And just like that Trumpers started supporting red flag laws......

PsyOps

Pixelated
Here's the highlights of Indiana's redflag law.
This is how redflag laws should be written.

Quick Reference Guide - IC 35-47-14
Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm
**The foregoing information is provided by the Indiana State Police Legal Staff to assist their
officers with application of this procedure. This is intended as a summary and quick reference, and
should not be construed as a substitute for consulting the applicable statute(s) and local prosecutor
and Department attorneys.
DANGEROUS PERSON (IC 35-47-14-1)
- An individual who presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to
another individual; or
- An individual who may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another
individual in the future and the individual:
o Has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by
medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently
taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
o Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief
that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
WITH A WARRANT (IC 35-47-14-2)
  • Apply to circuit or superior court with jurisdiction
  • Prepare sworn affidavit that:
o States why the law enforcement officer believes that the individual is dangerous and
in possession of a firearm; and
o Describes the law enforcement officer's interactions and conversations with:
 the individual who is alleged to be dangerous; or
 another individual, if the law enforcement officer believes that information
obtained from this individual is credible and reliable;
o The affidavit specifically describes the location of the firearm
- If a court issued a warrant to seize a firearm, the officer must file return within forty-eight
(48) hours after the warrant was served that:
o Date and time served
o The name and address of the individual named in the warrant;
o The quantity and description of any firearms seized. (IC 35-47-14-4)
WITHOUT A WARRANT (35-47-14-3)
  • If weapons are seized during the normal course of law enforcement duties
  • If person is believed to be dangerous (as defined above), submit a written statement to the
court of jurisdiction describing basis for belief
- Court reviews statement and may order firearms retained or released
AFTER FIREARMS ARE SEIZED
  • Court holds a hearing within 14 days. (IC 35-47-14-5)
  • Notification to individual from whom the firearm was seized and prosecutor
  • Court determines by clear and convincing evidence if person is dangerous and firearms
should be retained (IC 35-47-14-6)
  • If retained, law enforcement agency keeps firearm until further order of the court.
  • Court shall also order License to carry handgun suspended. (IC 35-47-14-6(b))
o Notify ISP Firearms to insure this is completed
RETURN OF FIREARMS (IC 35-47-14-8)
  • Person may petition for return after at least 180 days
  • If denied at that hearing, must wait at least another 180 days
  • If five years have passed, hearing may be held to destroy or permanently dispose of
firearms (IC 35-47-14-9)
SALE OF FIREARM (IC 35-47-14-10)
- After order for retention, Person may petition for an order directing LE agency to sell
firearm with proceeds (minus 8% administrative costs) to go to individual.
This is unacceptable. We're talking someone who is deemed to be dangerous, but has committed no crime. Deeming someone dangerous is very subjective. While I may find someone throwing stuff out of their house because they and their spouse got in an argument, someone else might think the opposite. The constitution does not mention that part of due process is considering someone 'dangerous'. Exhibiting dangerous behavior is not a crime. Doing dangerous things that result in the destruction of property or injury to a person (and in many cases animals), is a crime.

Because determining someone with dangerous behavior is so subjective, this opens the door for people to ruin other peoples' lives simply because they don't like them. Case-in-point - Trump. A damn-lot of people believe Trump is dangerous. Is he a 'red flag' candidate?
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
This is unacceptable. We're talking someone who is deemed to be dangerous, but has committed no crime. Deeming someone dangerous is very subjective. While I may find someone throwing stuff out of their house because they and their spouse got in an argument, someone else might think the opposite. The constitution does not mention that part of due process is considering someone 'dangerous'. Exhibiting dangerous behavior is not a crime. Doing dangerous things that result in the destruction of property or injury to a person (and in many cases animals), is a crime.

Because determining someone with dangerous behavior is so subjective, this opens the door for people to ruin other peoples' lives simply because they don't like them. Case-in-point - Trump. A damn-lot of people believe Trump is dangerous. Is he a 'red flag' candidate?
I don't believe that I've posted that I'm a Pro Red Flag person....
I just posted the highlights of Indianas Law.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
Well, no. You stated that "This is how redflag laws should be written". What am I supposed to interpret that?
Would you rather have No due Process involved or Due Process included in the law?
Red Flags are here.......Like it or not.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Well, no. You stated that "This is how redflag laws should be written". What am I supposed to interpret that?
Exactly the way I did. That he supports Indiana’s law. Not to mention he has gone on for pages defending this law as providing due process.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Would you rather have No due Process involved or Due Process included in the law?
Red Flags are here.......Like it or not.
There is no due process in revoking someone's constitutional rights when they've committed no crime.

I'll choose 'NOT'!
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
Bwhahahaha

All red flag laws have due process after the fact, Indiana is no different. You really are a sheep
HAHAHA,,, No they dont dumbass....
You live in Maryland, Under huge 2nd Amendment restrictions and I'm a sheep... Think I'll go and buy another handgun tomorrow and take it home with me, maybe from a FFL or maybe a private transfer...And stop in the PD while open carrying. Something YOU in MD will never be able to do.
Did I mention Indiana next June, has 5 yr carry permits at NO COST for residents and bypass NICS......
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
There is no due process in revoking someone's constitutional rights when they've committed no crime.

I'll choose 'NOT'!
Thats not what I said, theses laws are coming everywhere. And again I never posted I agree with them, we sure put lots of folks in State Mental Institutions for a long time. Open them back up, there was not alot of shootings going on when we were growing up.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
HAHAHA,,, No they dont dumbass....
You live in Maryland, Under huge 2nd Amendment restrictions and I'm a sheep... Think I'll go and buy another handgun tomorrow and take it home with me, maybe from a FFL or maybe a private transfer...And stop in the PD while open carrying. Something YOU in MD will never be able to do.
Did I mention Indiana next June, has 5 yr carry permits at NO COST for residents and bypass NICS......
yes, they do. In every state that has red flag laws you get a hearing after the fact. You are a sheep because you support these laws. you can pretend to be pro2ndA, but your actions belie that assertion.
Thats not what I said, theses laws are coming everywhere. And again I never posted I agree with them, we sure put lots of folks in State Mental Institutions for a long time. Open them back up, there was not alot of shootings going on when we were growing up.
bwhahahaha what a intellectually dishonest answer. You have been talking up Indians red flag law like it is awesome and you even defended the police taking you guns based on you getting due process after the fact. That is not due process.
I cant wait to see you defending trump when he bans pistol braces and signs the next AWB
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Deeming someone dangerous is very subjective.
Just like the word, "reasonable", is very subjective. And yet, is written into law many times. But of course, it is not for the people to determine, or define, what is, "reasonable", (such as slowing down to a, "reasonable", speed while passing a cop in a road's shoulder harassing a citizen), but that of police, prosecutors and judges to define.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Just like the word, "reasonable", is very subjective. And yet, is written into law many times. But of course, it is not for the people to determine, or define, what is, "reasonable", (such as slowing down to a, "reasonable", speed while passing a cop in a road's shoulder harassing a citizen), but that of police, prosecutors and judges to define.
Just like in a courtroom, a jurist has to find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person is guilty. What exactly is a "reasonable doubt"? It's going to be different for everyone. But, until a better definition is found, I guess that's what we're stuck with.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Just like in a courtroom, a jurist has to find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person is guilty. What exactly is a "reasonable doubt"? It's going to be different for everyone. But, until a better definition is found, I guess that's what we're stuck with.
I like to think that just having plain doubt is sufficient to find someone innocent or not guilty. It is the court, the judge, and lawyers, that throws out the, "beyond a reasonable doubt", to the juries to muddy their minds and I believe tilts the scales in a prosecutor's favor. Besides, juries don't have to explain a verdict decision to the judge anyway. I'd rather just hear a judge or lawyer say, "If you have any doubt, as to the defendant's innocence or guilt, then you must find for being innocent, or not guilty. Now that's clear and unambiguous.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
:poorbaby:


That’s really what you need to worry about considering the orange Obama is fueling up the gun control bus and s about to back it over the 2ndA.
What guns has President Trump banned again? I forget...... What guns are banned again in Md?




Oh yea, 81 one of them...... Your buddy O'Malley
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
What guns has President Trump banned again? I forget...... What guns are banned again in Md?




Oh yea, 81 one of them...... Your buddy O'Malley
He isn’t and was never my buddy. And that’s the part you want to ignore. I spent a couple days in Annapolis expressing how dissatisfied I was with the idea of the 2013 laws. You on the other hand are pretending that banning ‘not technically a gun’ is just fine because trump did it.
Your buddy, the one you continue to support, banned bumpstocks and is out campaigning for more gun control to include ‘meaningful background checks’, and of course nation wide red flag laws. But for some reason you not only can’t say a bad thing about him, you go out of your way to justify his anti gun policies. That is the very definition of a sheep.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
He isn’t and was never my buddy. And that’s the part you want to ignore. I spent a couple days in Annapolis expressing how dissatisfied I was with the idea of the 2013 laws. You on the other hand are pretending that banning ‘not technically a gun’ is just fine because trump did it.
Your buddy, the one you continue to support, banned bumpstocks and is out campaigning for more gun control to include ‘meaningful background checks’, and of course nation wide red flag laws. But for some reason you not only can’t say a bad thing about him, you go out of your way to justify his anti gun policies. That is the very definition of a sheep.
WOW, a couple of days,,,,, #LIAR You deserve all you get living in Maryland, Huge traffic, huge taxes, huge infringements.
One would think with what you post you would be a Conservative Republican. But we all know the truth...
 
Top