Vermont's Red Flag Law (NPR Story this morning)

[MarkA]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753062116/in-vermont-a-case-of-one-man-whose-gun-was-seized-under-red-flag-law

This is one of those scenarios, where in my opinion, a red flag law is totally applicable. This guy flips his lid, goes out back and starts threatening suicide and suicide by cop.

Clearly a man with intent and a means to execute, I think I could stand behind the law since there was eyewitness testimony to support him being 'flagged'. I don't know if I could make a valid argument to NOT take his guns away from him, seeing that he's not in a great frame of mind.

What if they'd left him with his guns and he'd snapped later, hurting his girl or her kids? There's no way to prove that he WOULD have, which is the rub, isn't it?

I don't know man. We like to argue that the real problem with guns isn't guns, but rather the human condition, which we all know is true. But if a red flag law isn't the solution, what is the palatable solution from a legislative perspective? You can't make lack of morals or lack of IQ illegal.

I think if red flag laws are written very VERY carefully with a focus on mental health and means to recovery, they could *cringing slightly* "do something".

Any version of a law that permits a biased judge to sign an order on merely "hearsay" should of course be rejected. Reluctantly submitting in 3..2..1..

 

[Sevens]

I'm missing the obvious apparently.

My problem with "red flag" laws and ERPO's are when someone gets a "feeling" that another is a risk.

The subject of this article wigged out, gun in hand, and opened up a 2+ hour standiff with police.

How does this man's episode relate to any ERPO? His breakdown resulted in a incident that required his being detained by LE.

ERPO's continue to be unconstitutional nonsense.

 

[Doyle]

I'm in the middle on this. There DOES need to be a way to identify people who are in a mental state to be a threat to themselves and others. However, I don't like that it is tied as a "firearms" issue. Florida has long had the "Baker Act" whereby a doctor or relative could convince a judge that a person was unstable enough to warrant evaluation. That person could be held for a number of days (I think 3) in a mental facility where they are evaluated for mental stability. That law has been in effect for decades and I think it has been invaluable - especially in the case of young adults that were reported as unstable by their parents.

 

[thallub]

So the guy received a DUI, fought with his girlfriend then went off the deep end, shooting and endangering first responders.

Revoke his firearms rights for life.


Who may initiate an extreme order of protection:

.California: Family, household members and law enforcement
•Colorado: Family, household members and law enforcement
•Connecticut: One state attorney or any two police officers
•Delaware: Family, household members and law enforcement
•District of Columbia: Family, household members, mental health professionals and law enforcement
•Florida: Law enforcement
•Hawaii: Family, household members, teachers, medical professionals, coworkers and law enforcement
•Illinois: Family, household members and law enforcement
•Indiana: Law enforcement
•Maryland: Family, household members, certain health professionals and law enforcement
•Massachusetts: Family, household members and law enforcement
•Nevada: Family, household members and law enforcement
•New Jersey: Family, household members and law enforcement
•New York: Family, household members, school administrators and law enforcement
•Oregon: Family, household members and law enforcement
•Rhode Island: Law enforcement
•Vermont: State attorneys or the office of the state attorney general
•Washington: Family, household members and law enforcement

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-red-flag-laws-and-which-states-have-implemented-them/

Many states have long had provisions in their state laws for confiscating firearms. Oklahoma has an Extreme Order Of Protection mostly aimed at stalkers and wife/girlfriend beaters. If the judge checks block ten of the order the perps guns are gone.

 

[DockRock]

The ERPO seems rather superfluous in this case. He violated Springfield's public nuisance ordinance (II ~ 7.26) and discharged a firearm while in a stand off with police. Vermont has traditionally not heavily regulated firearms, but discharge in proximity to a public road has always been prohibited, so that may be a further violation of the law.

 

[MarkA]

My problem with "red flag" laws and ERPO's are when someone gets a "feeling" that another is a risk.

I don't disagree at all, which is why I was saying 'worded very carefully' as to not enable these slippery slope kind of rulings. What, in the collective opinion, could justify an ERPO then? We carry guns in case (insert scenario).. we keep fire extinguishers in case of fire even though most have never needed to use one.. we could justify an ERPO because [????]

The subject of this article wigged out, gun in hand, and opened up a 2+ hour standoff with police.

Perhaps this and a few other scenarios would be all that's needed, again, with careful consideration of potential exploitation.

 

[zukiphile]

A man who is arrested after screaming at and threatening people with a gun, shooting at them, and threatening suicide doesn't need a red flag law.

He can be arrested, and involuntarily held for observation. He committed a misdemeanor, and can be prohibited from possessing firearms during his sentence, which can be up to six months.

The RFL added nothing useful to this case.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Many years before my state enacted its red flag law, I walked into the shop at my local range one day and found, on the landing right inside the entrance door, a HUGE gun safe. I asked the owner if he had bought out someone's estate. Nope. One of his regular customers had a restraining order filed against him, so he had to surrender his guns. The local PD wasn't in a position to take custody of that many firearms and be responsible for their condition, so they worked out a deal where the entire gun safe, with all the guns, would be held at the range until the restraining order either expried, or the guy had to sell the guns.

The safe sat there for quite some time and then, one day, it was gone.

These so-called "Emergency" Protective Orders aren't necessary. I think every state has always had the ability to separate someone who is a genuine threat, to himself or to others, from his firearms. The big deal with the red flag orders is that (by design) they do an end run around due process.

 

[MTT TL]

I think every state has always had the ability to separate someone who is a genuine threat, to himself or to others, from his firearms. The big deal with the red flag orders is that (by design) they do an end run around due process.

This is not true around here. I can think several cases in my state where the person presented with apparent mental issues such as visual and auditory hallucinations and extreme paranoia. Later then went on a rampage where people were shot. The first apparent crime being shooting people.

Taking their guns wouldn't have worked though. In most of the US all you need to buy a gun is money and a cell phone. Taking their guns would just mean them going out and getting another.

Another issue is that within my state is that felons are generally not prohibited persons. The felony has to be violent. I know they are in violation of Federal Law but the state and locals give two whiffs about Federal Law. It is not all unusual to see well armed gang members on social media who are not in violation of State or Local laws. If the police can't keep the guns out of the hands of people running a criminal enterprise there is no way they can keep some random guy with mental illness from having a gun.

 

[zukiphile]

This is not true around here. I can think several cases in my state where the person presented with apparent mental issues such as visual and auditory hallucinations and extreme paranoia. Later then went on a rampage where people were shot. The first apparent crime being shooting people.

I don't know the state in which you are located, but I doubt your conclusion. Procedures for limiting the rights of the incompetent are present in each of the other states in which I've had matters (admittedly not every state and I find Louisiana confusing). If your state doesn't have an involuntary commitment process, what do they do with their craziest people?

I don't doubt there have been problems of the kind you describe and local to you, it's just that those events shouldn't suggest that your local authorities lacked laws to deal with these people.

Parkland happened in FL, which has a red flag law.

 

[MTT TL]

If your state doesn't have an involuntary commitment process, what do they do with their craziest people?

There is an involuntary commitment process. Having extreme paranoia and hallucinations does not meet the state requirements for commitment.

No matter what the behavior may be, if it is even the smallest amount drug induced than the person will not be getting committed or even see a mental health professional. They may get arrested and briefly go to jail if the behavior warrants a PI charge but even that likely won't happen as the PI law here is quite concise. Being intoxicated does not warrant removal of firearms based upon the legal code either.

Parkland happened in FL, which has a red flag law.

Yeah, there was a massive system wide law enforcement failure there. From how everything was handled right up to the shooting and after the shooting started.

 

[zukiphile]

Being intoxicated does not warrant removal of firearms based upon the legal code either.

Just to be clear, it shouldn't.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This is not true around here. I can think several cases in my state where the person presented with apparent mental issues such as visual and auditory hallucinations and extreme paranoia. Later then went on a rampage where people were shot. The first apparent crime being shooting people.

No doubt such incidents have occurred ... in your state, and in other states. The fact that such incidents have occurred in no way demonstrates that the laws of the state didn't provide mechanisms that could have been (but were not) used to disarm the individual and possibly to have him (or her) committed to a treatment facility.

Taking their guns wouldn't have worked though. In most of the US all you need to buy a gun is money and a cell phone. Taking their guns would just mean them going out and getting another.

This is true under existing laws pertaining to restraining orders, and it will be true after the enactment of new "red flag" laws. We had a case not far from me a number of years ago in which a couple were going through an acrimonious divorce. There was a restraining order in place against the husband. The wife went to an outdoor summer concert in the plaza at the center of town. The husband walked up behind her and shot her in the head, killing her.

About the same time there was another incident, involving another couple. Same deal. Wife had a restraining order against the husband. Husband was stalking her. At some point, he used his pickup truck to cut her off in traffic. He then got out of his truck, walked over to her car, and shot her.

Restraining/protective orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Why anyone thinks another type of restraining order, with a fancy new name that includes the word "EMERGENCY" so everyone will know how urgently important it is, will have any different results is a mystery to me.

 

[USNRet93]

How about..'threatening people, screaming about threatening people, threatening to commit suicide'..all documented, filmed, and arrested..he's released later after calming down..then a week later wants to buy a gun...????

Or he owns lots of guns already..do nothing?

How about the political zealot, who actively posts on 'social media' about committing mayhem...and is known to local authorities..

And next week he walks into a LGS and wants to buy a AR type weapon and 1000 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines..or owns an AR and lotsa ammo already...

Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..NOT saying RFL good or bad BUT some, I think, assume a RFL means all guns seized permanently after a girlfriend complains about a boyfriend, type thing.

 

[kmw1954]

Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..

Love this part. Let's have to hire an attorney and then go defend ourselves in court, then rehire said attorney to go back to court to regain seized personal property. Just how much is this going to cost? As much as some peoples seized guns? More than the value of some peoples guns to were they will not hire an attorney to go back to court to regain their property?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..NOT saying RFL good or bad BUT some, I think, assume a RFL means all guns seized permanently after a girlfriend complains about a boyfriend, type thing.

I haven't read the Vermont or Colorado version, but from your description it sounds like the RFL my state adopted. The problem is that the initial application for the "Emergency!!!!!" protective order is ex parte ... which means that the schlubb whose guns and rights are at risk isn't informed of the complaint, isn't informed of the hearing, and therefore has no representation or opportunity to defend himself (or herself). His or her first notice may be when the police show up at the door with an order to confiscate all his/her firearms.

So then, after the guns are gone, there will be a hearing (in my state, I believe it's within two weeks ... during which time the schlubb is unarmed and deprived of his/her means of self defense), at which the schlubb may appear and try to argue why he/she is not a threat, and why his/her firearms should be returned. The process is bucking a stacked deck.

Yes, I understand that you can point to one case of a guy who is standing in the street naked, screaming about how he's going to kill every ___ he sees, and you say, 'Yeah, these nutcases need to be prevented from having weapons." I respectfully submit that for every one such case, there will be hundreds of cases in which an unhappy ex-significant other (wife/husband/BF/GF/spurned stalker) conjures up a fictitious complaint as a means of harassment or revenge. And, since many of these cases come down to he said/she said, and we're in the era of "She must be believed," trying to show a judge who has already been convinced that you're so dangerous your guns had to be taken away instantly, before you even appeared before him/her that you're actually not the bad guy your schizophrenic ex- portrayed you as can be a difficult, uphill battle.

That's the problem. These red flag laws turn due process on its ear.

 

[zukiphile]

How about..'threatening people, screaming about threatening people, threatening to commit suicide'..all documented, filmed, and arrested..he's released later after calming down..then a week later wants to buy a gun...????

How about it? He was arrested and a charge is pending. He made bail, so there's a judicial determination that he should be released. Is there also a competence hearing scheduled. Has he been involuntarily committed?

RFLs don't properly do anything extra in this circumstance.

Or he owns lots of guns already..do nothing?

How is already having arrested him "do[ing] nothing"?

How about the political zealot, who actively posts on 'social media' about committing mayhem...and is known to local authorities.

Like people who post about abolition of the electoral college? Obviously, those need immediate lock up.

And next week he walks into a LGS and wants to buy a AR type weapon and 1000 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines..or owns an AR and lotsa ammo already...

How many people make empty threats, vent by talking about killing their bosses, joke about killing an exec they don't like (Johnny Depp and Madonna) and don't ever act on those words?

People are going to make you feel uncomfortable. That isn't a sound basis for suspending their civil liberties.

Just for info..CO RFL starts a process, that entails temporary gun seizure, a court hearing before a judge where both parties have legal representation..NOT saying RFL good or bad BUT some, I think, assume a RFL means all guns seized permanently after a girlfriend complains about a boyfriend, type thing.

Maybe the CO law has better safeguards. The existing Ohio law, (our governor thinks we need another one), a girlfriend, neighbor or relative with a grudge can file for a CPO. If guns are confiscated by the city, they are held by people who aren't really all that happy you had any guns in the first place. Temporary in concept can be permanent in fact.


If someone is guilty of menacing or assault, he should be prosecuted for those crimes. If someone is incompetent, let's have a doc and a court do their jobs. "What about something that might not turn out well?" is a construction that will strip the rights of those not politically situated to defend themselves.

 

[sigarms228]

I am totally against these red flag laws BUT since other objects have also been used in murders and mass killings such as motor vehicles, knives, gasoline and blunt objects like hammers and bats why are they not specified in the red flag laws also and instead of just firearms?

 

[MTT TL]

I am totally against these red flag laws BUT since other objects have also been used in murders and mass killings such as motor vehicles, knives, gasoline and blunt objects like hammers and bats why are they not specified in the red flag laws also and instead of just firearms?

Guns are the more frequently used tool then all the rest combined. You can get it done with the others but the gun has proven itself as the best tool for the job time and again.

How about the political zealot, who actively posts on 'social media' about committing mayhem...and is known to local authorities.

Depending upon where he lives these days he will be getting arrested.

How many people make empty threats, vent by talking about killing their bosses, joke about killing an exec they don't like (Johnny Depp and Madonna) and don't ever act on those words?

A lot fewer than there used to be. In my state the school violence laws are pretty specific. Intent no longer matters. Making a joke about shooting people will get you a visit by the police and suspended from school at a minimum.

 

[mehavey]

"...after the guns are gone, there will be a hearing (in my state, I believe it's within two weeks ... during which time the schlubb is unarmed and deprived of his/her means of self defense), at which the schlubb may appear and try to argue why he/she is not a threat.... "

OOC, is the man ever informed of the charges/basis of the charges,
and the specifics that he must defend himself against (in your state)?

Or is a non-specific Red Queen thrown down, and he has no idea of
the underlying cards?