Steve Dickerson (R-Nashville) to Introduce Red Flag Bill

[sigmtnman]

On 12/3/2018 at 10:51 AM, Chucktshoes said:

As always, the devil is in the details. Developing a process where there is true due process to determine if someone is a danger isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ideally it would work in conjunction with adjustments to involuntary psychiatric hold laws to make it easier to get help for folks that need it while at the same time providing for a way for folks to have their rights reinstated after a period of time of improved mental health. Many psychiatric disturbances are temporary in nature and the laws should recognize that.

An acquaintance of mine framed this in what I think is a near perfect manner. “If we viewed these mass shooting incidents as suicide in want of company, we might actually make some progress.” He was right. As gun owners we can’t say “this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.” Then bury our heads in the sand and do nothing about addressing mental health issues. I don’t know that the bill being introduced by Dickerson is a good one or not, but I do think that as a state level action, there is the chance to actually make it a quality piece of workable law, and failing that tank it for cause and be vocal about why it wasn’t good legislation. This is a moment where movement will be made on these types of laws whether we like it or not. At the state level, we can make it a good law or we can eat a bad one. It’s up to us to choose.

 

 

 

**I just encouraged civic engagement with lawmakers, do y’all know how bitter of a taste that leaves in my mouth? What’s the world coming to?**

 

The problem with due process around mental health is that everyone is crazy, so who is going to be the judge? "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society".

[asu174]

I’ve seen orders of protection issued on more than one occasion by angry ex-wives after false accusations of “fear” and “abuse” and watched gun buddies go through living hell having their guns need to all be moved elsewhere until they could get that settled.  Some of them were FFLs or SOTs and lost their businesses and reputations in the process.  

One of my closest friends from where I came from who is in the industry lived under constant blackmail and extortion from a disgruntled ex that she would get his guns taken away unless he did “x” (pay her, get back together, stop seeing other people, pay her...pay her).

This is more than a slippery slope.  It’s the above scenario now open to anyone who doesn’t like you or wants to see your guns out of your hands...or see you get hurt or killed in the process of an attempted confiscation.  

No compromises.  

[bersaguy]

Quote

 

I just think Red Flag laws do more harm than good. Anyone that does not like you for any reason can file a complaint and get your guns taken away before any Due Process has taken place in court. I think there should be very strict guidelines in which a complaint can be filed. Then I think it should be required that the Accused and Complaintant should be required to face each other in a court of law and the complaintant must prove his/her case beyond a shadow of a doubt before he can get the complaint filed. If the complaintant cannot prove their case they should be required to pay all court costs and attorneys fees for both people involved.

Knowing that they could end up losing and paying all of this may cause them to think twice before filing a false report...................JMHO 

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, asu174 said:

I’ve seen orders of protection issued on more than one occasion by angry ex-wives after false accusations of “fear” and “abuse” and watched gun buddies go through living hell having their guns need to all be moved elsewhere until they could get that settled.  Some of them were FFLs or SOTs and lost their businesses and reputations in the process.  

One of my closest friends from where I came from who is in the industry lived under constant blackmail and extortion from a disgruntled ex that she would get his guns taken away unless he did “x” (pay her, get back together, stop seeing other people, pay her...pay her).

This is more than a slippery slope.  It’s the above scenario now open to anyone who doesn’t like you or wants to see your guns out of your hands...or see you get hurt or killed in the process of an attempted confiscation.  

No compromises.  

 

55 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I just think Red Flag laws do more harm than good. Anyone that does not like you for any reason can file a complaint and get your guns taken away before any Due Process has taken place in court. I think there should be very strict guidelines in which a complaint can be filed. Then I think it should be required that the Accused and Complaintant should be required to face each other in a court of law and the complaintant must prove his/her case beyond a shadow of a doubt before he can get the complaint filed. If the complaintant cannot prove their case they should be required to pay all court costs and attorneys fees for both people involved.

Knowing that they could end up losing and paying all of this may cause them to think twice before filing a false report...................JMHO 

That will never work, and never pass. You can’t make people pay because someone might abuse the system. Police departments rely on the public to report crimes, perceived crimes, or even when they don’t know for sure if a crime is being committed. As long as they are acting in good faith there will be no repercussions; crime or not.

You won’t have a whole bunch of legal fees doing it the way I suggest; because it would be done in hours. The threat is immediate and must be dealt with immediately. You will be taken before a Judge and make your case. You could have a reasonable amount of time to contact a lawyer if you wish; but hours, not days. And it would be your responsibility to get them there.

You can’t turn a blind eye to this because a pissed off wife might lie. If she does; she can be arrested for filling a false Police report. If you can’t prove she’s lying and if she convinces a Judge you are a danger to yourself or others; you married the wrong woman didn’t you? That’s not our problem.

Police will continue to be called to acts of violence, threats of suicide, and mental cases appearing to be out of control. They are not social workers and they will continue to take the weapons based on their gut feelings about what’s going on and who is telling the truth. That is what they do now in most places I’m aware of and just saying “we don’t like this” isn’t going to cut it. If you don’t like it you need to come up with a better plan.

[Erik88]

This is how I imagine this law will work.

[asu174]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

That is what they do now in most places I’m aware of and just saying “we don’t like this” isn’t going to cut it. If you don’t like it you need to come up with a better plan.

Telling our representatives “we don’t like this” and why is exactly what I’m doing.  The law isn’t passed yet.  My plan is to say hell no.  Already emailed and called his office.  Have you?  It seems like you’ve already accepted this.  

The fact that I had to go get a “mother may I” permit to carry a gun in this state disgusts me and I’ve noticed many gun owners of TN seem to be complacent.  I overheard a conversation in a gun store by “regulars” there basically saying they wouldn’t care about an AWB because it wouldn’t affect them   

We got Constitutional Carry and guns in bars (for non-drinkers) passed in my old state.  The latest win here is “guns in trunks”.  That’s a joke.  

I know, I know...  If it was so much better where I came from, go back.  Sometimes I wish I could, but I can’t and I will leave it at that.  I do like it here.  The mindset is just totally different.

Edited December 10, 2018 by asu174

[sigmtnman]

Is due process even a thing anymore? It would appear everyone is tried in the court of public opinion these days with the media leading the prosecutions.

[E4 No More]

13 minutes ago, sigmtnman said:

Is due process even a thing anymore? It would appear everyone is tried in the court of public opinion these days with the media leading the prosecutions.

No. Heck, we even have people on this forum that don't believe in due process for everyone.

[DaveTN]

13 hours ago, asu174 said:

Telling our representatives “we don’t like this” and why is exactly what I’m doing.  The law isn’t passed yet.  My plan is to say hell no.  Already emailed and called his office.  Have you?  It seems like you’ve already accepted this.  

The fact that I had to go get a “mother may I” permit to carry a gun in this state disgusts me and I’ve noticed many gun owners of TN seem to be complacent.  I overheard a conversation in a gun store by “regulars” there basically saying they wouldn’t care about an AWB because it wouldn’t affect them   

We got Constitutional Carry and guns in bars (for non-drinkers) passed in my old state.  The latest win here is “guns in trunks”.  That’s a joke.  

I know, I know...  If it was so much better where I came from, go back.  Sometimes I wish I could, but I can’t and I will leave it at that.  I do like it here.  The mindset is just totally different.

Guns can already be removed by law enforcement in this state, only they don’t need a court to deem them dangerous to do it. Wouldn’t a law specifically defining what the Due Process will be, be a good thing?

 Accepted what? I haven’t seen a bill; I don’t see that he has proposed a bill.

You are new here, I don’t know what gun store you were in, but I think you will see here most oppose an AWB. It would impact most of us.

How is our mindset different than yours? I believe we should be able to have whatever weapons we want; including machine guns. But I also believe that you will not threaten people with violence, if you do; you will be arrested and your weapons seized. If you threaten suicide that will require law enforcement to act…period. I just support a requirement for immediate court action to determine what will happen and give you a chance to have a hearing before a Judge prior to being committed or permanently seizing weapons. A hearing days or weeks down the road is unacceptable.

[DaveTN]

33 minutes ago, sigmtnman said:

Is due process even a thing anymore? It would appear everyone is tried in the court of public opinion these days with the media leading the prosecutions.

The argument is being made that we have due process. We do, but attorneys don’t like to act fast. That is how guns are seized and held forever. Most areas have Judges on call 24 hours a day and there are very few cases of guns being seized from people that are suspected of having mental issues. There is no reason these people can’t be taken before a Judge and let them hear the evidence and witnesses. That way if it’s a crazy ex-wife; the Judge can make that call. If they determine the person obviously has issues a more in-depth hearing can be set for a later date.

If someone has a better idea… let’s hear it.

[300winmag]

I think this could potentially be another bad law used in divorce type situations with arguing spouses to get back at each other.

There are laws on the books to deal with convicted felons.  There are also laws already on the books to deal with people who are so  mentally unstable that the courts need to supervise.  I don't see a new law fixing these two issues.

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, 300winmag said:

I think this could potentially be another bad law used in divorce type situations with arguing spouses to get back at each other.

There are laws on the books to deal with convicted felons.  There are also laws already on the books to deal with people who are so  mentally unstable that the courts need to supervise.  I don't see a new law fixing these two issues.

That’s my point. What you are worried about is being done right now.

[hipower]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:19 PM, bersaguy said:

I just think Red Flag laws do more harm than good. Anyone that does not like you for any reason can file a complaint and get your guns taken away before any Due Process has taken place in court. I think there should be very strict guidelines in which a complaint can be filed. Then I think it should be required that the Accused and Complaintant should be required to face each other in a court of law and the complaintant must prove his/her case beyond a shadow of a doubt before he can get the complaint filed. If the complaintant cannot prove their case they should be required to pay all court costs and attorneys fees for both people involved.

Knowing that they could end up losing and paying all of this may cause them to think twice before filing a false report...................JMHO 

I like the idea, but I see slim chance of it happening. Some lib will say it's too time consuming and not cost effective.

[asu174]

On 12/13/2018 at 4:35 PM, DaveTN said:

That’s my point. What you are worried about is being done right now.

I see your point now.  Thanks for continuing to elaborate.  I feel like there is still a back door here, so I’m not on board, but appreciate the perspective.  

[xsubsailor]

The two things bolded in the last paragraph seem to contradict each other.

The White House School Safety Commission’s report recommends gun confiscation orders as part of an overarching response to mass shootings in gun-free schools.

Such orders, often referred to as Red Flag Laws, already exist in California, where a gunman shot and killed 11 innocents at Borderline Bar & Grill on November 7. The laws also exist in Florida, where a gunman shot and killed three at a gun-free Jacksonville mall on August 26, 2018.

On March 2, 2018, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) noted the push for red flag laws post-Parkland, saying, “Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.”

The White House School Safety Commission’s report will be released this week, and it will include calls for such confiscatory laws. On December 18, 2018, Breitbart News quoted Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s  preview of the report, saying, “Our report endorses states adoption of extreme risk protection orders, which temporarily restrict access to firearms to individuals found to be a danger to themselves or others.”

DeVos stressed that the White House wants the confiscatory orders structured in a way that is “cognizant of due process protections and respectful of Second Amendment liberties.”

 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/18/white-house-school-safety-report-recommends-gun-confiscation-orders/

[bersaguy]

Has anyone else noticed that in many of the mass shootings many if not most of them take place in States that have the strictest gun laws in the country? That in itself show prove that laws reagrdless of what state they are in don't stop the criminal element from getting guns and killing people. We don't need new and more laws. We just need the ones on the books enforced and that is not happening.

Also Law Enforcement at the Higher Levels has in many cases dropped the ball by having people on a watch list or even having the shooter in custody and releasing them and then making excuses after they go out and shoot up a crowd of innocent people.

The FBI, ATF, DHS and many other top law enforcement agencies keep telling the public, if you see something or you hear something SPEAK UP!! That has been done a couple times and was not acted upon till after the fact and people are dead. 

So until they begin acting on the laws that are on the books already quit trying to jam more laws down the throats of the American people.................JMHO

[Erik88]

28 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Has anyone else noticed that in many of the mass shootings many if not most of them take place in States that have the strictest gun laws in the country?

Respectfully, I must disagree. Parkland FL, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, TX, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc etc. None of these are states with highly restrictive gun laws. In fact, they are the opposite. Even CT wasn't that restrictive prior to Sandy Hook. Now, you could argue that most of these are gun free zones.

There are states with a lot of gun crime and loose gun laws. TN is an example. There are also states with lax gun laws that have very little crime. NH comes to mind. 

If you look at the top 10 deadliest mass shootings only 2 were in a place that has strict gun laws.

 

[bersaguy]

5 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Respectfully, I must disagree. Parkland FL, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, TX, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc etc. None of these are states with highly restrictive gun laws. In fact, they are the opposite. Even CT wasn't that restrictive prior to Sandy Hook. Now, you could argue that most of these are gun free zones.

There are states with a lot of gun crime and loose gun laws. TN is an example. There are also states with lax gun laws that have very little crime. NH comes to mind. 

If you look at the top 10 deadliest mass shootings only 2 were in a place that has strict gun laws.

 

Ok, I will give you that. You are also correct about the Gun Free Zones I also feel that is a real issue that requires attention. I have said many times that gun free zones are nothing more then killing fields and open season for a person that plans on killing a bunch of people with little to no fear of being stopped until authorities show up to stop them and in many cases recently the police have show reluctance to enter the building while the shooting it still taking place. One brave man did so and was killed but he died doing his best to save lives and for that I give him my utmost respect.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

Has anyone else noticed that in many of the mass shootings many if not most of them take place in States that have the strictest gun laws in the country? That in itself show prove that laws reagrdless of what state they are in don't stop the criminal element from getting guns and killing people. We don't need new and more laws. We just need the ones on the books enforced and that is not happening.

Also Law Enforcement at the Higher Levels has in many cases dropped the ball by having people on a watch list or even having the shooter in custody and releasing them and then making excuses after they go out and shoot up a crowd of innocent people.

The FBI, ATF, DHS and many other top law enforcement agencies keep telling the public, if you see something or you hear something SPEAK UP!! That has been done a couple times and was not acted upon till after the fact and people are dead. 

So until they begin acting on the laws that are on the books already quit trying to jam more laws down the throats of the American people.................JMHO

Doug, something is being done. People’s guns are being confiscated every day without due process. Then people want to blame them when some nut case they have contacted goes out and shoots someone. After one of these shootings, you yourself wanted to blame the cops and the mental health people because you said they had him in custody, took him in for a mental health evaluation and then let him go. From the stories I read none of that is true. Yes, the cops were called. He threatened no one; he was tearing his house up. He was not taken into custody or taken anywhere. He was detained and mental health people were called to the location. They deemed he was not a danger and left. Weeks later he went out and killed people.

Were they wrong? Was he a danger? Sure. And hindsight is 20/20. What do you think those cops and those mental health people will do the next time? They will seize all firearms and do everything can to get a mental health commitment; voluntary or otherwise. And you can’t blame them.

I may be the only one here thinking this way, but as a former cop I know confiscation is easy to do and done all the time; without any kind of due process. So I don’t see these read flag laws as a potential violation; I see them as an opportunity to legislate due process. Will that happen? Well, we don’t know because we haven’t seen what Tennessee or the Feds have in mind.

I doubt they will add due process because that would require immediate action 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I believe that is possible. But I’m sure some lawmakers will argue you can’t act that fast; you need time. You don’t need time to bring the suspect and witnesses before a judge, let them tell their stories and get either a court order or a dismissal.

This is like Domestic Violence; you can’t blame it on the cops because families can’t handle their own personal business and have to call someone that can. But in most areas they are law enforcement officers, not mental health experts.

This is going to be done. If a person threatens suicide or makes violent threats against others; action is going to be taken. That is the times we live in.

[bersaguy]

7 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Doug, something is being done. People’s guns are being confiscated every day without due process. Then people want to blame them when some nut case they have contacted goes out and shoots someone. After one of these shootings, you yourself wanted to blame the cops and the mental health people because you said they had him in custody, took him in for a mental health evaluation and then let him go. From the stories I read none of that is true. Yes, the cops were called. He threatened no one; he was tearing his house up. He was not taken into custody or taken anywhere. He was detained and mental health people were called to the location. They deemed he was not a danger and left. Weeks later he went out and killed people.

Were they wrong? Was he a danger? Sure. And hindsight is 20/20. What do you think those cops and those mental health people will do the next time? They will seize all firearms and do everything can to get a mental health commitment; voluntary or otherwise. And you can’t blame them.

I may be the only one here thinking this way, but as a former cop I know confiscation is easy to do and done all the time; without any kind of due process. So I don’t see these read flag laws as a potential violation; I see them as an opportunity to legislate due process. Will that happen? Well, we don’t know because we haven’t seen what Tennessee or the Feds have in mind.

I doubt they will add due process because that would require immediate action 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I believe that is possible. But I’m sure some lawmakers will argue you can’t act that fast; you need time. You don’t need time to bring the suspect and witnesses before a judge, let them tell their stories and get either a court order or a dismissal.

This is like Domestic Violence; you can’t blame it on the cops because families can’t handle their own personal business and have to call someone that can. But in most areas they are law enforcement officers, not mental health experts.

This is going to be done. If a person threatens suicide or makes violent threats against others; action is going to be taken. That is the times we live in.

Yea, it is going to happen for sure. I guess it just depends on how the Law is written as to how much it will effect the 2nd Amendment rights of the people and will the people file lawsuits or will they accept the laws as written. GOA is going to or already filed law suits against it and I have become a member of GOA and will have to give a lot of thought about remaining a NRA member since they don't seem to care about peoples rights any longer..........JMHO

[DaveTN]

10 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Yea, it is going to happen for sure. I guess it just depends on how the Law is written as to how much it will effect the 2nd Amendment rights of the people and will the people file lawsuits or will they accept the laws as written. GOA is going to or already filed law suits against it and I have become a member of GOA and will have to give a lot of thought about remaining a NRA member since they don't seem to care about peoples rights any longer..........JMHO

This isn’t an issue of the NRA or the GOA. However, as you said people are told “If you see something; say something”. Doing nothing will no longer be acceptable. Cops will act…period. This is going to be like the domestic violence laws; Police discretion is going to be removed.

For most families this will be a non-issue. If you have a family member that will call the cops on you; you have bigger problems than someone taking your guns.

[bersaguy]

2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

This isn’t an issue of the NRA or the GOA. However, as you said people are told “If you see something; say something”. Doing nothing will no longer be acceptable. Cops will act…period. This is going to be like the domestic violence laws; Police discretion is going to be removed.

For most families this will be a non-issue. If you have a family member that will call the cops on you; you have bigger problems than someone taking your guns.

I agree on the family member issue. I don't have that issue as I get along with everyone in my family and I don't think Darby will be calling the police on me and she is the only other resident in my house. I get along well with all my neighbors and we all help each other out when anyone is in need. Plus they are all gun owners both most of my family and all of my neighbors......JMHO  

[xsubsailor]

In this case, the red flag law seems to have both pros and cons. A possible school shooting averted and an unsuspecting relative having his guns taken away.

A middle school student in Vermont helped avert a possible school shooting after overhearing two classmates discussing bringing guns to campus, police say.

Investigators said a concerned parent from Middlebury Union Middle School called police on Saturday to inform them their child had expressed concern “over some conversation this student was privy to, where there was talk about using firearms to harm people in school.”

Middlebury Police Chief Tom Hanley told the Addison Independent on Tuesday that police and school officials immediately launched a probe into the allegation over the weekend.

“By early Monday, we had identified two people, one of whom had made a specific threat against a specific person in the school, with a date and time on when this was going to happen,” he told the newspaper.

He said the two 14-year-old students were planning to get guns from a relative and bring them to school on Tuesday.

“You had one juvenile making a very specific threat, another juvenile who was going to provide the guns for him to carry it out,” Hanley said. “There are relationship issues between all the people involved. We’re still getting through a lot of that.”

Prosecutors got an Extreme Risk Order and seized the guns from the relative's home and police got the Vermont Department for Children & Families involved.

Hanley said more than 10 weapons were confiscated from the home, largely consisting of hunting rifles and handguns. He told the Independent he doesn’t believe any semi-automatic assault rifles or shotguns were among the confiscated weapons.

The youth who allegedly wanted to do the shooting was placed in custody with DCF and is receiving mental health counseling, while the other who offered access to the weapons is awaiting possible punishment.

Their identities have not been revealed and they were indefinitely pulled from classes, the Independent reported.

Police said there is no longer a threat to the school, which serves students in grades 7 and 8 for several towns in the area.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/attentive-student-foiled-possible-school-shooting-vermont-police-say

[DaveTN]

3 minutes ago, xsubsailor said:

In this case, the red flag law seems to have both pros and cons. A possible school shooting averted and an unsuspecting relative having his guns taken away.

The “unsuspecting” relative didn’t have his house and family in order if a 14 year old that was a nut case and willing to kill someone had access to his guns. It’s a text book example of what the anti-gunners use to get laws passed making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons.

I don’t think gun owners should be held responsible for criminals breaking into their house and getting their weapons. But not allowing homicidal family members access to them is their responsibility. 

[bersaguy]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

The “unsuspecting” relative didn’t have his house and family in order if a 14 year old that was a nut case and willing to kill someone had access to his guns. It’s a text book example of what the anti-gunners use to get laws passed making gun owners responsible for securing their weapons.

I don’t think gun owners should be held responsible for criminals breaking into their house and getting their weapons. But not allowing homicidal family members access to them is their responsibility. 

You are 100% dead on here Dave. I keep most of my firearms in a locked safe. The only ones I have out are the couple I use for home protection. All of my friends and family know they are to call before stopping by and at that point I secure the house guns as well cause sometimes they have the grandkids along or a friend that I may or may not know. There is zero access to any of my firearms while they are here. I trust all of my family but kids don't know better at ages in the pre- teen ages and I don't trust any of the friends they might have with them even if I know them. No one knows anyone out side of family that good............JMHO