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

[mystery-ak]

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

 @eb454
|
Posted: Aug 19, 2019 10:08 PM

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as "red flag laws," have been at the forefront of the gun control debate. The idea is simple: if a person is deemed mentally unstable, and a risk to themselves or others, he or she can be stripped of their firearms. Typically, family members, doctors and law enforcement have the power to petition a judge to deem the gun owner mentally unfit to own a firearm, at least for the time being. Some states, like Florida, have already implemented these laws. While they sound great on paper, they have a number of practicality issues. The biggest one is the lack of due process.

Just last week, a man in Florida had his firearms confiscated simply because he had the same name as a criminal. That's right. A man was stripped of his Second Amendment right...because the police failed to differentiate a law-abiding citizen with a thug.

According to Ammoland, Jonathan Carpenter received a certified letter from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services saying his concealed handgun permit had been suspended for "acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations."

more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/08/19/red-flag-law-failure-guy-is-stripped-of-his-gunsbecause-of-another-mans-criminal-activity-n2551921

[Applewood]

No surprise here.  While these red flag laws sound good on paper, they, like every other "gun control" law or proposed law, are all open to abuse.  Come to think of it, just about every law is open for abuse,  particularly those that come out of DC.  For all the lawyers in both houses of congress, not one of them can come up with a law that works the way it should.

[Jazzhead]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

[txradioguy]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

Never short of excuses when these laws you tout meet reality and don't work out so well.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

This never would have happened under Charles Bronson.

[roamer_1]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

Friggin nonsense. How do you know how many firearms the guy has? Are you going to go take away all the firearms he might borrow from a buddy too? What if he uses a truck instead?

TROs have never prevented a damn thing.

And it isn't a 'special right' ... It is a normative natural right not to have your property seized.
Better impound his truck too, and all his kitchen knives and hammers, for all the good it will do.

[Jazzhead]

Friggin nonsense. How do you know how many firearms the guy has? Are you going to go take away all the firearms he might borrow from a buddy too? What if he uses a truck instead?

TROs have never prevented a damn thing.

And it isn't a 'special right' ... It is a normative natural right not to have your property seized.
Better impound his truck too, and all his kitchen knives and hammers, for all the good it will do.

If a TRO can, because of a credible accusation,  temporarily deprive a man of his liberty pending a due process hearing, then what's the difference between such a TRO and a temporary sequestration of the man's property?   The only explanation I can see (especially since a temporary deprivation of a man's liberty is far more onerous than a temporary deprivation of his property)  is that gun owners seem to believe they should have special rights.     

[roamer_1]

If a TRO can, because of a credible accusation,  temporarily deprive a man of his liberty pending a due process hearing, then what's the difference between such a TRO and a temporary sequestration of the man's property?   The only explanation I can see (especially since a temporary deprivation of a man's liberty is far more onerous than a temporary deprivation of his property)  is that gun owners seem to believe they should have special rights.     

What other property can be seized by TRO?

And while you are right, that taking a man's liberty is more onerous, that is not usually the case in a TRO. They are just instructed to avoid a particular distance around the prospective victim. and all forms of contact with the prospective victim are denied them.

Go talk to a cop and see how well TROs work. They don't. The cops hope for a way to bust the guy because they know TROs don't work.

Anymore than seizing guns will. If a man has murder in his heart, if revenge controls him, the law will mean nothing. The only thing force knows is force.

[Cyber Liberty]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

Wrong again, sir.  It's not "due process" if you can only get your property back if you can prove you're innocent.  There is the usual litany of incorrect reasoning in the rest of the post, so no point arguing that.

[libertybele]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

???? The gun was taken away period.  It is now up to him to prove that he is innocent.  He's had a run in with the law.  Good luck getting that gun back.

[Smokin Joe]

If a TRO can, because of a credible accusation,  temporarily deprive a man of his liberty pending a due process hearing, then what's the difference between such a TRO and a temporary sequestration of the man's property?   The only explanation I can see (especially since a temporary deprivation of a man's liberty is far more onerous than a temporary deprivation of his property)  is that gun owners seem to believe they should have special rights.     

Simply enough, the rifles  and handguns he lovingly placed in the gun safe will be handled like cordwood, stocks marred and dinged, muzzles dinged (affects accuracy and value) and on some high end rifles, that damage can cause the value of the firearms to decrease. Condition is important, too. Whether they are historically significant, family heirlooms, expensive custom guns, or just cheap pawnshop shooters, you can bet the only ones treated really well will be ones the confiscating agents might want to add the their collections. Should the owner be able to recover his property, you can bet the burden of proof of any damage will lie with the owner, and it is highly unlikely that would be (or in some cases, could be) compensated.

Additionally, the firearms will inevitably be inventoried (perhaps even completely), and lined up for the 'trophy' picture of all the guns rounded up, which would make the owner a robbery target if the owner recovers them. Add in some militant hoplophobes, and the owner and family members could be subject to everything from street protests to personal harassment and other politically motivated repercussions which would never have come about if the owner's property had remained private.

[austingirl]

Even though it was evident they had the wrong man, Carpenter was forced to hand over his firearms. There was no hearing or any kind of court proceeding.

“The last thing on my mind was me having to turn over my gun,” Carpenter told AmmoLand. “I was upset when the Sheriff told me that I need to surrender my gun before any due process.”

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.

Carpenter's firearms had to remain in police custody until the plaintiff can say, in court, that he's not the man that she filed a complaint against. He'd then have to petition the court to get his firearms back...and he would have to bear the cost. Carpenter will get his day in court later this month."


This innocent citizen looked nothing like the man with the same name, yet they took his guns anyway. He has the burden of having to appear in court and to pay all costs to get his guns back.

[Smokin Joe]

Even though it was evident they had the wrong man, Carpenter was forced to hand over his firearms. There was no hearing or any kind of court proceeding.

“The last thing on my mind was me having to turn over my gun,” Carpenter told AmmoLand. “I was upset when the Sheriff told me that I need to surrender my gun before any due process.”

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.

Carpenter's firearms had to remain in police custody until the plaintiff can say, in court, that he's not the man that she filed a complaint against. He'd then have to petition the court to get his firearms back...and he would have to bear the cost. Carpenter will get his day in court later this month."


This innocent citizen looked nothing like the man with the same name, yet they took his guns anyway. He has the burden of having to appear in court and to pay all costs to get his guns back.

Now what makes that scary is that there are some 40 or 50 people posting on bookface with the same first and last name as mine, although none of them is me. My name isn't even all that common.

I knew a fellow named Smith (I'll leave his first name out, but it wasn't John), who had a problem in Denver decades ago because there were six or seven other fellows with his first and last name, and he was always getting collection notices and the like from one of the others' doings. How many people will suffer over muddled identity, even when it shouldn't be?

[Cyber Liberty]

???? The gun was taken away period.  It is now up to him to prove that he is innocent.  He's had a run in with the law.  Good luck getting that gun back.

Lawyers are fine with that, because you have to hand them a big fat roll of cash to even have the chance to prove your innocence.  Please note our resident Briefer, who ignores every pearl put before him, is such a person.  He's smart, and knows way more than us paranoid mortals, and sees nothing wrong with what I described.  All it takes to play the game is your cash.

[Cyber Liberty]

Now what makes that scary is that there are some 40 or 50 people posting on bookface with the same first and last name as mine, although none of them is me. My name isn't even all that common.

I knew a fellow named Smith (I'll leave his first name out, but it wasn't John), who had a problem in Denver decades ago because there were six or seven other fellows with his first and last name, and he was always getting collection notices and the like from one of the others' doings. How many people will suffer over muddled identity, even when it shouldn't be?

People who want to seize all guns have zero trouble with this man's story.  The tragedy for them is when he gets them back.

[EdJames]

Even though it was evident they had the wrong man, Carpenter was forced to hand over his firearms. There was no hearing or any kind of court proceeding.

“The last thing on my mind was me having to turn over my gun,” Carpenter told AmmoLand. “I was upset when the Sheriff told me that I need to surrender my gun before any due process.”

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.

Carpenter's firearms had to remain in police custody until the plaintiff can say, in court, that he's not the man that she filed a complaint against. He'd then have to petition the court to get his firearms back...and he would have to bear the cost. Carpenter will get his day in court later this month."


This innocent citizen looked nothing like the man with the same name, yet they took his guns anyway. He has the burden of having to appear in court and to pay all costs to get his guns back.

The hideous application of this law can be traced to the statewide panic and emotional pleas to “Do Something!!” that swept the state after Parkland.....  our “Republican” legislature and outgoing “Republican” Governor (now Senator Scott) were too weak and unmoored from both the State and national Constitutions to resist....

 

[Sighlass]

The article is misleading is that it implies a lack of due process.    This man will undoubtedly get his gun back after he explains the situation to the judge.    That's due process.

It is not up to law enforcement to make the call -  it received a credible report of domestic abuse and took the gun away pending the hearing with the judge.   That's no different than the issuance of a temporary restraining order following a credible charge of domestic abuse -  an direct imposition on an individual's personal liberty far more onerous IMO than temporarily taking his gun away.    The TRO remains in place until the matter is adjudicated.    So, too, is the temporary deprivation of the firearm.   

That's how due process works -  why should a firearms owner be accorded special rights?   

Bull, he has to not only go to court, but burden the cost of those court sessions.

[txradioguy]

People who want to seize all guns have zero trouble with this man's story.  The tragedy for them is when he gets them back.

QFT

[Cyber Liberty]

Bull, he has to not only go to court, but burden the cost of those court sessions.

To the mind of a lawyer, that isn't a bug, it's a feature.  It keeps the riff raff out of the Courts.  To the mind of a gun grabber it's a short delay in hopes of taking this guy's guns forever on a technicality.  Stamp him a paper criminal so he can never buy a gun again.  The two sets of people I described work hand in glove to disarm victims who might shoot back at their privileged class.

It sounds sick because it is, but such is the state of our legal system.  It's been an engine of progressives for years.

[txradioguy]

To the mind of a lawyer, that isn't a bug, it's a feature.  It keeps the riff raff out of the Courts.  To the mind of a gun grabber it's a short delay in hopes of taking this guy's guns forever on a technicality.  Stamp him a paper criminal so he can never buy a gun again.  The two sets of people I described work hand in glove to disarm victims who might shoot back at their privileged class.

It sounds sick because it is, but such is the state of our legal system.  It's been an engine of progressives for years.

@Cyber Liberty I can hear it now...”well if he’s done. I thing wrong he shouldn’t have a problem going to court to get his weapons back.”

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty I can hear it now...”well if he’s done. I thing wrong he shouldn’t have a problem going to court to get his weapons back.”

How odd, I hear it too.  It's amazing how free some folks are with other peoples money.

[Jazzhead]

Wrong again, sir.  It's not "due process" if you can only get your property back if you can prove you're innocent.  There is the usual litany of incorrect reasoning in the rest of the post, so no point arguing that.

No, the presumption of innocence isn't flipped.    The purpose of a TRO,  much like that of the temporary sequestration of a gun,  is to preserve the status quo ante while due process unfolds.    If a man credibly accused of domestic violence is ordered to stay away from his family home pending a hearing,  that's to (hopefully) keep him from harming his spouse.   But at the hearing,  the accuser still bears the burden of showing the restraining order should be permanent.

Same with the temporary sequestration of a gun.   The man's gun isn't being confiscated,  it is being temporarily taken away by reason of the credible accusation.   But at the hearing,  the state must prove that the conditions exist for confiscation;  the man's presumption of innocence remains.   Here,  where the credible accusation involves mistaken identity,  it should be a simple matter for the man to show that and get his gun back.   

[Jazzhead]

Bull, he has to not only go to court, but burden the cost of those court sessions.

So what?   That's what anyone has to do when judicial process is engaged.    What makes you think that as a gun owner you have special rights?   

[Cyber Liberty]

No, the presumption of innocence isn't flipped.    The purpose of a TRO,  much like that of the temporary sequestration of a gun,  is to preserve the status quo ante while due process unfolds.    If a man credibly accused of domestic violence is ordered to stay away from his family home pending a hearing,  that's to (hopefully) keep him from harming his spouse.   But at the hearing,  the accuser still bears the burden of showing the restraining order should be permanent.

Same with the temporary sequestration of a gun.   The man's gun isn't being confiscated,  it is being temporarily taken away by reason of the credible accusation.   But at the hearing,  the state must prove that the conditions exist for confiscation;  the man's presumption of innocence remains.   Here,  where the credible accusation involves mistaken identity,  it should be a simple matter for the man to show that and get his gun back.   

Technically true about the burden, but it doesn't work that way in real life.  The burden is on whomever wants to change the current state of affairs.  Someone else has your stuff, you must make the argument to get it back.  You cannot convince me otherwise because I've seen it in action, and who am I to believe, you or my lying eyes.

You see things as theory learned in school, I see things...differently.  I went to a different school.

ETA:

preserve the status quo ante while due process unfolds.

The ship of Status Quo sailed when the jackboots took the guns.  Status Quo is "the guns belong to the Police" by the time the case hits a hearing.

[Jazzhead]

To the mind of a lawyer, that isn't a bug, it's a feature.  It keeps the riff raff out of the Courts.  To the mind of a gun grabber it's a short delay in hopes of taking this guy's guns forever on a technicality.  Stamp him a paper criminal so he can never buy a gun again.  The two sets of people I described work hand in glove to disarm victims who might shoot back at their privileged class.

It sounds sick because it is, but such is the state of our legal system.  It's been an engine of progressives for years.

The legal system is the same as it ever was, including the guarantees of due process and equal protection, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof lying with the accuser.  Red flag laws are just property-based versions of TROs, which have been around for years. 

Do you object to the ability of a battered spouse to go to court to get a TRO against her mate?   

[roamer_1]

Do you object to the ability of a battered spouse to go to court to get a TRO against her mate?   

The difference being, the spouse is battered. A CRIME has been committed.

[Cyber Liberty]

The legal system is the same as it ever was, including the guarantees of due process and equal protection, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof lying with the accuser.  Red flag laws are just property-based versions of TROs, which have been around for years. 

Do you object to the ability of a battered spouse to go to court to get a TRO against her mate?   

I don't object to the concept of TRO, I object to seizure of property w/o due process first.

What do you think of the fact that this innocent fellow has to fork out cash to have his day in court.  Fair?

[Jazzhead]

Technically true about the burden, but it doesn't work that way in real life. 

Sure it does.

The burden is on whomever wants to change the current state of affairs. 

Correct.   The burden is on the accuser.   

Someone else has your stuff, you must make the argument to get it back

Like I said,  a red flag law is merely a property-based version of a TRO.   Do you object to the ability of a battered spouse to obtain a TRO to keep her spouse away from the family home?  Is such a TRO a perversion of justice in your view?     

[Cyber Liberty]

The difference being, the spouse is battered. A CRIME has been committed.

Don't look now, but there went another straw man.

[Cyber Liberty]

Sure it does.

Correct.   The burden is on the accuser.   
 

Like I said,  a red flag law is merely a property-based version of a TRO.   Do you object to the ability of a battered spouse to obtain a TRO to keep her spouse away from the family home?  Is such a TRO a perversion of justice in your view?     

The difference between you and just about everybody else is you have faith in government and its courts, I do not.  And shove the battered spouse crap back up where it came from.

[Jazzhead]

I don't object to the concept of TRO, I object to seizure of property w/o due process first.

What do you think of the fact that this innocent fellow has to fork out cash to have his day in court.  Fair?

Of course it's fair.  The question of his innocence is the subject of the proceeding.  You're putting the rabbit in the hat.   

Here's the issue:   Why do you support the ability of a battered spouse to get a TRO to temporarily deprive her spouse of his liberty,  but not his property?     Before I accuse you of hypocrisy (or placing a man's gun on a pedestal above his liberty),  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[Jazzhead]

The difference between you and just about everybody else is you have faith in government and its courts, I do not.  And shove the battered spouse crap back up where it came from.

Red flag laws are most commonly used in situations of domestic abuse.   Why is my analogy to a TRO "crap"?   

[skeeter]

Red flag laws are most commonly used in situations of domestic abuse.   Why is my analogy to a TRO "crap"?   

A TRO temporarily prohibits voluntary behavior. A red flag law seizes private property without due process.

[Jazzhead]

A TRO temporarily prohibits voluntary behavior. A red flag law seizes private property without due process.

A TRO temporarily denies a citizen of his liberty,  a red flag law temporarily sequesters a citizen's property, in each case pending the application of due process.    Is property more sacrosanct than liberty?     

[Cyber Liberty]

Red flag laws are most commonly used in situations of domestic abuse.   Why is my analogy to a TRO "crap"?   

Because you are using it to deflect from the topic.  One of your favorite ploys.

[thackney]

No, the presumption of innocence isn't flipped.    The purpose of a TRO,  much like that of the temporary sequestration of a gun,  is to preserve the status quo ante while due process unfolds.    If a man credibly accused of domestic violence is ordered to stay away from his family home pending a hearing,  that's to (hopefully) keep him from harming his spouse.   But at the hearing,  the accuser still bears the burden of showing the restraining order should be permanent.

Same with the temporary sequestration of a gun.   The man's gun isn't being confiscated,  it is being temporarily taken away by reason of the credible accusation.   But at the hearing,  the state must prove that the conditions exist for confiscation;  the man's presumption of innocence remains.   Here,  where the credible accusation involves mistaken identity,  it should be a simple matter for the man to show that and get his gun back.   

Reality is different.

When a temporary restraining order (TRO) is filed in NJ, the police will seize any and all weapons that the defendant has in their possession and their home. If a final restraining order (FRO) is ultimately issued, then the defendant will be prohibited from possessing those weapons permanently. And, even if the TRO is dropped or dismissed by the Judge, the defendant does not automatically get his or her weapons back. That is up to the County prosecutor’s office in the county in which the restraining order was filed.

https://www.njrestrainingorderlawyers.com/forfeiture-of-weapons-in-nj-restraining-order-cases/

[Cyber Liberty]

A TRO temporarily denies a citizen of his liberty,  a red flag law temporarily sequesters a citizen's property, in each case pending the application of due process.    Is property more sacrosanct than liberty?   

Stay on topic.  You're inserting a discussion about TROs into a thread about Red Flags.  They are not the same thing, and I am not interested in watching a thread expand to 10 pages while you argue about TROs.  You have already started  arguing about whether they are the same thing.

[Cyber Liberty]

Reality is different.

When a temporary restraining order (TRO) is filed in NJ, the police will seize any and all weapons that the defendant has in their possession and their home. If a final restraining order (FRO) is ultimately issued, then the defendant will be prohibited from possessing those weapons permanently. And, even if the TRO is dropped or dismissed by the Judge, the defendant does not automatically get his or her weapons back. That is up to the County prosecutor’s office in the county in which the restraining order was filed.

https://www.njrestrainingorderlawyers.com/forfeiture-of-weapons-in-nj-restraining-order-cases/

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  And it should not cost money to retrieve weapons wrongfully seized.

[roamer_1]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.  And it should not cost money to retrieve weapons wrongfully seized.

And unlike a mirandized thug, since you haven't been arrested, no lawyer is provided if you cannot afford your own. So even to prove your innocence (which is Bass-ackwards too, btw), the fortune to have legal representation must come out of your own pocket...

Hence, the poor man, unjustly accused, and deprived of property, has no recourse.

[Cyber Liberty]

And unlike a mirandized thug, since you haven't been arrested, no lawyer is provided if you cannot afford your own. So even to prove your innocence (which is Bass-ackwards too, btw), the fortune to have legal representation must come out of your own pocket...

Hence, the poor man, unjustly accused, and deprived of property, has no recourse.

That's not a bug, it's a feature of our lawless courts.

[Jazzhead]

Stay on topic.  You're inserting a discussion about TROs into a thread about Red Flags.  They are not the same thing, and I am not interested in watching a thread expand to 10 pages while you argue about TROs.  You have already started  arguing about whether they are the same thing.

Well, see @thackney 's post above.  Apparently, at least in New Jersey,  TROs are linked directly to the temporary sequestration of firearms.   When a TRO is issued in a domestic violence situation,  the accused person's firearms are temporarily taken together with his liberty.  If the TRO becomes (following due process) a final restraining order (FRO),  the sequestration of his firearms becomes permanent.    (Thackney raises a separate question about if the FRO is NOT issued,  the return of the man's firearm is apparently not guaranteed.   If that's so, I agree with him that this appears unjust and arbitrary).

But I am most certainly "staying on topic".    A red flag law is very similar to a TRO,  directed at property rather than a person's liberty.    If you support the general concept of a TRO in domestic abuse scenarios,  then logically you ought to support the concept of a  well-drafted red flag law.       

[roamer_1]

Well, see @thackney 's post above.  Apparently, at least in New Jersey,  TROs are linked directly to the temporary sequestration of firearms.   When a TRO is issued in a domestic violence situation,  the accused person's firearms are temporarily taken together with his liberty. 

Domestic violence - A crime has been committed.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, see @thackney 's post above.  Apparently, at least in New Jersey,  TROs are linked directly to the temporary sequestration of firearms.   When a TRO is issued in a domestic violence situation,  the accused person's firearms are temporarily taken together with his liberty.  If the TRO becomes (following due process) a final restraining order (FRO),  the sequestration of his firearms becomes permanent.    (Thackney raises a separate question about if the FRO is NOT issued,  the return of the man's firearm is apparently not guaranteed.   If that's so, I agree with him that this appears unjust and arbitrary).

But I am most certainly "staying on topic".    A red flag law is very similar to a TRO,  directed at property rather than a person's liberty.    If you support the general concept of a TRO in domestic abuse scenarios,  then logically you ought to support the concept of a  well-drafted red flag law.     

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.

[roamer_1]

That's not a bug, it's a feature of our lawless courts.

With emphasis:

Accusation without a crime being committed, on the basis of what one MAY do.
Property seized without a crime having been committed.
No Miranda rights.
Must prove innocence, rather than the state proving guilt.
Proving innocence is very often trying to prove a negative, which is impossible.
YOU must provide for your defense - and if you cannot afford a lawyer, well, tough shit for you then.

This is a travesty.

[txradioguy]

And unlike a mirandized thug, since you haven't been arrested, no lawyer is provided if you cannot afford your own. So even to prove your innocence (which is Bass-ackwards too, btw), the fortune to have legal representation must come out of your own pocket...

Hence, the poor man, unjustly accused, and deprived of property, has no recourse.

And that is why I've chosen to protect myself and my wife with a membership in USCCA.  They give me the resources to protect against unlawful seizures in these unconstitutional red flag law issues as well as if (God forbid) I actually have to use my weapon in self defense.

[roamer_1]

And that is why I've chosen to protect myself and my wife with a membership in USCCA.  They give me the resources to protect against unlawful seizures in these unconstitutional red flag law issues as well as if (God forbid) I actually have to use my weapon in self defense.

Not that you should have to...

[Cyber Liberty]

With emphasis:

Accusation without a crime being committed, on the basis of what one MAY do.
Property seized without a crime having been committed.
No Miranda rights.
Must prove innocence, rather than the state proving guilt.
Proving innocence is very often trying to prove a negative, which is impossible.
YOU must provide for your defense - and if you cannot afford a lawyer, well, tough shit for you then.

This is a travesty.

It is.  Even if you act as your own attorney, you still have to fork over a hundred or two in "court costs" to the gummint to even get your day in court.  Lawyers are cool with this.

[roamer_1]

It is.  Even if you act as your own attorney, you still have to fork over a hundred or two in "court costs" to the gummint to even get your day in court.  Lawyers are cool with this.

Not to mention, like an impound lot, you get whacked an exorbitant storage fee...
My experience in Eastern WA... It would cost more than the firearm was worth to get it sprung. Better to just go get another (which I did of course).

[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.

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.   

[txradioguy]

Not that you should have to...

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.