If the Red Flag law say, called for a hearing with lawyers before they grabbed the guns and punished folks for turning in false or harassing claims you would still oppose it?
Why would I oppose it? That is the system we had before "red flags" and is the system we still HAVE. Due Process. Full hearing, both sides present their evidence and arguments, then a ruling. THEN removal of firearms or other property, if the court so rules.
The court can rule for that, without full commitment to a mental facility. AND, each case is an individual case, ruled on considering all available evidence specific to the case.
The big things I have against the idea of red flag laws, as currently implemented is two parts. One part is the ignoring of due process and several long established and fundamental principles of our justice system, and the second part is the hypocritical (to me) idea that removing guns (or any other "tools") and leaving the potential bad actor free to come up with, and do harm in some using some other tools. WHILE telling us that NOW we're "safe", because they took the gun(s) away from this dangerous person.
IF red flag was carried out in a different way, if there were even a token attempt at proper due process and fairness I might have a slightly different opinion of the matter. That's not being done, from what I hear.
IF (and I have no idea if this would pass legal muster) but consider this, IF when the request for the special protection order was filed, a process server/officer of the court?? (escorted by LEO would be prudent I think)
went to you and served notice, and you were required to accompany them back to the court so the court could hear your side of the story before issuing the order, And I mean go to court, go directly to court, do not pass go do not collect $200, (or attempt to flee or reach your weapons in case you actually are the dangerous wackjob someone is accusing you of being) you get taken to court, give your side of things, then returned to work or where ever you were found, and the law included full protection from being fired for leaving work and things like that, wouldn't it at a minimum, reduce the potential possibility of abusing the law?
The court could, after hearing your side dismiss the request, or they could issue the order, have your guns removed for "safety" and schedule a full hearing at a later date, allowing you time to prepare an actual defense.
Point here is, you get informed, and you get to tell your side of things, which may be enough if the accusation is groundless. IF the court has doubts they put the order in place and continue to follow due process.
The system isn't set up to work the way I described in my what if scenario, but if people thought it important enough, it COULD be.
I'm just brainstorming ideas, trying to find something that be less likely to be abused and do less harm to the innocent who get falsely accused, while still dealing with those people who actually are credible risks. Not saying do it this way or that way, people far more educated than I should be looking at alternative ideas before any decision is made to change the system. But it seems few or no one is. All we seem to be offered is the old system (which does work, but is cumbersome) or the red flag "as is" and to me the "as is" is not acceptable.
I don't want to be "put to the question" because my wackjob nosey neighbor thinks I'm a witch. I don't want to lose my job, my guns, or anything else because someone who's angry at me or scared of me over something files a paper with "the state" and the state doesn't take any time or make any effort to find out if there is any truth at all to the accusation. And, I especially don't want the first time I find out about it to be when they show up to seize my stuff. And I'm rather concerned about the possibility of SWAT "informing me" at 0 dark thirty by breaking into my house while yelling "Police" (which anyone could do...)
That wouldn't be a good thing at all....I'd much prefer to actually HAVE my day in court, thank you.
