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

[verga]

I guess we need dipsticks.  They tell us how deep it is.

[Jazzhead]

In most jurisdictions, an application for a domestic abuse restraining order will include seeking an ex parte emergency order followed later by more permanent order issued after a return hearing in court. In order for an ex parte restraining order to enter, a person (often assisted by a battered woman’s shelter, advocate or domestic abuse office) may file a Motion and Affidavit seeking ex parte relief. Ex parte relief is emergency relief and the allegations considered by the court are one sided without and rebuttal by the person accused. Based on this one sided submission, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order that removes the defendant from the family home, precludes contact between the defendant and the victim and, often the children, and sets the matter for a court hearing in the near future, but often weeks away. 

That is indeed how a TRO works -  the allegation of an emergency leads to a temporary denial of liberty pending the later hearing when due process is provided for the accused.    It is hard to see any other way to do it,  given the exigencies.    The first order of business is to maintain the status quo pending the hearing,  since the failure to do so may lead to harm or even death.   That's the purpose of a red flag law as well.   Can it be abused?   Of course -  but when it works as intended it saves lives.   

I fail to see any principled argument by which a TRO is an acceptable imposition on liberty but a red flag law is not.   

[Smokin Joe]

There you go injecting reality into a conversation again @EdJames!

@EdJames @Bigun  ...and doing it nicely, but left out the parts where CPS will lie (no other word for it) and have suborned perjury. I have seen both. For the victims of such, there is little recourse, because they were often not anticipating such behaviour and did not have the means to prove it.

[roamer_1]

That is indeed how a TRO works -  the allegation of an emergency leads to a temporary denial of liberty pending the later hearing when due process is provided for the accused.    It is hard to see any other way to do it,  given the exigencies.    The first order of business is to maintain the status quo pending the hearing,  since the failure to do so may lead to harm or even death.   That's the purpose of a red flag law as well.   Can it be abused?   Of course -  but when it works as intended it saves lives.   

I fail to see any principled argument by which a TRO is an acceptable imposition on liberty but a red flag law is not.   

A TRO is based upon extant evidence, and is only tangentially predictive. A battered woman IS battered, in which a crime has already been committed, and normative to that, historical precedents exist- She has been battered in the past, showing a pattern of criminal behavior.

Your red flag law is entirely predictive, based upon opinions of someones motive and intentions. NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED

[Smokin Joe]

That is indeed how a TRO works -  the allegation of an emergency leads to a temporary denial of liberty pending the later hearing when due process is provided for the accused.    It is hard to see any other way to do it,  given the exigencies.    The first order of business is to maintain the status quo pending the hearing,  since the failure to do so may lead to harm or even death.   That's the purpose of a red flag law as well.   Can it be abused?   Of course -  but when it works as intended it saves lives.   

I fail to see any principled argument by which a TRO is an acceptable imposition on liberty but a red flag law is not.   

You left out the part about the husband being locked out of and required to stay away from his home and children while the ex-wife-to-be and her boyfriend sell off his stuff. I have seen it happen more than once. It's a common opening gambit in a divorce.

[roamer_1]

@EdJames @Bigun  ...and doing it nicely, but left out the parts where CPS will lie (no other word for it) and have suborned perjury. I have seen both. For the victims of such, there is little recourse, because they were often not anticipating such behaviour and did not have the means to prove it.

That is a bare fact. And it is often impossible to prove innocence, which is why the obligation is to prove guilt.

[Smokin Joe]

@austingirl And @Smokin Joe have it spot on: THEY HAD THE WRONG GUY, and now he has the bear the burden of proof ands costs of getting a lawyer, taking time off of work, the damage done to his reputation,...... because the government made an error. Screw that $H!T.

Error, schmerror. They had the wrong guy, they KNEW they had the wrong guy, and they should compensate him for everything from lost work time, any damages, and any illegal incarceration, and return his property, compensating him for damage to that as well, should there be any. It shouldn't cost the guy a dime when it is over.

[EdJames]

@Bigun
@Sanguine
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest in Red Flag laws:

False Allegations of Abuse

One of most significant criticisms of the legal system that addresses domestic abuse, includes the facility and regularity in which false allegations of abuse are made and believed by courts with the primary intent to seek an advantage in divorce and custody proceedings.

One of the major catalysts for this abuse of the system is the broad definition that exists for domestic abuse. Under most statutory schemes, domestic abuse means the intentional and unlawful infliction of physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the intentional and unlawful infliction of the fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members, or a criminal sexual act, committed against a family or household member by another family or household member. “Fear of harm” is an extraordinarily subjective standard and one that may be very difficult to combat. A raised voice or a raised had or any gesture that is interpreted as threatening may be used to claim that domestic abuse has occurred. This is problem is compounded for men who are often larger than women and perceived as more aggressive or stronger based on broad societal generalizations that may be reflected in the perceptions of law enforcement officer who make police reports and court room judges who render rulings.

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

[EdJames]

@Cyber Liberty forgot to ping you to the above, bud!

 

[Bigun]

@Bigun
@Sanguine
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest Red Flag laws:

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

Thanks @EdJames.  It is abundantly clear to me that this is a tar baby that we should not come within ten miles of!

[Sanguine]

@Bigun
@Sanguine
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest in Red Flag laws:

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

That's a problem.

[EdJames]

Thanks @EdJames.  It is abundantly clear to me that this is a tar baby that we should not come within ten miles of!

Indeed.  A filthy tar baby.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Bigun
@Sanguine
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest in Red Flag laws:

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

TROs have indeed been weaponized, mainly by women because they are instantly believed.  It creates the inverted burden of proof within our legal system, and is exploited by anybody wanting the upper hand in life, starting with stripping a man of his property, and usually all friends and family as well.

Anybody who thinks a Red Flag law won't be weaponized as well is on crack.  "It's a feature, not a bug."

@Jazzhead, you insisted on making TROs part of the discussion, so now you can live with the fact you destroyed your own argument about how wonderful a Red Flag law would be.  Good work, you should have listened to me before dragging this out to 5 pages.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty forgot to ping you to the above, bud!

 

Thanks for the ping, @EdJames! 

[Smokin Joe]

@Bigun
@Sanguine
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest in Red Flag laws:

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

I have seen it more than once. Big guy, works on oil rigs, can be as gentle as they come, but size and occupation matter, and perceptions by those who make assumptions about people based on their line of work.

There is a pervasive presumption that big, strong, people are violent. People who often speak loudly because they have suffered hearing damage working in a noisy environment, and where to be heard, you have to speak loudly--where safety and lives may depend on it.

There is a persistent perception that such people are violent by people who speak in hushed tones and often refer to others as "we", and who have never had a callus on their hands. There is a presumption that the woman is kind, honest and gentle, whereas the man is presumed to be deceitful and violent, and that presumption is endemic in the system.

If she asserts something, he has to prove otherwise, against a pervasive presumption of guilt.

In the meantime, while the sheriff's deputy will stand there and watch him remove his underwear from the drawer as he packs what they let him take, he better hope she doesn't have the combination or key to his gun safe or she and the new boyfriend will sell them off while he is locked out of the house he risked his health, life, and limb to buy.

Hang the fact that her infidelity, already in full swing, just might be cause for him to raise his voice, or be upset. After all, she's pushing his buttons, now, unless he has the sense to not play into that.

[roamer_1]

Here is another dirty little aspect about TROs that is also implicitly manifest in Red Flag laws:

(From the same link in the above post.)

Someone fears that harm may come....  no harm actually has to have been committed....

Is it a crime for a man to slam his fist down on his coffee table in his home?

Is it a crime for a woman to throw her glass pitcher across her kitchen and smash it on her wall?

Obviously not, however both are deemed "legitimate" causes of "fear of harm."

 

TRUE.
I swear, @EdJames , there must be a course and a handbook, because my ex blew out the stops and tried everything you can think of against me in our divorce - To include applying for TRO, claiming violence against her, and the children.

Fortunately for me, the standard here appears to be 'imminent harm' and requires proof - More than just testimony. Had I ever thumped on her, or the kids, I am sure she'd have got her way. But even given my rowdy past, there was never a time that I was violent except in defending myself or others against violence.

Gratefully, she was denied. In that, and every other attempt to take my shit and cut me off from my kids. But she sure enough tried. Over and over and over again.

I am not against TRO - I think it has a purpose. A woman beat half to death has little reason to claim other than the one who did it to her, and she obviously needs protection. In fact, the TRO does nothing to actually protect her, but if it is violated, it goes to the guilt of the perpetrator, and can serve to lock him in the can after the fact of the violation.

But to say it is not full of rampant abuse would be naive. In fact, I know personally some folks that were not as lucky as I was. If you have ever been convicted of an assault charge, as a instance, you are just screwed, guaranteed, regardless of the circumstances. And around here anyway, it is not uncommon for a man to have committed assault in his youth. Because of that one mistake, some thirty years ago, a woman can use the county and the state to grind him to dust.

[roamer_1]

Anybody who thinks a Red Flag law won't be weaponized as well is on crack.  "It's a feature, not a bug."

That's right.

[Jazzhead]

. . .  so now you can live with the fact you destroyed your own argument about how wonderful a Red Flag law would be. 

@Cyber Liberty ,  I am not here to conduct rhetorical warfare,  but to have a discussion.    I am not claiming red flag laws and laws permitting TROs are "wonderful",  but that one cannot in principle support one without supporting the other.    They are both variations on the same theme -  to address an emergency situation by preserving the status quo for a limited period of time so that the courts can properly adjudicate the matter in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of due process.   

Contrary to @roamer_1 's assertion,  TROs and red flag laws do not differ in that the former address situations where actual crimes have been committed but the latter do not.   No,  both address emergency situations -  credible threats of future harm.   Again,  the lack of "due process" when granting a TRO or a temporary sequestration of a firearm is due entirely to the reality of the impending alleged emergency.  Due process is delayed, but it is not denied.    

You and,  I believe, others have declined to denounce TROs while insisting that red flag laws are beyond the pale.    That, sir, is hypocrisy.    Either you favor both devices to address emergencies,  or you denounce both and insist that proactive deprivations of liberty have no place under the Constitution, even in the face of potential grievous harm.    But to acknowledge the efficacy and legality of temporary restraints on liberty in response to emergency while opposing temporary sequestrations of dangerous property in similar circumstances is to "destroy" the moral underpinnings of your opposition to red flag laws.   You oppose such laws not out of principle but selfishness.   Yet another example of "rules for thee  but not for me".   

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty ,  I am not here to conduct rhetorical warfare,  but to have a discussion.    I am not claiming red flag laws and laws permitting TROs are "wonderful",  but that one cannot in principle support one without supporting the other.    They are both variations on the same theme -  to address an emergency situation by preserving the status quo for a limited period of time so that the courts can properly adjudicate the matter in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of due process.   

Contrary to @roamer_1 's assertion,  TROs and red flag laws do not differ in that the former address situations where actual crimes have been committed but the latter do not.   No,  both address emergency situations -  credible threats of future harm.   Again,  the lack of "due process" when granting a TRO or a temporary sequestration of a firearm is due entirely to the reality of the impending alleged emergency.  Due process is delayed, but it is not denied.    

You and,  I believe, others have declined to denounce TROs while insisting that red flag laws are beyond the pale.    That, sir, is hypocrisy.    Either you favor both devices to address emergencies,  or you denounce both and insist that proactive deprivations of liberty have no place under the Constitution, even in the face of potential grievous harm.    But to acknowledge the efficacy and legality of temporary restraints on liberty in response to emergency while opposing temporary sequestrations of dangerous property in similar circumstances is to "destroy" the moral underpinnings of your opposition to red flag laws.   You oppose such laws not out of principle but selfishness.   Yet another example of "rules for thee  but not for me".   

Old expression, as true today as when it was first coined in antiquity: "Justice delayed is Justice denied."  The rest of your post is just an attempt to deny you pwned yourself.

[txradioguy]

Due process is delayed, but it is not denied.

And that's somehow ok with you?

[Cyber Liberty]

And that's somehow ok with you?

He's equally OK with charging the victim of delayed/denied Justice attorney and court costs in attempting to right the wrong.  It's not his money, and it benefits lawyers' pocketbooks. 

[txradioguy]

He's equally OK with charging the victim of delayed/denied Justice attorney and court costs in attempting to right the wrong.  It's not his money, and it benefits lawyers' pocketbooks.

Every day...that veil he wears to hide his Liberalism slips just a little more.

[Jazzhead]

And that's somehow ok with you?

It is better than taking no action and letting a dangerous individual keep his firearms and bring them to bear to shoot up a family or school.   

The world is not perfect.  Sometimes, in an emergency,  you have to diffuse the situation first,  and sort it all out later.   

I continue to be surprised at the reflexive opposition to red flag laws.   Among the "gun control" measures being currently touted,  they alone are directed at the nut who fires the gun, not just guns in general.   The old saw is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.   Well,  fine - but then you resist even measures targeted at the people who kill people,  just because they involve the precious subject of guns. 

Selfishness, pure selfishness.   

[txradioguy]

My wife and I have US Law Shield

That's a good one as well.  California, Washington State and New York State helped to drive the NRA out of providing these services by declaring them "murder insurance" and therefore illegal.

I'm sure given time...U.S. Law Shield and and USCCA will have to defend themselves from the same kinds of claims.

[Jazzhead]

He's equally OK with charging the victim of delayed/denied Justice attorney and court costs in attempting to right the wrong.  It's not his money, and it benefits lawyers' pocketbooks.

Why do you accuse me of advocating a position because it will "benefit lawyers' pocketbooks"?   Are you incapable of conducting a discussion in good faith?   

[Cyber Liberty]

Why do you accuse me of advocating a position because it will "benefit lawyers' pocketbooks"?   Are you incapable of conducting a discussion in good faith?

Look who's talking!

[txradioguy]

It is better than taking no action and letting a dangerous individual keep his firearms and bring them to bear to shoot up a family or school.

That's different than the case we're talking about here.  There was no imminent danger no one was going to be harmed.

And has been pointed out since you decided to bring TRO's to a Red Flag discussion these kinds of restraining orders are abused on a regular basis with false accusations and allegations just because someone doesn't like someone else.

And here you are...defending the abuses...justifying a "delay" of due process as a "necessary evil".   

BTW...who gets to determine how long my 4th Amendment rights are "delayed"?

The world is not perfect.  Sometimes, in an emergency,  you have to diffuse the situation first,  and sort it all out later. 

That's a line used in every cop show on tv...right before the judge tosses the case because the defendants due process rights were "delayed".

Bravo.

I continue to be surprised at the reflexive opposition to red flag laws.   Among the "gun control" measures being currently touted,  they alone are directed at the nut who fires the gun, not just guns in general.   The old saw is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.   Well,  fine - but then you resist even measures targeted at the people who kill people,  just because they involve the precious subject of guns.

It's not reflexive counselor...it's a group of people here who have a better grasp of the Second Amendment than you do.  It doesn't take a JD to understand what is Constitutional and what isn't.

"tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent." - Voltaire

You want to punish the masses the millions of legal gun owners to stop what?  Less than 1 percent of the population who might do something wrong with a gun?

Tell me counselor...how do any of these laws or limitations on my right to keep and bear arms do anything al all to stop criminals from using guns?  How would they have prevented that six time convicted felon drug dealer in Philly from shooting six cops.

Answer me that.

Selfishness, pure selfishness.   

On your part...yes it most certainly is.

[roamer_1]

I continue to be surprised at the reflexive opposition to red flag laws.   Among the "gun control" measures being currently touted,  they alone are directed at the nut who fires the gun, not just guns in general.   The old saw is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.   Well,  fine - but then you resist even measures targeted at the people who kill people,  just because they involve the precious subject of guns. 

Selfishness, pure selfishness.   

No they are not @Jazzhead , they are pointed at guns too with even more specificity, leaving the nutcase free as a bird.

And then all you need to do is control the decider - Who it is that determines the danger - and then suddenly rubber-stamped confiscation is a reality.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[verga]

I continue to be surprised at the reflexive opposition to red flag laws.   Among the "gun control" measures being currently touted,  they alone are directed at the nut who fires the gun, not just guns in general.   The old saw is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.   Well,  fine - but then you resist even measures targeted at the people who kill people,  just because they involve the precious subject of guns. 

Selfishness, pure selfishness.   

I try not the read your drivel but his requires a direct response, because you are a special kind of stupid.
Every single state (Read: EVERY SINGLE STATE) has involuntary confinement laws, do you understand that EVERY state. There is no need for a federal law of any kind. Combine those with your precious TRO's and life is good. It is not responsible gun owners fault if other people are too chicken shit to use them and we should not be punished for their cowardice. So for once do the smart thing and shit down and STFU.

[Smokin Joe]

It is better than taking no action and letting a dangerous individual keep his firearms and bring them to bear to shoot up a family or school.   

The world is not perfect.  Sometimes, in an emergency,  you have to diffuse the situation first,  and sort it all out later.   

I continue to be surprised at the reflexive opposition to red flag laws.   Among the "gun control" measures being currently touted,  they alone are directed at the nut who fires the gun, not just guns in general.   The old saw is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.   Well,  fine - but then you resist even measures targeted at the people who kill people,  just because they involve the precious subject of guns. 

Selfishness, pure selfishness.   

You seem to be missing that posting any threat to engage in such nefarious acts is a crime in and of itself.
Making credible threats to engage in such mayhem is a crime. Conspiring with anyone else to do so is a crime.
QED, you have the means to stop such maniacs, who are telegraphing their intent via the internet and other means--and are being stopped using current law.

Looking at the recent events, and even now, the interdiction of such proclaimed intent to engage in such activity, without red flag laws, indicates that current laws are indeed adequate to the task if used.
Opening any Civil Right up to loss on the standard that someone says they think someone MIGHT maybe do something, is to eviscerate that right based on nothing more than gossip.
If someone once found a picture of you in your childhood wearing anything which might have indicated a sympathy (maybe a souvenir kepi or a t-shirt with a Confederate Battle Flag on it) toward the South during the Civil War, by today's standards, that would indicate racist sympathies, and you could be muzzled pending a hearing (at your expense) on whether or not you were going to engage in hate speech--after they took your keyboard away and injected botox into your vocal cords to keep you from saying racist things.

Essentially, that is how red flag laws treat gun owners.

[Cyber Liberty]

You seem to be missing that posting any threat to engage in such nefarious acts is a crime in and of itself.
Making credible threats to engage in such mayhem is a crime. Conspiring with anyone else to do so is a crime.
QED, you have the means to stop such maniacs, who are telegraphing their intent via the internet and other means--and are being stopped using current law.

Looking at the recent events, and even now, the interdiction of such proclaimed intent to engage in such activity, without red flag laws, indicates that current laws are indeed adequate to the task if used.
Opening any Civil Right up to loss on the standard that someone says they think someone MIGHT maybe do something, is to eviscerate that right based on nothing more than gossip.
If someone once found a picture of you in your childhood wearing anything which might have indicated a sympathy (maybe a souvenir kepi or a t-shirt with a Confederate Battle Flag on it) toward the South during the Civil War, by today's standards, that would indicate racist sympathies, and you could be muzzled pending a hearing (at your expense) on whether or not you were going to engage in hate speech--after they took your keyboard away and injected botox into your vocal cords to keep you from saying racist things.

Essentially, that is how red flag laws treat gun owners.

Leftists are amazing.  They will see a law go unenforced, then conclude the problem is we need more laws.

 

[EdJames]

TRUE.
I swear, @EdJames , there must be a course and a handbook, because my ex blew out the stops and tried everything you can think of against me in our divorce - To include applying for TRO, claiming violence against her, and the children.

Fortunately for me, the standard here appears to be 'imminent harm' and requires proof - More than just testimony. Had I ever thumped on her, or the kids, I am sure she'd have got her way. But even given my rowdy past, there was never a time that I was violent except in defending myself or others against violence.

Gratefully, she was denied. In that, and every other attempt to take my shit and cut me off from my kids. But she sure enough tried. Over and over and over again.

I am not against TRO - I think it has a purpose. A woman beat half to death has little reason to claim other than the one who did it to her, and she obviously needs protection. In fact, the TRO does nothing to actually protect her, but if it is violated, it goes to the guilt of the perpetrator, and can serve to lock him in the can after the fact of the violation.

But to say it is not full of rampant abuse would be naive. In fact, I know personally some folks that were not as lucky as I was. If you have ever been convicted of an assault charge, as a instance, you are just screwed, guaranteed, regardless of the circumstances. And around here anyway, it is not uncommon for a man to have committed assault in his youth. Because of that one mistake, some thirty years ago, a woman can use the county and the state to grind him to dust.

Yup, all divorce lawyers are well versed in it!

Also, most police departments have at least one "special" officer that is trained to handhold the plaintiff through the process, and can usually get a judge to grant the TRO within hours.....

[Smokin Joe]

Yup, all divorce lawyers are well versed in it!

Also, most police departments have at least one "special" officer that is trained to handhold the plaintiff through the process, and can usually get a judge to grant the TRO within hours.....

At some point the social serpents slither in and they are masters of prevarication and manipulation. Often outwardly attractive, well groomed, and demure seeming females, they are well versed in parsing swatting flies as threatening gestures and speaking loud enough to be heard as "shouting in a threatening manner".

Plenty of support for the accusers, little or none for the accused, and a really good attorney is hard to find.

[Cyber Liberty]

I like the idea of a reciprocal TRO rule:  If somebody files an exaggerated claim to get a TRO and it's rejected, then the complainant should have the TRO issued on them. 

Should be part of more laws.  Falsely claim a rape?  Prison time.  Falsely claim Sexual Harassment?  Punishment ranging from forced attendance in a "class" to forking over the large sum of cash that would have been awarded in a lawsuit.  SWATTING?  Death penalty.  As it is now, there is no consequence for filing a false report to get a TRO, so natch, it's used offensively.  Even a cave man can see that shit coming.

I sure am glad somebody prevailed over me to keep this TRO bullshit linked to a story about a fellow who got his guns grabbed because of an erroneous application of a Red Flag. 

[Smokin Joe]

I like the idea of a reciprocal TRO rule:  If somebody files an exaggerated claim to get a TRO and it's rejected, then the complainant should have the TRO issued on them. 

Should be part of more laws.  Falsely claim a rape?  Prison time.  Falsely claim Sexual Harassment?  Punishment ranging from forced attendance in a "class" to forking over the large sum of cash that would have been awarded in a lawsuit.  SWATTING?  Death penalty.  As it is now, there is no consequence for filing a false report to get a TRO, so natch, it's used offensively.  Even a cave man can see that shit coming.

I sure am glad somebody prevailed over me to keep this TRO bullshit linked to a story about a fellow who got his guns grabbed because of an erroneous application of a Red Flag.

Actually, though it reeks of Hammurabi, I like it, too.
False accusers should have to bear the legal costs of the formerly accused and vindicated person(s) as well.

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, though it reeks of Hammurabi, I like it, too.
False accusers should have to bear the legal costs of the formerly accused and vindicated person(s) as well.

I learnt a new thing today!  I Goggled that, and got....

Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice. Unlike earlier Sumerian law codes, such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, which had focused on compensating the victim of the crime, the Law of Hammurabi was one of the first law codes to place greater emphasis on the physical punishment of the perpetrator. It prescribed specific penalties for each crime and is among the first codes to establish the presumption of innocence. Although its penalties are extremely harsh by modern standards, they were intended to limit what a wronged person was permitted to do in retribution. The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities, but these are probably due to shared background and oral tradition, and it is unlikely that Hammurabi's laws exerted any direct impact on the later Mosaic ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

[Smokin Joe]

I learnt a new thing today!  I Goggled that, and got....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

Yep!  "An eye for an eye" comes from that.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I like the idea of a reciprocal TRO rule:  If somebody files an exaggerated claim to get a TRO and it's rejected, then the complainant should have the TRO issued on them. 

Should be part of more laws.  Falsely claim a rape?  Prison time.  Falsely claim Sexual Harassment?  Punishment ranging from forced attendance in a "class" to forking over the large sum of cash that would have been awarded in a lawsuit.  SWATTING?  Death penalty.  As it is now, there is no consequence for filing a false report to get a TRO, so natch, it's used offensively.  Even a cave man can see that shit coming.

I sure am glad somebody prevailed over me to keep this TRO bullshit linked to a story about a fellow who got his guns grabbed because of an erroneous application of a Red Flag.

A nice idea, but I doubt it would amount to anything.  First, you have to prove that something didn't happen, which is a much, much, higher bar than just arguing that there is insufficient proof that it did.  And then you have to prove that the false claim was malicious.

But I suppose having those laws in place, even if they led to few convictions, might scare off some from trying.

[Smokin Joe]

A nice idea, but I doubt it would amount to anything.  First, you have to prove that something didn't happen, which is a much, much, higher bar than just arguing that there is insufficient proof that it did.  And then you have to prove that the false claim was malicious.

But I suppose having those laws in place, even if they led to few convictions, might scare off some from trying.

With social media screenshots taken in the heat of passion, I think proof of malice would be easier.

[Cyber Liberty]

With social media screenshots taken in the heat of passion, I think proof of malice would be easier.

People have a habit of boasting about their conquest when they succeed in using the law to screw someone over.  They do so in a place or manner where it can be overheard.

[Smokin Joe]

People have a habit of boasting about their conquest when they succeed in using the law to screw someone over.  They do so in a place or manner where it can be overheard.

And documented, including boastful accounts of perjury. Screenshots of that should be sufficient to reopen a case--and bring charges, and allow for civil redress as well.

[Jazzhead]

I try not the read your drivel but his requires a direct response, because you are a special kind of stupid.
Every single state (Read: EVERY SINGLE STATE) has involuntary confinement laws, do you understand that EVERY state. There is no need for a federal law of any kind. Combine those with your precious TRO's and life is good. It is not responsible gun owners fault if other people are too chicken shit to use them and we should not be punished for their cowardice. So for once do the smart thing and shit down and STFU.

I'm pleased that you read my drivel,  but don't misunderstand - I don't advocate a federal red flag law.   Such laws, like most all gun regulation, should be at the state level.  The 2A protects the rights of states to maintain their citizen militias,  and Heller (and McDonald) directly address the ability of states to regulate the individual right.   

The proposed law that was the topic of a recent law doesn't impose a federal red flag law,  but would provide aid to states that enacted red flag laws with robust due process protections.   It is an attempt to ensure that, as states pass such laws in response to shootings by abusive spouses and nutjobs whipped up by on-line manifestos, the rights of gun owners are respected.   

[Jazzhead]

I like the idea of a reciprocal TRO rule:  If somebody files an exaggerated claim to get a TRO and it's rejected, then the complainant should have the TRO issued on them. 

Should be part of more laws.  Falsely claim a rape?  Prison time.  Falsely claim Sexual Harassment?  Punishment ranging from forced attendance in a "class" to forking over the large sum of cash that would have been awarded in a lawsuit.  SWATTING?  Death penalty.  As it is now, there is no consequence for filing a false report to get a TRO, so natch, it's used offensively.  Even a cave man can see that shit coming.

Conceptually,  I have no problem with that.  TROs and red flag laws can help prevent genuine harm, but like everyone here I condemn their abuse.

 Actually,  a better idea may be to provide for a loser-pays rule like what some European countries have.   Gun owners aren't the only targets of spurious lawsuits.   Let the loser in any civil lawsuit pay the legal bills of the winner.   With that risk to consider,  you'll see the amount of civil litigation cut in half overnight.   Or just get rid of contingency fees.   If you want to sue,  then pay your lawyer, not approach the process like an opportunity to win the lottery.