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

[bersaguy]

4 hours ago, RED333 said:

The reason that scared me so much Doug was the fact you couldn't give your firearms to a family member or friend or sell them to a friend. You had to give them up to a gun shop or the police.

I say if you give the gun grabbers an inch and they will take the whole state. Red Flag Laws are not meant to work with gun owners but just to get your guns any way they can and it will be our own fault if we don't do everything we can to stop them from writing laws that benefits only them..........JMO 

[Garufa]

23 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I say if you give the gun grabbers an inch and they will take the whole state. Red Flag Laws are not meant to work with gun owners but just to get your guns any way they can and it will be our own fault if we don't do everything we can to stop them from writing laws that benefits only them..........JMO 

I hope you and everyone else takes note that it is a republican driving this bill.

[RED333]

14 hours ago, Garufa said:

I hope you and everyone else takes note that it is a republican driving this bill.

RINO for sure

[bersaguy]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 9:42 AM, RED333 said:

RINO for sure

Just because they have an R in front of their chosen party doesn't mean he/she doesn't think like they do about some things and it's evident this is one of those people and things!! 

I have been writing my elected officials and telling them to vote no to the RED FLAG bill coming up for a vote and hope to hear back from them soon.

Edited February 15, 2019 by bersaguy

[Garufa]

16 hours ago, Garufa said:

I hope you and everyone else takes note that it is a republican driving this bill.

So it appears what Dickerson has introduced is a bit different from what is currently being discussed. Rep. Johnson (D-Knoxville) and Sen. Kyle (D-Memphis are behind HB1049/SB0943)

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1049&ga=111

Here is what Dickerson's behind.  It basically covers an extreme risk protection order in which bars firearms ownership for a year.  It does not address disposition of the arms during that year (at least I didn't see anything during a quick read) :

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1178&ga=111

The Democrat bill is far more involved.  19 pages vs. four.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Garufa

[DaveTN]

Since law enforcement can already take guns without due process; I support some of these bills that lay out specifics for due process. I also support seizing guns and putting anyone in jail that threatens other people with violence. As a matter of fact those people belong in prison and would come out as convicted felons. Then any discussion about guns rights is moot.

Does that make me a RINO? 

[btq96r]

5 hours ago, RED333 said:

RINO for sure

I think it's time to recognize that actual Republicans are "government knows best" types, and those opposed to that view are on the outside of the party structure.

[RED333]

5 hours ago, btq96r said:

I think it's time to recognize that actual Republicans are "government knows best" types, and those opposed to that view are on the outside of the party structure.

We are in sad shape in the country and have been for some time.

[volshayes]

Court-Ordered Gun Seizures Spike Nationally Under Red Flag Laws

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/court-ordered-gun-seizures-spike-nationally-under-red-flag-laws/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20190215_FridayDigest_213&utm_campaign=/digest/court-ordered-gun-seizures-spike-nationally-under-red-flag-laws/

[volshayes]

From the NRA.

Tennessee: Setting the Record Straight on “Red Flag” Legislation

Recently, a representative of a Tennessee based fundraising group that purports to support the Second Amendment has been implying that the NRA supports so-called “red flag” legislation that would deny gun owners their Second Amendment rights without due process. To be clear, the NRA strongly opposes SB 1178 /HB 1446, and SB 943 /HB 1049, as well as any other so-called “red flag” bills that would deny an individual their Second Amendment rights without due process.  Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 1178. SB1178, sponsored by Senator Steven Dickerson, will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 26th. This egregious gun control bill seeks to create an avenue by which gun owners could lose their gun rights following an ex-parte hearing where the gun owner would have no opportunity to challenge the claims being made by a petitioner.  A gun owner who has an order issued against them would have no ability to transfer their firearms to a third party. Further, this bill includes vague definitions of relationships without timeframes where someone could petition for an order against someone they have not seen or lived with in 40 years.  NRA opposed similar legislation, Senate Bill 670, during the 2018 legislative session. These bills do not respect a citizen’s right to due process and the NRA strongly opposes this legislation as we always have. Again, don’t let disingenuous fundraising efforts divide Second Amendment supporters in Tennessee with erroneous claims and shallow scare tactics.

[DaveTN]

I’ll ask this again, maybe one of the forum Police Officers can answer. What is the procedure now in Tennessee if a family member calls the Police out, accuses someone in the house of threatening another person, or threatening suicide, there are guns in the house, and that person does not want them there?

I ask this question because I don’t think there is much due process in place right now. I also don’t believe that a Police Officer in the above situation is going to leave the person making threats and the guns in the house. They are either going to arrest them and seize all guns as evidence, or have them committed and seize all guns.

We live in a time where inaction by those called for help is not going to be accepted. As I have said before I think due process needs to be spelled out and needs to be required in a reasonable time frame. I consider a reasonable time frame to be a couple of days; not weeks or months.

The other issue I would have is that once the TBI or the FBI gets one of these orders; I don’t see it getting purged from the system if the order is dismissed without very specific legislation requiring those agency’s to do that. The state can require the TBI to do that, can they require the FBI to do it?

[hornett22]

On 2/14/2019 at 10:42 AM, RED333 said:

RINO for sure

Tennessee's specialty

[hornett22]

On 2/14/2019 at 3:25 PM, DaveTN said:

Since law enforcement can already take guns without due process; I support some of these bills that lay out specifics for due process. I also support seizing guns and putting anyone in jail that threatens other people with violence. As a matter of fact those people belong in prison and would come out as convicted felons. Then any discussion about guns rights is moot.

Does that make me a RINO? 

I don't think so if due process is adhered to. Law interpretation and adherence seems to vary by judge and geography. We've had judges in Knoxville who made up their own rules. One retired. Not sure his replacement is different.

[turd]

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, hornett22 said:

I don't think so if due process is adhered to. Law interpretation and adherence seems to vary by judge and geography. We've had judges in Knoxville who made up their own rules. One retired. Not sure his replacement is different.

But that’s my point, aren’t these laws attempting to create due process? Its been a lot of years since I was a Police Officer, but due process was whatever I decided it o be at the time. Things are worse now, cops aren’t going to leave someone in their home with guns after they had made threats; the liability is too high. We just a case a few months ago where that happened, the result was several people dead. Some here blamed the cops and the social workers called to the scene for not making an arrest or taking the guns. Yet some of them also say the Red Flag laws are a violation of their rights. You can't have it both ways; and it isn't going to be. There was not good grounds for making an arrest; there was grounds for taking the guns. The cops and the social workers failed. Would it have made a difference in the final outcome? Who knows.  But I’m sure that is impacting cops and mental health workers decisions all over the country.

I understand that some people are afraid family members may lie. That may well happen, but that is a situation they created. I’m not supporting any specific piece of legislation. I’m just saying that due process should be immediate and the accused should have a right to be heard immediately and if a decision is made they are not a threat; their guns returned. People think they can lie to cops and get away with it. (Many don’t understand filing a false Police report is a crime; usually a felony.)  They are less likely to lie under oath, and more of the story can be heard when the accused is allowed to testify and ask questions of their accusers.

I have zero tolerance for someone that threatens another person. And when that happens; they lose their guns. But that is what happens now and in many cases when the accusers don’t show up for a hearing or the court determines there is no real threat; the accused have a hard time getting their guns back, if they ever do. That isn’t right.

[hornett22]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

But that’s my point, aren’t these laws attempting to create due process? Its been a lot of years since I was a Police Officer, but due process was whatever I decided it o be at the time. Things are worse now, cops aren’t going to leave someone in their home with guns after they had made threats; the liability is too high. We just a case a few months ago where that happened, the result was several people dead. Some here blamed the cops and the social workers called to the scene for not making an arrest or taking the guns. Yet some of them also say the Red Flag laws are a violation of their rights. You can't have it both ways; and it isn't going to be. There was not good grounds for making an arrest; there was grounds for taking the guns. The cops and the social workers failed. Would it have made a difference in the final outcome? Who knows.  But I’m sure that is impacting cops and mental health workers decisions all over the country.

I understand that some people are afraid family members may lie. That may well happen, but that is a situation they created. I’m not supporting any specific piece of legislation. I’m just saying that due process should be immediate and the accused should have a right to be heard immediately and if a decision is made they are not a threat; their guns returned. People think they can lie to cops and get away with it. (Many don’t understand filing a false Police report is a crime; usually a felony.)  They are less likely to lie under oath, and more of the story can be heard when the accused is allowed to testify and ask questions of their accusers.

I have zero tolerance for someone that threatens another person. And when that happens; they lose their guns. But that is what happens now and in many cases when the accusers don’t show up for a hearing or the court determines there is no real threat; the accused have a hard time getting their guns back, if they ever do. That isn’t right.

That was my point. My ex pulled a restraining order on me. I NEVER got a chance to give my side. Not even with a lawyer. She then violated the terms of her restraining order on me. No one wanted to hear about it. It was all bogus. 

Seems they pass all these laws but no one follows them in the Just Us system. 

[ohell]

On 3/24/2019 at 9:53 AM, DaveTN said:

But that’s my point, aren’t these laws attempting to create due process? Its been a lot of years since I was a Police Officer, but due process was whatever I decided it o be at the time. Things are worse now, cops aren’t going to leave someone in their home with guns after they had made threats; the liability is too high. We just a case a few months ago where that happened, the result was several people dead. Some here blamed the cops and the social workers called to the scene for not making an arrest or taking the guns. Yet some of them also say the Red Flag laws are a violation of their rights. You can't have it both ways; and it isn't going to be. There was not good grounds for making an arrest; there was grounds for taking the guns.........

Your entire argument is focused around firearm confiscation and that is one of the flaws.  If the person is a problem, that should be dealt with under existing laws.  A firearm is just one tool in the toolbox. What to do with the rest of the toolbox? You willing to remove every item?  If so, what’s left? Armless, naked man in a wheat field. Yep, that’s safe. Goal achieved.  

For suicide devices, that’s also a long list of readily available items and a little more eccentric ones like hopping off the Natchez trace bridge which is listed on popular suicide bridges. maybe we need a state bill to dismantle or put 20’ tall barb wire along sides.  

It’s a bandaid law from my perspective .......... The only winner is the bandaid seller.

If it passes, those falsely accused should have property returned, rights restored and the person petitioning the state along with the state be held liable for deformation and expenses to right this hearsay incitement  will this happen, doubt it.  

Petition to have this tabled in TN. Let’s find a logical solution and not implement legislation through herd mentality. 

[DaveTN]

7 hours ago, ohell said:

Your entire argument is focused around firearm confiscation and that is one of the flaws.  If the person is a problem, that should be dealt with under existing laws.  A firearm is just one tool in the toolbox. What to do with the rest of the toolbox? You willing to remove every item?  If so, what’s left? Armless, naked man in a wheat field. Yep, that’s safe. Goal achieved.  

For suicide devices, that’s also a long list of readily available items and a little more eccentric ones like hopping off the Natchez trace bridge which is listed on popular suicide bridges. maybe we need a state bill to dismantle or put 20’ tall barb wire along sides.  

It’s a bandaid law from my perspective .......... The only winner is the bandaid seller.

If it passes, those falsely accused should have property returned, rights restored and the person petitioning the state along with the state be held liable for deformation and expenses to right this hearsay incitement  will this happen, doubt it.  

Petition to have this tabled in TN. Let’s find a logical solution and not implement legislation through herd mentality. 

You haven’t read all my comments or you would see that I’m not arguing for confiscation. I’m saying that if someone says you are threatening them with a firearm or threatening suicide; you are going to have your guns confiscated….period.  

If you want to oppose laws laying out specific due process with time limits; that’s fine, stick with the existing laws. I don’t know for sure what they are in Tennessee, but I know where I was it would have resulted in confiscation of your guns with little chance of getting them back. I suspect it may be the same here.

I sold a gun to a man here. The gun was stolen from his home in a burglary. The gun was recovered and the burglar arrested. The case went to trial and the DA had this man testify that the gun was owned by him and was stolen from his home. The burglar was convicted. The man contacted me and needed another copy of his bill of sale. After having the man testify as to ownership and using that at trial, the DA would not return the gun to the victim of a burglary until he showed proof of ownership. Does that sound like a DA that is going to return a gun to anyone unless he is forced to do so? That would have never happened to a victim where I was; but it happened here.

That story has nothing to do with Red Flag issues, but it shows that some DA’s don’t even want to return a gun to a legal owner that is a victim of a crime.

I don’t think there is due process now, I know there isn’t in some states, and if a piece of legislation lays out procedures and time frames; it may be worth looking at instead of blanketly rejecting it because it is seen as allowing confiscation, confiscation that already exists.

I’ve seized guns in domestic violence cases and seen them seized in mental health cases. The chances of those people getting guns back was slim to none.

[Worriedman]

On 3/22/2019 at 7:22 AM, DaveTN said:

We live in a time where inaction by those called for help is not going to be accepted. As I have said before I think due process needs to be spelled out and needs to be required in a reasonable time frame. I consider a reasonable time frame to be a couple of days; not weeks or months.

 

Did I miss the revocation of Qualified Immunity?

[DaveTN]

28 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

Did I miss the revocation of Qualified Immunity?

Failure to act on a valid complaint won’t be covered by Qualified Immunity. Not to mention the guilt most would feel for someone being allowed to commit murder because they failed to act. Who wants to go through that?

[Worriedman]

So, if a guy is getting out of jail and tells his ex wife he is coming to kill her, and she calls LE they have to act now?

If under the new governor, a felon is released and causes harm, is the governor responsible?

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

3 hours ago, Worriedman said:

So, if a guy is getting out of jail and tells his ex wife he is coming to kill her, and she calls LE they have to act now?

It’s domestic violence and aggravated assault if he makes that threat with a deadly weapon. I would have felony charges on him and do what I could to find him and arrest him. Or, I would have to be able to articulate why I failed to act.

3 hours ago, Worriedman said:

If under the new governor, a felon is released and causes harm, is the governor responsible?

I don't know what the rules are for the Governor. Did the felon tell the Governor he was going to cause harm when he gets released; and was that threat creditable?

Point is… sure you are going to find cops that will walk away or wring their hands about what to do. But I doubt you will find many.

 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

If you don't have any penalty for false reporting then this will simply be used as harassment of legal gun owners.

Implement a $100 fee for filing the report that is refunded to the filer if the person is found to be a danger but a $1,000 penalty (or even better DOUBLE the accused person's legal fees) and a month in jail to the filer if the person is found to NOT be a danger. That will most likely limit false reporting. 

If there is no penalty for false filing then why not go ahead and file on the people who vote for the law right off the bat? If there is no penalty for it you might as well go ahead and show them what the rest of us will live in fear of having happen when someone looks to settle a grudge by doing this and saying you are a "danger"..... If THEY have to deal with the horrible unintended consequences of the law then they might realize that it is not a good law. 

Take a look at the ludicrous stuff that the Colorado "Red Flag" law allows and you'll see why IF this is going to happen it needs to be CAREFULLY crafted and require more than just a word from someone who "knows you" saying you are a danger and need your gun confiscated. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Cruel Hand Luke

[ohell]

If a spineless pro2A organization like NRA is against it,  it’s a bad bill for pro2A supporters.   If the bill takes firearm, ammunition and firearm accessories sounds a little overkill.  Two of these items don’t require background check in this state so it is a firearm grabber bill.  If you think a person deserves to have rights taken away when there isn’t enough evidence to arrest the person, you are not in favor of a free society.  

Google says on average 28 people die a day from alcohol related vehicle incidents. Because this doesn’t occur in one spot twice a year, not a big issue for media to sensationalize and rally feel good social media legislation groups. Only used on slow days.  Don’t be a hypocrite!  If this bill passes, no reason we shouldn’t have a bill to confiscate the vehicle from a person that likes to drink alcohol until it’s proven the alcohol and vehicle are never used together.  Let’s make it automatic and use credit card information to monitor alcohol purchases. That will make it safer!  Click my like button so state legislatures will support us in lowering alcohol related deaths  

There are compromises, risks....to live in what freedom we have. I’m ok with it even if a drunk driver or mass shooter takes me out tomorrow. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by ohell

[Worriedman]

Dickerson is going to voluntarily place his version in General Sub, so it is dead for the this year.  A staffer for a well known anti-gun State Senator told me yesterday that she has never received the number of calls against a bill, ever.