers found the man holding the firearm when they went to check on him they may have been allowed to take the firearm, I didn't see that specific question addressed. This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.
You are splitting hairs.
There was no search in this case. The police asked the wife to let them in and she showed them where the guns were: 2 pistols. The Cops lied to the man saying they would not confiscate his guns to get him to board the ambulance, and then they lied to the wife saying the man volunteered to surrender his firearms before he was driven away.
Search warrants, to my understanding, are issued normally to seize property as it relates to a crime -- i.e. evidence. The ruling was explicit that the SEIZURE of the guns, not just the search, was unconstitutional.
The Constitution requires a warrant to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures COMBINED. The petitioner alleged the police seized his guns unlawfully. The complaint was not about illegal entry, since his wife allowed the police to enter.
From the Court's Opinion:
Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the home,
where they encountered petitioner on the porch. Petitioner
spoke with respondents and confirmed his wife’s account of
the argument, but denied that he was suicidal. Respondents,
however, thought that petitioner posed a risk to himself or others.
They called an ambulance, and petitioner
agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation—
but only after respondents allegedly promised not to confiscate
his firearms. Once the ambulance had taken petitioner
away, however, respondents seized the weapons. Guided
by petitioner’s wife—whom they allegedly misinformed
about his wishes—respondents entered the home and took
two handguns.
Petitioner sued, claiming that respondents violated the
Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized
him and his firearms without a warrant.
-
I think EEF may be right.
The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)
Just how I read it and I am no attorney.
Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.
https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/
-
Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend. They will always do the biding of the government and WILL lie to do so
Quote
Respondents accompanied petitioner’s wife to the home,
where they encountered petitioner on the porch. Petitioner
spoke with respondents and confirmed his wife’s account of
the argument, but denied that he was suicidal. Respondents,
however, thought that petitioner posed a risk to himself or others.
They called an ambulance, and petitioner
agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation—
but only after respondents allegedly promised not to confiscate
his firearms. Once the ambulance had taken petitioner
away, however, respondents seized the weapons. Guided
by petitioner’s wife—whom they allegedly misinformed
about his wishes—respondents entered the home and took
two handguns.
Petitioner sued, claiming that respondents violated the
Fourth Amendment when they entered his home and seized
him and his firearms without a warrant.
-
Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend. They will always do the biding of the government and WILL lie to do so
You’re forgetting this is Hawaii.
Cops are never your friend. Even if they are your friend.... Unless they ARE your friend or relative. Then have them on speed dial in case of traffic stop.
-
Many cops are friends. Not everyone is out to get you....there are good cops and bad. Its a job, not a personality or secret agenda.
-
I think EEF may be right.
The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)
Just how I read it and I am no attorney.
Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.
https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/
Kevin showed up to our rally we had in front the kamehameha statue a few months ago.
-
It doesn't seem that the SCOTUS specifically said a warrant was necessary to take firearms, at least not from the articles I have read. It seems the search was more the issue than the seizure.
I think EEF may be right.
The red flag law in Hawaii requires a petitioner to petition the court for an emergency protective order.
Once the protective order is granted, the Popo can confiscate your firearms.
They won’t need to search as they will have all your registration records and can just show up and ask for all your guns based on your registrations.
(Similar to TRO I would imagine.)
Just how I read it and I am no attorney.
Interesting website from attorney who does firearm defenses.
https://www.kevinogradylaw.com/firearms/
EEF said the opinion was more about the search.
You said EEF was right, and that Hawaii police won't have to search, because they know you have particular firearms.
EEF was wrong. "Search and seizure" are combined in the 4th amendment. Can't do EITHER without a warrant, and the Supreme Court said exactly that.
A Hawaii court issuing a protective order is NOT a warrant. If they issue such an order to confiscate guns without a warrant, it is unconstitutional on its face.
Don't have to be a lawyer.
-
You are splitting hairs.
There was no search in this case. The police asked the wife to let them in and she showed them where the guns were: 2 pistols. The Cops lied to the man saying they would not confiscate his guns to get him to board the ambulance, and then they lied to the wife saying the man volunteered to surrender his firearms before he was driven away.
Search warrants, to my understanding, are issued normally to seize property as it relates to a crime -- i.e. evidence. The ruling was explicit that the SEIZURE of the guns, not just the search, was unconstitutional.
The Constitution requires a warrant to protect the public against unreasonable searches and seizures COMBINED. The petitioner alleged the police seized his guns unlawfully. The complaint was not about illegal entry, since his wife allowed the police to enter.
From the Court's Opinion:
After reading the decision again the justices did indeed discuss both the search and the seizure.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Even with permission from the wife it could still constitute a search. The wife can invite cops into the home but that doesn't waive any and all rights the husband still had to privacy. If the wife brought the guns out then it wasn't even a search but just a seizure. Sometimes a seizure can be justified but not a search, depends on the circumstances.
What I was getting at though is that if the firearms are present and in open/plain view when the officers are there then the issue is seizure, not a search. That's why I gave the scenario of if the man had the firearm with him/next to him when they arrived that a search would not be part of the equation. You are right that both search and seizure are protected by the 4th amendment but I don't think they are subject to a warrant the same way. There are exemptions to both and can apply differently. This is where the specifics of the individual case come into play.
One interesting thing Alito points out but then doesn't dive into is whether we are to use the criminal law standard when it comes to search and seizure of something of a non-criminal nature, such as taking this guy's firearms. I remember reading another SCOTUS case which stated that taking away someone's rights related to a mental health issue was a lower standard than putting them in jail for a criminal charge. Not sure how this plays into this case though either since it wasn't taking custody of a person but taking belongings of him.
Now as it relates to red flag laws I don't know that the 4th amendment only allows for warrants to take guns, as opposed to a court order. Subpoenas are regularly used to order people or companies to turn evidence over to police and they are not search warrants. I don't know the exact difference of when one is needed vs the other but I believe that if someone is accused of a crime and you are searching something of theirs that a search warrant is needed. However it gets more complicated when joint ownership is at play. If someone used their bank account to steal money from the bank then the bank can give you the records themselves but if the bank is not a party to the crime then a subpoena or search warrant is generally required. I am trying to find a specific explanation of when someone else can give cops permission to search jointly held property vs when they can't.
-
After reading the decision again the justices did indeed discuss both the search and the seizure.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf
Even with permission from the wife it could still constitute a search. The wife can invite cops into the home but that doesn't waive any and all rights the husband still had to privacy. If the wife brought the guns out then it wasn't even a search but just a seizure. Sometimes a seizure can be justified but not a search, depends on the circumstances.
What I was getting at though is that if the firearms are present and in open/plain view when the officers are there then the issue is seizure, not a search. That's why I gave the scenario of if the man had the firearm with him/next to him when they arrived that a search would not be part of the equation. You are right that both search and seizure are protected by the 4th amendment but I don't think they are subject to a warrant the same way. There are exemptions to both and can apply differently. This is where the specifics of the individual case come into play.
One interesting thing Alito points out but then doesn't dive into is whether we are to use the criminal law standard when it comes to search and seizure of something of a non-criminal nature, such as taking this guy's firearms. I remember reading another SCOTUS case which stated that taking away someone's rights related to a mental health issue was a lower standard than putting them in jail for a criminal charge. Not sure how this plays into this case though either since it wasn't taking custody of a person but taking belongings of him.
Now as it relates to red flag laws I don't know that the 4th amendment only allows for warrants to take guns, as opposed to a court order. Subpoenas are regularly used to order people or companies to turn evidence over to police and they are not search warrants. I don't know the exact difference of when one is needed vs the other but I believe that if someone is accused of a crime and you are searching something of theirs that a search warrant is needed. However it gets more complicated when joint ownership is at play. If someone used their bank account to steal money from the bank then the bank can give you the records themselves but if the bank is not a party to the crime then a subpoena or search warrant is generally required. I am trying to find a specific explanation of when someone else can give cops permission to search jointly held property vs when they can't.
A subpoena is a court order, not a warrant. If you disobey a subpoena, you can be charged with criminal contempt of court. If you destroy the evidence named in the subpoena, you can be arrested for obstruction and destruction of evidence -- unless your name is Clinton.
Warrants are necessary when there is a good chance the evidence will be lost otherwise. But, there must be probable cause that a crime was or will be committed. In red flag cases, that would be rare unless the person made credible threats.
-
Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.
This may or may not affect red flag laws, probably depends on how they are written.
EEF might be right.
Followed by my above comment.
Kevin showed up to our rally we had in front the kamehameha statue a few months ago.
Right On. Good to know. :thumbsup:
-
In order for there to be a warrant there has to be a crime.
-
EEF might be right.
Followed by my above comment.
Logically, EEF might be wrong, too.
The appropriate response would now be: So what?
-
No crime, no warrant
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/26gBjplxRU5EUhvlS/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47zlaa4ubxxq4icj912cx7v3xrpgldlhpc411q6s4s&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
Search and seizure requires a warrant with few exceptions. A court order is not a warrant.
So, a court order to seize property is unconstitutional unless related to another person having a claim to that property -- divorce decree, civil suit, etc.
Not that difficult.
This ruling has nothing to do with red flag laws. (And you’re in Hawaii)
That’s gonna be a whole ‘nother battle.
Why you always gotta end with an insult ?
-
My understanding is Red Flag is a protective order, not a warrant.
Looks like a person can protest/contest the order. (Hopefully)
The issue that people have with Red Flag orders, is that you cannot protest/contest it until after they came and confiscated all your firearms and ammo. So when SSD shows up at your home, the order was already issued and you were not even aware of any court activities about you. Once they come and take your stuff away, you are not even arrested. Now you have a court date to prove your innocents. Who knows how long this could take. Months, years, no one knows.
-
The issue that people have with Red Flag orders, is that you cannot protest/contest it until after they came and confiscated all your firearms and ammo. So when SSD shows up at your home, the order was already issued and you were not even aware of any court activities about you. Once they come and take your stuff away, you are not even arrested. Now you have a court date to prove your innocents. Who knows how long this could take. Months, years, no one knows.
1. Time is an obvious factor. Time from work, time to sit in court, time spent submitting to a mental health evaluation, time to confer with a lawyer, ....
2. You'll need a lawyer. That means $$$$. Missed work may also cause you to lose income/spend savings you need for other things.
3. Will your boss find out you were "Red Flagged?" Whether or not you succeed in fighting the accusations, you might be seen as a risk at work and be fired even before you've had a chance to prevail in court.
4. How many times have people going through a divorce made false allegations against the other spouse of child abuse, adultery, spousal abuse, drug abuse, and other bad behaviors in order to gain leverage in custody decisions? Why would red flagging be any different? You can be wrong and still claim what you SAY you observed was "troubling."
The Supreme Court dismissed the premise that the 4th Amendment's "community caretaking exception" extends to confiscation of personal property without a warrant inside the property owner's home. The original community caretaking exception case involved a car, which required immediate action since a car is mobile.
Whether or not Hawaii lawmakers take action to change our statutes based on this ruling is irrelevant. Until someone is red flagged here, there won't be anyone with the standing to challenge the statute. But, once the police action is deemed unconstitutional in that case, the person involved could easily win a lawsuit for violation of their civil rights, since the state knew of the Supreme Court ruling on warrantless searches and seizures.
-
Whether or not Hawaii lawmakers take action to change our statutes based on this ruling is irrelevant. Until someone is red flagged here, there won't be anyone with the standing to challenge the statute. But, once the police action is deemed unconstitutional in that case, the person involved could easily win a lawsuit for violation of their civil rights, since the state knew of the Supreme Court ruling on warrantless searches and seizures.
Basically a red flag order would have to be done to the type of person who would pursue a lawsuit. Someone with knowledge and connections.Last red flag that I heard of was that church pastor for the rehab half way house. IDK if he did anything since then.
I knew a guy who worked in a judges office. And he said how many times he saw custody suits and the woman files a TRO just to gain leverage against her ex. Prior to him leaving, the guys were catching on and they too were filing TRO's against the women. So it was a who gets there first is the key.
-
Basically a red flag order would have to be done to the type of person who would pursue a lawsuit. Someone with knowledge and connections.Last red flag that I heard of was that church pastor for the rehab half way house. IDK if he did anything since then.
I knew a guy who worked in a judges office. And he said how many times he saw custody suits and the woman files a TRO just to gain leverage against her ex. Prior to him leaving, the guys were catching on and they too were filing TRO's against the women. So it was a who gets there first is the key.
Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case. Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."
Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.
-
Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case. Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."
Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.
and there it is the stalker loophole
victim gets a gun for protection from stalker - stalker disarms victim with red flag law....
-
Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case. Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."
Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.
IIRC, it was one of his people who he cared for at the rehab/halfway house that got the red flag done.
-
Justice Alito disagrees with you, Dumbass. All you had to do was read the 17 page Supreme Court opinion, but you're too busy being a troll.
Here, since you can't be bothered to gather the FACTS:
So, while he didn't say this ruling directly impacted state red flag laws, he obviously sees the connection between red flag confiscations and the 4th amendment decision in this case.
You just confessed to being wrong, congrats.
He is but one justice, unless this is brought back up to court the point is moot. This ruling is not against red flag laws.
-
Question: Do you need a warrant to go onto someones property and take their guns away?
Supreme Court:
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/5/7/812aeba49f600a6b97418763899fb19d4a79019ca3f0f0694dc6ff36ec463e/image.gif?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2FBUOPT%2Fyaaaas%2Fimage.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
-
Question: Do you need a warrant to go onto someones property and take their guns away?
Supreme Court:
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/5/7/812aeba49f600a6b97418763899fb19d4a79019ca3f0f0694dc6ff36ec463e/image.gif?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2FBUOPT%2Fyaaaas%2Fimage.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
So simple ....
Yet, for some it's harder than Chinese Algebra.
-
and there it is the stalker loophole
victim gets a gun for protection from stalker - stalker disarms victim with red flag law....
Imagine criminals reporting "strange behavior" to the police just to get the Cops to file a red flag case. Once the guns are confiscated, the criminals have a safer "work environment."
Could also work for a stalker who wants to make sure his target is unarmed.
I do not support the red flag law but I don't think it's that easy to have a person red flagged and have their guns taken away.
-
I do not support the red flag law but I don't think it's that easy to have a person red flagged and have their guns taken away.
Ever heard of being "SWATTED"? It is that easy! >:D
-
Ever heard of being "SWATTED"? It is that easy! >:D
Wonder if they’ll need a warrant to be SWATted now.
That’s some fuked up shit.
Looks like this ruling will shoot down most Red Flag Laws in the US.
WRONG !
-
Ever heard of being "SWATTED"? It is that easy! >:D
No it's not.
-
If you want a more in depth and accurate analysis of that particular SCOTUS case and how red flags are only a sliver of what it touches on listen to an actual lawyer who tries civil rights and constitutional law cases, Robert Barnes start explaining it around the 30 min mark.
https://podbay.fm/p/viva-law-podcast/e/1621346179
-
State of Hawaii: we're taking your guns
Me: no you're not
SoH: uh, yes we are
HPD: *battering ram* knock, knock we're here for your guns
Me: fuck
SoH/HPD: oh so sorry, it's unconstitutional. Our bad. Get a lawyer and you might get them back in a couple years after a lengthy and costly court battle
Me: fuck
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
-
A subpoena is a court order, not a warrant. If you disobey a subpoena, you can be charged with criminal contempt of court. If you destroy the evidence named in the subpoena, you can be arrested for obstruction and destruction of evidence -- unless your name is Clinton.
Warrants are necessary when there is a good chance the evidence will be lost otherwise. But, there must be probable cause that a crime was or will be committed. In red flag cases, that would be rare unless the person made credible threats.
Did some more looking. A search warrant would be necessary if the piece of evidence were the property of a suspect and to be used in a trial against that suspect. When the evidence desired isn't property of the suspect then generally a subpoena is sufficient to order the person to turn something over.
The curveball as far as I can tell is that mental health issues which may not not follow the same lines. Non criminal cases don't follow all the same standards.
-
Did some more looking. A search warrant would be necessary if the piece of evidence were the property of a suspect and to be used in a trial against that suspect. When the evidence desired isn't property of the suspect then generally a subpoena is sufficient to order the person to turn something over.
The curveball as far as I can tell is that mental health issues which may not not follow the same lines. Non criminal cases don't follow all the same standards.
By standards, you mean the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
-
By standards, you mean the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
In a criminal case the courts have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case it is the preponderance of evidence which is a lower standard.
In the case of police taking firearms away from a person for mental health reasons, I see no reason the standard would be that of the criminal level.
I would have to find it again but there was a supreme court case that specifically addressed the level of proof necessary to take away someone's freedom due to mental health issues and it was lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have been clear and convincing evidence but again, I would have to find the case again to be certain.
-
In a criminal case the courts have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil case it is the preponderance of evidence which is a lower standard.
In the case of police taking firearms away from a person for mental health reasons, I see no reason the standard would be that of the criminal level.
I would have to find it again but there was a supreme court case that specifically addressed the level of proof necessary to take away someone's freedom due to mental health issues and it was lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have been clear and convincing evidence but again, I would have to find the case again to be certain.
And that's your problem. There are courts and laws set up to evaluate mental health cases when the patient/individual is demonstrating potentially violent tendencies.
But, to confiscate property (guns) without a warrant AND without due process BEFORE the confiscation violates the Constitution.
Your comments might be more reasonable if the "accused' were provided due process before his guns were taken. You use the phrase "due to mental health issues." That catch-all phrase does not imply "unfit to own guns." The rate of violence among the diagnosed mentally ill is about the same as it is among the rest of the population. So, taking guns under the pretense of keeping us safe from the "mentally ill" is unrealistic.
You and I have been down this road too many times. If a PERSON is a threat to public safety, then LOCK THE PERSON UP. If they are not, then let them have their guns. Disarming someone you think is dangerous and letting them roam freely is quite stupid.
-
And that's your problem. There are courts and laws set up to evaluate mental health cases when the patient/individual is demonstrating potentially violent tendencies.
But, to confiscate property (guns) without a warrant AND without due process BEFORE the confiscation violates the Constitution.
Your comments might be more reasonable if the "accused' were provided due process before his guns were taken. You use the phrase "due to mental health issues." That catch-all phrase does not imply "unfit to own guns." The rate of violence among the diagnosed mentally ill is about the same as it is among the rest of the population. So, taking guns under the pretense of keeping us safe from the "mentally ill" is unrealistic.
You and I have been down this road too many times. If a PERSON is a threat to public safety, then LOCK THE PERSON UP. If they are not, then let them have their guns. Disarming someone you think is dangerous and letting them roam freely is quite stupid.
I fully agree that a search warrant would be necessary for officers to go into someone's home and take the firearms but I am still not sure your assertion that a subpoena ordering the recovery of firearms would be unconstitutional. Of course the the judge must have grounds to make such an order, he can't arbitrarily just order the surrender of firearms.
We have agreed before that if someone is too dangerous mentally to have firearms then they are too dangerous to be out in public. What I am focusing on here is whether firearms could be ordered to be turned over with a court order (assuming there is some cause). That and trying to establish what constitutes sufficient cause to order the surrender of the firearm since there is reason to believe that the levels of cause are not necessarily the same as in a criminal case.
-
I fully agree that a search warrant would be necessary for officers to go into someone's home and take the firearms but I am still not sure your assertion that a subpoena ordering the recovery of firearms would be unconstitutional. Of course the the judge must have grounds to make such an order, he can't arbitrarily just order the surrender of firearms.
We have agreed before that if someone is too dangerous mentally to have firearms then they are too dangerous to be out in public. What I am focusing on here is whether firearms could be ordered to be turned over with a court order (assuming there is some cause). That and trying to establish what constitutes sufficient cause to order the surrender of the firearm since there is reason to believe that the levels of cause are not necessarily the same as in a criminal case.
The real issue is the mentally ill people that eventually turn a firearm on someone is they dont go from 0 to 60 to reach that point. They are a known problem that have had multiple encounters with LEOs and officers arent allowed under current the law to do much about them (case in point the sh*tbag who killed 2 officers in Diamondhead). Almost every mass shooters was on some law enforcement radar, more often than not even as high up as the the FBI.
We had a nutjob lady on our block that had HPD at her house 1-2X a day FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS and many dozens of court appearances until finally she eventually finally did something over the line that they could put a psych hold on her. The officers hands were tied the whole time, a lot of those years the cops responding barely went thru the motions because 'nothing could be done', even laughing about it while we as her neighbors had to put up with the aftermath the minute they left. Allowing LEOs to make an on the spot call that removing guns somehow diffuses a potential problem is not any kind of solution, being able to remand someone and get them a mental health eval, and potentially lock them up in a mental health facility is. Change the law and public policy to deal with nutjobs so Officers arent left having to fly by the seat of their pants and make civil rights law calls. Not a big problem to leave the guns in the house if you can lock up the mentally ill. We used to actually do that way back when.