Well that sucks and whether a flaw of the system or application, really doesn't make much difference at that point. I think we overly burden law enforcement and in some cases, medical professionals with mental health counseling and treatment. There should be more resources available to those who suffer.
In every state in the nation, there are mechanisms with which concerned family members and/or the government can have someone declared mentally incompetent. While not every jurisdiction reports the mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS prohibited persons list, there's nothing saying they can't. Yet all we hear about is how they can't prevent mentally ill people from buying or possessing guns without these new "Red Flag" laws.
I've seen law enforcement officers on other forums supporting these types of laws, saying Due Process is afforded by the affidavit sworn to a judge and it's no different than getting a warrant on probable cause of a crime. What they fail to mention is the "Due Process" hearing is in absentia and were they actually swearing a warrant for a crime, the warrant would be denied due to lack of probable cause that a crime has been committed.
What they really want is this:
They want an easy way to circumvent the hard work of proving a case against someone, and that's borne out in Florida where they've had a Red Flag law on the books for 18 months and they've already used it some 2,500 times:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/7528...ample-for-lawmakers-considering-red-flag-laws
The big risk comes in two ways. One is where a person is flagged for removal of their rights under the law (I don't consider 12 months to be "temporary") who IS NOT an actual threat to themselves or others, has committed no crime and despite that, the mere act of being reported is enough for a judge to grant the order "out of an abundance of caution". The other risk is mistaken identity, and Florida has already had this happen:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...se-of-another-mans-criminal-activity-n2551921
In this case, this man's civil and constitutional rights have been violated by the government, and yet he will likely have no redress for damages because the sheriff's office is acting in accordance with the law. This is unconscionable and intolerable. These laws MUST be challenged and overturned all the way through the Supreme Court. The risk of abuse is far too great and is not an acceptable shortcut in protecting the public.
In every state in the nation, there are mechanisms with which concerned family members and/or the government can have someone declared mentally incompetent. While not every jurisdiction reports the mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS prohibited persons list, there's nothing saying they can't. Yet all we hear about is how they can't prevent mentally ill people from buying or possessing guns without these new "Red Flag" laws.
I've seen law enforcement officers on other forums supporting these types of laws, saying Due Process is afforded by the affidavit sworn to a judge and it's no different than getting a warrant on probable cause of a crime. What they fail to mention is the "Due Process" hearing is in absentia and were they actually swearing a warrant for a crime, the warrant would be denied due to lack of probable cause that a crime has been committed.
What they really want is this:
They want an easy way to circumvent the hard work of proving a case against someone, and that's borne out in Florida where they've had a Red Flag law on the books for 18 months and they've already used it some 2,500 times:
The big risk comes in two ways. One is where a person is flagged for removal of their rights under the law (I don't consider 12 months to be "temporary") who IS NOT an actual threat to themselves or others, has committed no crime and despite that, the mere act of being reported is enough for a judge to grant the order "out of an abundance of caution". The other risk is mistaken identity, and Florida has already had this happen:
Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity
In this case, this man's civil and constitutional rights have been violated by the government, and yet he will likely have no redress for damages because the sheriff's office is acting in accordance with the law. This is unconscionable and intolerable. These laws MUST be challenged and overturned all the way through the Supreme Court. The risk of abuse is far too great and is not an acceptable shortcut in protecting the public.
My biggest issue with this is who gets to determine threat. Within the past 12 months, anyone hesitating to submit their child to 2 rounds of vax were deemed equivocal to domestic terrorists. I dont care either way on people's beliefs on the vax, but wanted to point out how extremely fluid the definition of a "threat to society and/or themselves" can be. Unless someone wants to nail it down to such specific terms that there will never be any room for contesting or changing the definition of what merits invoking a red flag review on someone, I am not interested in giving a moment of my time to even entertain the brain storming session.
