Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity

[Jazzhead]

They are not the same thing, as explained by at least two other people above.

This is an attempt to frame the discussion as "If you believe X, then you must accept unrelated Y."  Not gonna fly.  I don't want a good thread about what happens when somebody is unfairly accused of something become a thread about TROs.

That is all.

It is only your opinion that TROs and red flag laws are "unrelated".   @thackney has presented evidence that, at least in New Jersey,  they are not only related, but linked.   And the purpose of that linkage is to protect the victims of potential domestic abuse.     

[thackney]

It is only your opinion that TROs and red flag laws are "unrelated".   @thackney has presented evidence that, at least in New Jersey,  they are not only related, but linked.   And the purpose of that linkage is to protect the victims of potential domestic abuse.   

And demonstrate how they are abused.

[Cyber Liberty]

And demonstrate how they are abused.

Which is why TROs are a losing proposition if @Jazzhead wants to go down that road.   

[roamer_1]

I agree.  But the reality is that even if the shooting is legit and you are completely in the right...you'll still end up wearing bracelets no matter how temporarily it might be...and you still might have a local DA or County Prosecutor who is anti gun that decides to drag you into court over you defending your house or family.

Or as we're not seeing...you're either falsely accused or suffer a case of mistaken identity and cops acting under Red Flag laws seize your weapons and detain you.

Yeah, I see your thinking.
 

Won't work like that for me... Never does. Insurance has never done me a bit of good in my whole dang life.

[Cyber Liberty]

The man wasn't "unfairly accused".   He was merely mistakenly accused.    The accusation was of domestic violence.   Yes, it was mistakenly applied to the wrong person,  but that doesn't invalidate the concept that a woman with a credible fear can seek temporary protection from her spouse or partner (whether through a TRO or sequestration of his gun).   Otherwise, the woman has no remedy other than to hope the abuser doesn't shoot straight enough to kill her.

Is it reasonable he has to pay court costs and an attorney to get his weapons back?

[roamer_1]

It is only your opinion that TROs and red flag laws are "unrelated".   @thackney has presented evidence that, at least in New Jersey,  they are not only related, but linked.   And the purpose of that linkage is to protect the victims of potential domestic abuse.   

WHEN CRIMINAL ABUSE HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED!!!

[txradioguy]

Is it reasonable he has to pay court costs and an attorney to get his weapons back?

Told ya.

[Cyber Liberty]

Told ya.

You did!   

[txradioguy]

The man wasn't "unfairly accused".   He was merely mistakenly accused.

Thats pure dissembling right there.

If you are mistakenly accused of something you didn't do...you ARE unfairly accused.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thats pure dissembling right there.

If you are mistakenly accused of something you didn't do...you ARE unfairly accused.

That's the way I saw it too.  "Unfair" == "mistaken" but "TRO" != "red flag."  Semantic wordplay.

[Jazzhead]

And demonstrate how they are abused.

I have no objection to the linkage  - a domestic abuser with a gun is more dangerous than a domestic abuser without a gun.  But I agree with you that,  if due process concludes that a restraining order is unnecessary,  any related gun sequestration should be concomitantly lifted. 

@thackney 

[Cyber Liberty]

To get back on Topic, I'll ask you again, @Jazzhead:  "Is it right this fellow has to shell out money and time to get his guns back?"

[roamer_1]

a domestic abuser with a gun is more dangerous than a domestic abuser without a gun.

A 'domestic abuser' by definition, HAS ALREADY COMMITTED A CRIME!

[Cyber Liberty]

I have no objection to the linkage  - a domestic abuser with a gun is more dangerous than a domestic abuser without a gun.  But I agree with you that,  if due process concludes that a restraining order is unnecessary,  any related gun sequestration should be concomitantly lifted. 

@thackney

...at no cost to the unfairly accused? 

[Jazzhead]

That's the way I saw it too.  "Unfair" == "mistaken" but "TRO" != "red flag."  Semantic wordplay.

No, words have meanings.   If this person had been correctly identified as the domestic abuser,  it is not "unfair" to temporarily restrain his liberty and/or sequester his firearms pending the application of due process.

This person was simply the victim of mistaken identity.   That's not "unfair", it's merely a mistake (and one that will undoubtedly be quickly corrected and his firearm returned).   

[Cyber Liberty]

A 'domestic abuser' by definition, HAS ALREADY COMMITTED A CRIME!

Your sentiments will be repeated over and over again for 10 pages, because he hears that about as well as he hears, "shall not be infringed."  I'm going to be pissed if that's what happens.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, words have meanings.   If this person had been correctly identified as the domestic abuser,  it is not "unfair" to temporarily restrain his liberty and/or sequester his firearms pending the application of due process.

This person was simply the victim of mistaken identity.   That's not "unfair", it's merely a mistake (and one that will undoubtedly be quickly corrected and his firearm returned).   

Answer my question.

[Jazzhead]

A 'domestic abuser' by definition, HAS ALREADY COMMITTED A CRIME!

No!   What is at issue is a credible accusation of domestic abuse.   If that's enough to get a TRO, it ought to be enough to permit the temporary sequestration of a firearm. 

 

[roamer_1]

That's not "unfair", it's merely a mistake (and one that will undoubtedly be quickly corrected and his firearm returned).   

Mine sure as hell wasn't over in Spokane, where charges and fees cost more than the gun was worth.

[Jazzhead]

Answer my question.

Which one?   (There are a  lot of posts flying back and forth) 

[Jazzhead]

...at no cost to the unfairly accused?

Do you mean the mistaken identity guy or the guy credibly accused of domestic violence?    Are you suggesting free legal representation as a new form of welfare?   

[roamer_1]

Do you mean the mistaken identity guy or the guy credibly accused of domestic violence?    Are you suggesting free legal representation as a new form of welfare?

MIRANDA.

[thackney]

I have no objection to the linkage  - a domestic abuser with a gun is more dangerous than a domestic abuser without a gun.  But I agree with you that,  if due process concludes that a restraining order is unnecessary,  any related gun sequestration should be concomitantly lifted. 

@thackney

@Jazzhead

When the existing laws are an abuse of government power and unfair trampling of constitutional rights, they are not compelling examples of: "we need more laws like this."

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you mean the mistaken identity guy or the guy credibly accused of domestic violence?    Are you suggesting free legal representation as a new form of welfare?

Since this is a thread about a real man being disarmed over a mistaken identity, and not your hypothetical domestic violence canard, which do you think I'm talking about?  To your second sentence, somebody who has been harmed by the State through no fault of their own cannot be accused of accepting a "new form of welfare."  The State that made the mistake should pay all costs upfront.

[Cyber Liberty]

Which one?   (There are a  lot of posts flying back and forth)

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=post;quote=2038486;topic=372746.50