If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.
There needs to be actual evidence greater than “ex girlfriend said so” for a court to grant the request.
Ironically by the numbers Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law. Granting a total of 2,355 in 2020. California on the other hand has issued only 984. These are the 3rd and 1st most populous states respectively.
Given how many people go through breakups each year and how many people are insanely petty, seems like it’s not just based on a disgruntled ex’s word.
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
Red flag laws, as written, don’t come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]
Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone’s home for guns without a judge’s permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.
I didn’t see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Despite being blatantly unconstitutional (deprives a citizen of rights based on an accusation without trial) red flag laws exist in 21 states.
In this particular thread, 4chan is a better source of information than Lemmy.
If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.
There needs to be actual evidence greater than “ex girlfriend said so” for a court to grant the request.
Ironically by the numbers Florida seems to be the state most likely to use the law. Granting a total of 2,355 in 2020. California on the other hand has issued only 984. These are the 3rd and 1st most populous states respectively.
Given how many people go through breakups each year and how many people are insanely petty, seems like it’s not just based on a disgruntled ex’s word.
I wonder if the stat is skewed by the fact that Florida has the largest population of Florida Men.
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
Red flag laws, as written, don’t come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:
Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone’s home for guns without a judge’s permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.
I didn’t see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.