• mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    but I’m 100% on board with interventions for taking guns away for mental health crises, and restrictions on those found by a court to have engaged in domestic violence.

    The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this. When the police recieve a report, they end up seizing the guns without any due process, and the owners has to sue to get them back.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The issue with red flag laws is that they completely bypass this.

      It’s my understanding that every state with a red flag law imposes a procedure similar to involuntary commitment: a court weighing evidence presented to it under penalty of perjury, with a heavy presumption that these orders are only for extremely rare situations.

      Florida’s procedure, for example, requires a petition from the police to the court, and requires the police to show the court that the person is suffering from a serious mental illness, has committed acts of violence, or has credibly threatened acts of violence (to self or others). In ordinary cases the person whose guns are being taken away has an opportunity to be heard in court before the judge decides, but in emergency cases the court can order the guns be taken away for up to 14 days, and requires an opportunity for the person to be heard in court.

      So in practice, in Florida, someone would have to convince the police they’re a danger, and then provide enough evidence that the police can persuade a judge. Private citizens aren’t allowed to petition the court directly, and the process requires proof of a serious enough set of facts to justify taking guns away.