Red Flag or Red Coat Laws?

[P5 Guy]

Own guns off the record if you want to retain guns for life. Do not store all guns in one location, do not store guns all in your home or storage or family member's place or friend or girlfriend etc that they will be searching if they want to search your stuff as that is where they will assume you have other things.
At the same time once they confiscate or want some of your guns, ever being found or seen with your others they missed will be a crime. Lying about them will be a crime (and the 5th has pretty much been destroyed by case law now too so remaining silent is often a crime now too), being found will be a crime, etc At that point they are not really good for much beyond offensive use. So even then your ability to defend yourself or your family is compromised.

They will be coming for guns. This is not some paranoid imagined scenario, it is what half the presidential candidates are promising to do.
They are coming at the individual level, and they are coming at the macro level too. They will be putting a variety of helper laws from universal registration/background checks, and banning private transfers, and many other things to reduce how many firearms they do not know about and making any method of obtaining or owning guns they do not know about illegal. Various states have started to even outlaw making your own firearm off the books, 'ghost guns' they have been termed, even though it was an American tradition since our founding.


Red flag laws remove your RKBA. You have no right to keep, and no right to bear those arms, and they can be seized easier than most other property under red flag laws.
The only property the government is specifically forbidden from infringing on beyond a generality has become the easiest of all property to take away from you.
Whether temporarily or permanently. It is also the only property you can become forbidden from owning for life for an increasing number of offenses. Originally being serious felonies we would recognize as violent crime and over time including an increasing number of offenses that were not violent and later even misdemeanors and now even easier than that. How far we have fallen just since 1968.
California even made a special task force for checking up on anyone that becomes prohibited and confiscating their firearms as they look to add new things to prohibit an increasing number of people. Registration of firearms is what makes this possible.

If I wanted to think of some precedent a court would use for taking guns from people even before a crime, the closest I could think of would be asset forfeiture laws they started using in the 1980s War on Drugs. In case you are unaware, at the federal level and in many states you do not need to be convicted of anything for the government to seize and take permanent possession of property they say meets certain criteria under those laws, and then it is up to you to prove you are not guilty to even have a shot at an uphill battle to get it back. Guilty unless you prove yourself innocent, and they win by default. So they have been accustomed to and doing what would amount to unlawful taking under the Constitution for a good part of their budget for some decades now.
Most of society just did not take notice because like all of the laws that eventually ruin the lives of everyone, they start out targeting people we all agree are bad news.
In California they just greatly reduced asset forfeiture by requiring a conviction in 2016, and also added a law even more recently to prevent local law enforcement from helping the feds and splitting the profits like they started doing to get around the initial law requiring a conviction. Because at the federal level they still require no conviction to permanently take people's property. One of the few things California has done right in recent times.
Imagine that, needing to convict people to even punish them, clearly it never should have been Constitutional to start..
So make no mistake the government actually has decades of experience of just taking peoples' things. Most simply chose to think the end justified the means and ignore it, it was targeting mainly drug dealers after all.

A better term for these laws might be Red Coat laws.
I seem to recall the redcoats wanting to take by force some colonist arms to prevent them from causing trouble they had yet to cause starting the revolution that started our nation.
If they need to destroy the 4th, 5th, or various other Amendments to remove the 2nd they will. All while they will claim to be preserving and working within the framework of them all.

But really you cannot blame them. The Democrat method of taking over the nation is to give the nation to a foreign population, as was done with California in just a few decades. They know the second and often third generation descendants of poor immigrants vote for the handout party that promises not to enforce immigration. Even though half the reason they need a handout is by letting in so many people the cost of living has skyrocketed to require subsidies for poor people to even pay their bills in the states they let foreigners flood in by the millions. All while in just a few decades the demographics have changed from the populations that made up and built America to primarily those of new arrivals they are turning our nation over too. We are one of the easiest nations to invade and conquer. You just don't put on a uniform and use weapons as our military would crush you, instead you put on civilian clothes and come in unarmed by the millions and demand better treatment. But after giving huge swathes of the nation to a foreign culture, while promoting and encouraging negative subcultures as cultural heritage, they don't really trust them with arms, while not wanting those opposed to them armed either. Like children or wealth producing livestock that must be taken care of, and not allowed freedoms they could get hurt with or determine their own fate with.

[Chigger]

[Firemedic2000]

P5 has a point. It's not tin foil hat politics. Tell me when laws similar to this have not been abused by a CORRUPT agency/local governments in history.

Once laws like this are in place. All it's going to take is the change of power. With that change of power comes change in ideas.

Example imagine if the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST EXTREMISTS PARTY were to win most states, gain control of the HOUSE, SENATE and PRESIDENCY.

Red Flag laws by local DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST EXTREMISTS PARTY GOVERNMENTS that are antigun I believe would be highly abused and used as a gun control weapon.

Once the GOVERNMENT crosses the line in stealing/violating our rights, AMERICAN'S RIGHTS.
Notice how they do not like giving up that power over AMERICANS.

I promise you once and if the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST EXTREMISTS PARTY gain control you will see this law CORRUPTED and abused. Used as an antigun/gun control tool to disarm AMERICANS.

To be honest if the DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST EXTREMISTS PARTY were to gain power overall branches of the government. The RED FLAG law would be the least of our worries. They could at that point just pass new antigun laws.

Remember what Hillary stated in an interview. That POLITICAL LEADERS have a right to REGULATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. yeah right.....regulate right out of existence.

[Wakko]

Do any of you know the actual procedures for red flag laws?

[Firemedic2000]

Enough to know it's actually already been abused and innocient people have been shot for refusing to have their RIGHTS violated without probable cause. Just because a family member that may be antigun, a judge may be antigun and a top cop may be antigun.

Which there are plenty of. So if your insinuating that this law has not already been abused. Insinuating that this law can not be abused or will not be abused.

This law out right violates the BILL OF RIGHTS. If you can not see that. Then you have no idea what this law is or states.

Oh wait I just saw it wakko from South Florida never mind.

[REDinFL]

Do any of you know the actual procedures for red flag laws?

The way it's supposed to work, according to Sheriff Gualtieri (Pinellas), is upon report to the police, officers visit the subject, and make an assessment. Basically, they can ask the subject to turn in firearms pending a hearing but, supposedly they cannot seize at that level (immediate seizure would entail other circumstances). If the officer/s determined that seizure was appropriate, they would then have to request a warrant on probable cause from a judge. At that time, seizure may occur. That's the official word. How it all really goes down would be anybody's guess.

[Allme]

You must be a fudd or too stupid to realize they will for a fact come and take your sh*t. Did you make certain to pay your NRA dues also ? (eye roll). Were you aware of the 400+ guns already stolen Errr.. seized in Florida already? You understand you don't just go get them back YOU HAVE TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY to get them back. Now think about it for a moment: Guy has 3 guns, total value $1500.. Now this guy has to hire and attorney min $2500 chances are $5k) to fight to get his guns back... Now what do you think will happen? Wake up.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/07/3 ... -flag-law/

[REDinFL]

Obvious practical flaw, and there are more. The initial action can be based on just hearsay or worse, often a desire for vengeance. Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen has never talked to a divorce lawyer. Some of the sleazier ones will even advise domestic violence accusations. Something like this, with anonymity is no problem. To me, the fundamental problem is illustrated by these flaws in the law, the anonymous accusations, the expense to defend oneself, the inability to have recourse, and the low to nonexistent likelihood that the false accuser will be penalized. In a general case, any attorney would rail against such legal exposures and advise a client accordingly. Many, if not most legislators who passed this garbage were lawyers. There's the real question. Why?

[joel]

The initial action can be based on just hearsay or worse, often a desire for vengeance. Anyone who thinks that doesn't happen has never talked to a divorce lawyer. Some of the sleazier ones will even advise domestic violence accusations.

In my opinion, ALL divorce attorneys are sleazy.
It's to the point that they hand out a checklist... "follow this checklist, and your husband will be gone by the end of the month"

While hubby is watching TV, call 911
Tell them that he cursed you and threatened to assault you.
FILE A REPORT
In 3 days, call 911 again.
Tell the responding officers that your hubby not only has a raging temper, he has firearms and threatened you.
FILE A REPORT
In 2 days, call 911
Tell the officers (beware of female officers!!) that your hubby made inappropriate touching with the kids.
FILE A REPORT
Next day, call 911... screaming into the phone that your husband is a maniac and waving his firearm around.

All of this would be lies, but NOW your husband's head is spinning, he is confused, he has no clue what's going on, so he leaves the house and goes for a drive, you IMMEDIATELY change the locks and tell the cops that he abandoned the marital residence... and you're scared he will come back !!

Order of Protection and grounds for a divorce within a week all based on a script fed to you by your attorney

Yeah, they are sleazy and so crooked that they'll have to be screwed into the ground when they die.
(but, "I mean this all in a nice way" LOL)

[flcracker]

I am so relieved to have gotten divorced before this shit became law. The phony domestic violence &/or sexual assault claim was already in her playbook - I'm convinced that she was just waiting for the right time. Had red flag laws been in the books 18 months ago, I have no doubt that she would have used it against me.