Is that a compliment?

Maybe.

HOw many gun consification warrants have been issued in the past few years?  The most recent related one was the pakalolo letter many got.  But even those said they had to surrender firearms by X date.  Not kicking the door in at 3am. 

I'm willing to bet that that number will increase 10 fold starting Jan 1st.  So any LE with some problem solving skills can assume that "hey this might be a red flag warrant".  Maybe we should dig deeper or not enforce.  But then again, everyone will blindly follow, so it's just wishful hopes.

Not sure. The law has a few different ways in which someone can lose their right to possess a firearm and not sure if they all are done through the same process.

I recall a friend bought his friends firearms due to a TRO (or abuse?) case against him. The guy had time to transfer the firearms without cops coming in and searching his house. But the nature of the red flag issue really doesn't make any sense to request the voluntary request to turn in a firearm. Part of the red flag law is to deal with immediate threats so sending a letter and giving someone a week would hardly be effective.

But like I said, maybe the cop can dig and find something but maybe he won't have access to the full case. Until it starts happening, we won't know. I wouldn't call it blind following, I think most cops just try to make a good faith action. Plus consider the repercussions for the officer if they didn't act and that was the one instance where they really should have(guy kills a bunch of people). Officer gets fired and sued for millions of dollars and potentially jailed for contempt. Then he has to hire his own lawyer and defend all of that on the idea that red flag laws are unconstitutional which he really has no way of knowing whether he can win at the supreme court level.

Not sure. The law has a few different ways in which someone can lose their right to possess a firearm and not sure if they all are done through the same process.

I recall a friend bought his friends firearms due to a TRO (or abuse?) case against him. The guy had time to transfer the firearms without cops coming in and searching his house. But the nature of the red flag issue really doesn't make any sense to request the voluntary request to turn in a firearm. Part of the red flag law is to deal with immediate threats so sending a letter and giving someone a week would hardly be effective.

But like I said, maybe the cop can dig and find something but maybe he won't have access to the full case. Until it starts happening, we won't know. I wouldn't call it blind following, I think most cops just try to make a good faith action. Plus consider the repercussions for the officer if they didn't act and that was the one instance where they really should have(guy kills a bunch of people). Officer gets fired and sued for millions of dollars and potentially jailed for contempt. Then he has to hire his own lawyer and defend all of that on the idea that red flag laws are unconstitutional which he really has no way of knowing whether he can win at the supreme court level.

At least your friend had time.  They changed the law so now you have less time.  Which pretty much means you have to walk into HPD and surrender them.  Still get a letter, and not a kick in the door by SSD at 3am.  Do you see the difference now? Letter vs. flashbang.

You're "what ifs" hold no merit.  Because if we went by "what ifs", then someone can take your car away because what if you drink and drive and injure someone?  Someone can also assign you to desk duty because what if you injure an unarmed/no threat civilian.  This is excatlly what red flags do is try and predict the future.

I wont trust my right to a police officer "who may do the right thing". Ill err on the side of the argument that a police officer would just follow orders or directions to take away your guns.
All these laws are designed to transfer your right to defend yourself and have or hopefully have the government do that for you.
Same red flag concept can be applied to clumsy people, DUI, reckless people, people of a certain race who  are statistically represented in crimes etc.
Red flag laws circumvent the very principle of our justice system; you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
This is just one step in turning our system into a socialist one.

Maybe ....

.... someone is just venting and says something another person takes as "worrisome" and reports him under the red flag law.

After he's had his guns forcibly seized with no notice, has to appear before a judge to prove he's not a threat (prove a negative -- accused of no crime with no evidence?  So much for burden of proof being on the state.).

He loses time from work (income), pays to hire a lawyer, is being gossiped about by all his neighbors after seeing 6 police cars and a tactical unit storm his apartment and leave with several firearms, and may be hearing his coworkers also know what happened and are talking.


Maybe ... he wasn't a threat BEFORE he underwent this stressful, expensive and embarrassing invasion of his privacy, but perhaps it is enough to push him to retaliate against the person who reported him, the police, and/or the neighbors/coworkers?

Looks like Joe Biden has jumped on the band wagon, AR's, AK's, and like type rifles will
have to be surrendered to the government or registered as NFA weapons( kind of pricey!),
should he be elected President.
Make your plans.

Looks like Joe Biden has jumped on the band wagon, AR's, AK's, and like type rifles will
have to be surrendered to the government or registered as NFA weapons( kind of pricey!),
should he be elected President.
Make your plans.

Aren't they all on the ban wagon?

Aren't they all on the ban wagon?

I see what you did there.   

That will assure them of NOT being elected POTUS

At least your friend had time.  They changed the law so now you have less time.  Which pretty much means you have to walk into HPD and surrender them.  Still get a letter, and not a kick in the door by SSD at 3am.  Do you see the difference now? Letter vs. flashbang.

You're "what ifs" hold no merit.  Because if we went by "what ifs", then someone can take your car away because what if you drink and drive and injure someone?  Someone can also assign you to desk duty because what if you injure an unarmed/no threat civilian.  This is excatlly what red flags do is try and predict the future.

I don't think you are grasping the seriousness of the decision that the officer faces. Officers regularly do what they think is legal only to end up making case law down the road. An officer disobeying an order from a judge is going to face some serious potential issues.

Imagine an order to a soldier in the military. The superior tells the subordinate to shoot into a house but the subordinate sees someone innocent in the window. The soldier is faced with a decision to do what he thinks is right vs what he is ordered to do. If he refuses the order he could be court-martialed but is the court going to uphold his decision as refusing an unlawful order or is  the court going to punish the soldier because it turned out there was a good reason to shoot into the building regardless of the collateral damage?


Let me ask you this: Can you envision a better system that would deal with how to address individuals who exhibit multiple warning signs that they are about to commit an atrocity?

Personally I haven't come up with a better way yet though I am pushing towards amending the red flag law to provide more protections to the accused.

Officers regularly do what they think is legal only to end up making case law down the road.

please list instances where this has taken place
if it happens "regularly" you should have no problem listing 10-12 cases easily...

please list instances where this has taken place
if it happens "regularly" you should have no problem listing 10-12 cases easily...

https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/policeone-analysis-12-supreme-court-cases-affecting-cops-vITaFgCmjhrJX7Gw/

In some of these cases the SCOTUS upheld the action of the officer but in other cases ruled the officer was wrong.

On top of that there are probably a lot more state supreme court cases.

https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/policeone-analysis-12-supreme-court-cases-affecting-cops-vITaFgCmjhrJX7Gw/

In some of these cases the SCOTUS upheld the action of the officer but in other cases ruled the officer was wrong.

On top of that there are probably a lot more state supreme court cases.

those are cases which resulted in case law due to the officer's actions
please list cases where officers made case law

I don't think you are grasping the seriousness of the decision that the officer faces. Officers regularly do what they think is legal only to end up making case law down the road. An officer disobeying an order from a judge is going to face some serious potential issues.

Imagine an order to a soldier in the military. The superior tells the subordinate to shoot into a house but the subordinate sees someone innocent in the window. The soldier is faced with a decision to do what he thinks is right vs what he is ordered to do. If he refuses the order he could be court-martialed but is the court going to uphold his decision as refusing an unlawful order or is  the court going to punish the soldier because it turned out there was a good reason to shoot into the building regardless of the collateral damage?


Let me ask you this: Can you envision a better system that would deal with how to address individuals who exhibit multiple warning signs that they are about to commit an atrocity?

Personally I haven't come up with a better way yet though I am pushing towards amending the red flag law to provide more protections to the accused.

Take your soldier example and add in children also in the home. LT orders solder to toss a grenade through the window and soldier says no. Or he does it and someone  narcs on him in the after action of what they saw. 

They teach an ethics course at Annapolis. A pilot is given orders to bomb an enemy convoy. As he makes his bomb run, the vehilces stop and all occupants exit and raise their hands and a white flag. Does the pilot folllow orders or wave off? Say he waves off, now anytime an aircraft approaches, the enemy does the same thing. Only to wait for the plane to run out of fuel, then continue fighting. This was on Nat Geo, a show about the naval academy.

 Remember the orders given to german solders in 1936. That almost all obeyed. The courts even ruled that the law was changed and jews were bad. Politicians changed the law and judges upheld the unjust laws.

So cops shouldnt follow orders blindly. The sheriffs in many states said they wont enforce red flags and theyre all still employed.

What shall we do to prevent a mental person from shooting somewhere up? Remove gun free zones and have HPD issue ccw/oc permits. Problem greatly reduced.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

those are cases which resulted in case law due to the officer's actions
please list cases where officers made case law

Thats what I meant by made case law. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Take your soldier example and add in children also in the home. LT orders solder to toss a grenade through the window and soldier says no. Or he does it and someone  narcs on him in the after action of what they saw. 

They teach an ethics course at Annapolis. A pilot is given orders to bomb an enemy convoy. As he makes his bomb run, the vehilces stop and all occupants exit and raise their hands and a white flag. Does the pilot folllow orders or wave off? Say he waves off, now anytime an aircraft approaches, the enemy does the same thing. Only to wait for the plane to run out of fuel, then continue fighting. This was on Nat Geo, a show about the naval academy.

 Remember the orders given to german solders in 1936. That almost all obeyed. The courts even ruled that the law was changed and jews were bad. Politicians changed the law and judges upheld the unjust laws.

So cops shouldnt follow orders blindly. The sheriffs in many states said they wont enforce red flags and theyre all still employed.

What shall we do to prevent a mental person from shooting somewhere up? Remove gun free zones and have HPD issue ccw/oc permits. Problem greatly reduced.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

All I am saying is we should give a little leeway to patrol officers who, most of the time, are doing their job on good faith. The anger should reside more with the judges, who should know best, over some beat cop who gets a warrant and enforces it in good faith.

Don't get me wrong, it is a complicated issue, sometimes with no clear right or wrong as in the order given to the pilot, there is just a decision that could have grave consequences either way.



Personally I see no reason to believe that issuing concealed carry permits and getting rid of gun free zones will reduce the number of people who go on shooting sprees. There are many examples where their sprees are cut short by a good samaritan but CCW is much more of a responsive measure than a preventive measure. So CCW good but lets also think about prevention measures as well.

Thats what I meant by made case law. Sorry if there was any confusion.

I am not confused
perhaps you could have possibly maybe added in a few modifiers that would make it more than likely that your statements might be within the realm of truth like you normally may be inclined to do

I am not confused
perhaps you could have possibly maybe added in a few modifiers that would make it more than likely that your statements might be within the realm of truth like you normally may be inclined to do

It is a saying, a phrase. Obviously police officers don't make the law themselves, they don't set precedent, the courts do with the case the officer took some action on.
Glad we can clear that up. I also won't tell you I am going to run some errands since I will really only just walk and drive.

Personally I see no reason to believe that issuing concealed carry permits and getting rid of gun free zones will reduce the number of people who go on shooting sprees. There are many examples where their sprees are cut short by a good samaritan but CCW is much more of a responsive measure than a preventive measure. So CCW good but lets also think about prevention measures as well.

It's been fairly well documented that roughly 95% of mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones. Eliminate the GFZs and you will stop a majority of mass shootings. Will it stop every crazy? No... But it will stop the majority of them


https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/

But the root of it really is for us as it is in nature.
Does the predator attack the weakest and least defended or the most defended?

All I am saying is we should give a little leeway to patrol officers who, most of the time, are doing their job on good faith. The anger should reside more with the judges, who should know best, over some beat cop who gets a warrant and enforces it in good faith.

Don't get me wrong, it is a complicated issue, sometimes with no clear right or wrong as in the order given to the pilot, there is just a decision that could have grave consequences either way.



Personally I see no reason to believe that issuing concealed carry permits and getting rid of gun free zones will reduce the number of people who go on shooting sprees. There are many examples where their sprees are cut short by a good samaritan but CCW is much more of a responsive measure than a preventive measure. So CCW good but lets also think about prevention measures as well.

It's very difficult to stop a motivated person who has evil intentions.  But what you can do is reduce the amount of damage this person does by having someone armed respond quicker than when the police show up.  There are only select places where no one is evil enough to start an active shooting, a gun show.  Even police stations have crazys come in who want the death by cop suicide and every person there is armed.

But having gun free zones do not help because that forces someone who could have been armed, to leave their gun in the car or at home.  This is what's known as a soft target and according to the FBI/CDC 96% of active shootings happen in these places.  So logic would dictate that a gun free zone sign doesn't work at all.  So let someone carry if they wish.  I remember watching an old clip of a mother in the 90's talking at a hearing in DC.  She and her family went to a TGIF to eat dinner.  They had a no guns allowed sign.  So her and her husband disarmed and left their guns in the car.  Someone came to rob the place and shot it up instead.  Her husband was killed and 2 children.  Her testimony was if she or him were armed, her husband and 2 children would be alive today.

Regarding the good faith of HPD, red flags have been a nation wide issue and they should be aware that it's a violation of the 4th amendment.  Thus not enforce.  But like I mentioned before, not 1 officer will have the balls to say no because they would either get fired or be passed up for promotions. I'm sure there are pro 2a orgs that will go to HPD to let them know to educate them if they believed it would work.  Because educating senators/reps don't work.  They could care less about rights.