Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun seizures spike nationally, as states pass laws aimed at curbing mass shootings

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Gun seizures spike nationally, as states pass laws aimed at curbing mass shootings

    Gun seizures spike nationally, as states pass laws aimed at curbing mass shootings

    Courts are issuing an unprecedented number of orders to seize firearms from people they deem to be mentally ill or threats to others, following a rash of state-level legislation aimed at curbing mass shootings across the country.

    Even as conservatives sound the alarm about potential Second Amendment violations, supporters -- sometimes across party lines -- say these "red flag" laws are among the most promising tools to reduce the nearly 40,000 suicides and homicides by firearm each year in the country.

    “I think we’re seeing a building consensus in blue states and red states that this is a good way to balance public safety against people’s Second Amendment rights,” Jaron Lindbaum, a representative of the activist grop Washington Ceasefire, told Fox News.

    Nine states have passed laws over the past year allowing police or household members to seek court orders requiring people deemed threatening to temporarily surrender their guns, bringing the total to 14. Several more are likely to follow in the months ahead.

    More than 1,700 orders allowing guns to be seized for weeks, months or up to a year were issued in 2018 by the courts after they determined the individuals were a threat to themselves or others. The actual number is probably much higher since the data was incomplete and didn't include California, where newly-installed Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has moved swiftly to curtail gun rights.

    In his first few weeks in office, Newsom has quickly moved to reduce the number of Californians with firearms and given activists hope that a number of measures vetoed by former Gov. Jerry Brown will once again see the light of day.

    “We have all the ingredients we need to make meaningful change,” state Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel said Monday at a press conference in Sacramento. “We have expanded Democratic majority in both houses. We have a bright and ambitious new governor with a real track record on this issue who wants to make this a priority.”

    In his state budget plan, which was released just days after he took office in January, Newsom proposed an additional $5.6 million in funding – about 50 percent more than Brown allocated in his last budget – to seize firearms from the thousands of people who are ineligible to be gun owners because of past criminal convictions or mental illness. The gun seizure program has been underfunded in the past, with the result being that around 10,000 people in the state were able to purchase firearms, but later were convicted of a felony or found to have a serious mental illness.

    Newsom also wants state lawmakers to expand a California Department of Justice unit tasked with enforcing gun sale laws and, in his proposed budget, has asked for more funding for the Firearms Violence Research Center at the University of California, Davis.

    In his inauguration speech, Newsom promised to be tough on “a gun lobby willing to sacrifice the lives of our children to line their pockets.”

    Since the beginning of the year, California state legislators have already introduced measures to put a 10-year firearm prohibition on anyone convicted of two drug or alcohol crimes in a three-year period, requiring gun owners to lock up their weapons when they are not home, and a tax on gun sales that would help fund violence prevention programs.

    A bill that would permit more people to seek a gun violence restraining order against someone they believe poses a danger to themselves or others has also been reintroduced. It was previously vetoed by Brown.

    The gun-seizure laws gained momentum nationally after it was learned that Nikolas Cruz, the young man accused in the 2018 Valentine's Day attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., was widely known to be mentally troubled yet had access to weapons, including the assault-style rifle used to kill 17 students and staff members.

    "Parkland would never have happened if Florida had a red flag law," Linda Beigel Schulman said during a recent news conference with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is expected to sign his state's new law any day. Her son, Scott Beigel, was a teacher and coach killed during the Parkland attack.

    Florida passed a red flag law as part of a gun-control package in the wake of the shooting. Aside from New York, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont also have adopted variations since then. California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington already had similar laws.

    Several states are debating them this year, including New Mexico, where two students were killed in a school shooting in December 2017.

    The laws are being invoked frequently in many of the states that have them.

    Authorities in Maryland granted more than 300 petitions to temporarily disarm individuals in the three months after the state's law went into effect Oct. 1. Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin said the cases included four "significant" threats of school shootings, and that a majority of the people who were subjects of the orders were suffering from mental health crises.

    "These orders are not only being issued appropriately, they are saving lives," Popkin told lawmakers last month.

    In Vermont, a prosecutor obtained an order to strip gun rights from a teenager released from jail after being accused of plotting a school shooting.

    Florida courts granted more than 1,000 orders in the first nine months of its new law. Broward County, which includes Parkland, has been at the forefront, accounting for roughly 15 percent of cases statewide.

    Among the first people subjected to the law was Cruz's younger brother, who authorities said was showing signs of violence after allegedly trespassing at the high school after the shooting. In another case, Florida authorities took dozens of firearms from a bailiff accused of threatening other courthouse employees.

    Connecticut has the nation's longest-standing red flag law, which went into effect in 1999 after a mass shooting at the state lottery office. Authorities there say new awareness of the law contributed to a spike in 2018 in warrants issued to take away weapons — 268, the highest total on record, according to court data.

    The rise reflects the more aggressive posture police have adopted since the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and other attacks.

    One study found that the Connecticut law reduced gun suicides by more than 10 percent in recent years and that a similar law in Indiana led to a 7.5 percent drop.

    "It really gives us a unique opportunity as prosecutors to come in before the violence has occurred. Often we are tackling it on the other side," said Kimberly Wyatt, a prosecutor in King County, Washington, who has been seeking one or two such orders per week in and around Seattle.

    She said authorities use the best available research and their judgment, looking at whether a person has talked about suicide, threatened others, stalked someone or shown signs of a mental health crisis.

    Gun-rights advocates argue that the laws can be used unfairly based on unproven accusations.

    "In today's society, the police are going to err on the side of caution. The threshold for issuing these types of warrants has been lowered," lamented Scott Wilson Sr., president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League.

    Debates in state legislatures often turn on how much due process gun owners should receive and who can petition for the orders. In some states, only police can file the petitions. Other states allow members of the person's household, relatives, school officials, employers and health care providers to do so.

    Most states allow for temporary orders that are issued for days or weeks. Judges then hold hearings to decide whether to extend them for up to one year.

    During the debate in New Mexico, Army veteran Rico Giron testified that people could see their guns seized over grudges between family members or neighbors.

    "It's incredibly dangerous because it opens the door for vindictiveness and revenge," Giron said.

    The bill's sponsor, Democratic Rep. Daymon Ely, said he wants parents to have another option if they have a child suffering from mental illness.

    "The state has an obligation to say, 'Yes, there is something we can do for you,'" Ely said.
    Courts are issuing an unprecedented number of orders to seize firearms from people they deem to be mentally ill or threats to others, following a rash of state-level legislation aimed at curbing mass shootings across the country.

    #2
    When do the civil lawsuits start? Somebody "red flags" me they better get ready to be sued for billions!
    Just Another Reason For Me To Retire in Tennessee.

    Comment


      #3
      Agreed, these laws will be challenged by the hundreds...the thousands. Shame of it is, based on the state or Circuit hearing the arguments, we can probably accurately predict what those rulings will be. I hope Roberts is out with the flu when SCOTUS gets his one.

      Red Flags will be the divorce lawyers new, best friend...shit all over due process. There should be accountability built into bullshit Red Flag reports, they are ripe for malicious abuse.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post
        Agreed, these laws will be challenged by the hundreds...the thousands. Shame of it is, based on the state or Circuit hearing the arguments, we can probably accurately predict what those rulings will be. I hope Roberts is out with the flu when SCOTUS gets his one.

        Red Flags will be the divorce lawyers new, best friend...shit all over due process. There should be accountability built into bullshit Red Flag reports, they are ripe for malicious abuse.
        Ginsberg's replacement will give us a solidly pro 2A court.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by spider View Post

          Ginsberg's replacement will give us a solidly pro 2A court.
          She will Stay on through 2020 as long as she has a pulse. Nothing short of a Trocar will get between her and the next election. Short of impeachment there is nothing that says she even has to show up for work.
          Her hatred for POTUS could be strong medicine to keep her ticking.

          Of course a Trump landslide would dispatch her pretty effectively too.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post

            She will Stay on through 2020 as long as she has a pulse. Nothing short of a Trocar will get between her and the next election. Short of impeachment there is nothing that says she even has to show up for work.
            Her hatred for POTUS could be strong medicine to keep her ticking.

            Of course a Trump landslide would dispatch her pretty effectively too.
            What if someone unplugs the respirator?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by spider View Post

              Ginsberg's replacement will give us a solidly pro 2A court.
              Even if she dropped dead tomorrow, the libtards would Weekend At Bernie's her until at least 2020. You'll know she's dead when you see her staff discreetly buying Fabreze in bulk and Ruth starts wearing sunglasses all the time.

              Comment


                #8
                The buzzards follow her wherever she goes

                Comment


                  #9
                  "Only when the entity that illegally deprives someone of their rights are hit with SERIOUS repercussions, will people's rights be restored.

                  Winning a lawsuit and having taxpayers pay for it without taxpayers even knowing about it - is NOT a serious repercussion. And no matter how many lawsuits there are, it won't change anything unless the actual people calling the shots are held responsible."
                  No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy

                  - U.S. Marines

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post
                    "Only when the entity that illegally deprives someone of their rights are hit with SERIOUS repercussions, will people's rights be restored.

                    Winning a lawsuit and having taxpayers pay for it without taxpayers even knowing about it - is NOT a serious repercussion. And no matter how many lawsuits there are, it won't change anything unless the actual people calling the shots are held responsible."
                    and then I woke up

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by spider View Post

                      What if someone unplugs the respirator?
                      you mean the puppet strings?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Dan 0351 View Post
                        "Only when the entity that illegally deprives someone of their rights are hit with SERIOUS repercussions, will people's rights be restored.

                        Winning a lawsuit and having taxpayers pay for it without taxpayers even knowing about it - is NOT a serious repercussion. And no matter how many lawsuits there are, it won't change anything unless the actual people calling the shots are held responsible."
                        I do not have a problem with the concept of the red flag laws but there must be amendments made by the feds or SCOTUS that override state laws.
                        1. After 30 days, with no actual corroborated proof, the guns go back to the owner, no hearings, no lawyers, just a voucher turned in, guns returned and “sorry for the inconvenience”.

                        2. If there is proof that it was a malicious prosecution, falsified evidence or false accusation just to punish, extort, political gain, divorce gaming, etc. the crime must be federal civil rights violation on top of any local crimes, punishable by 10 years in federal prison with no judicial discretion. Lawyers or doctors involved also have their licenses revoked. Permanently

                        Any other additions welcome.

                        Give peace a chance, I'll cover you in case that doesn't work out.

                        LIBERALISM should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Sparks25 View Post

                          I do not have a problem with the concept of the red flag laws but there must be amendments made by the feds or SCOTUS that override state laws.
                          1. After 30 days, with no actual corroborated proof, the guns go back to the owner, no hearings, no lawyers, just a voucher turned in, guns returned and “sorry for the inconvenience”.

                          2. If there is proof that it was a malicious prosecution, falsified evidence or false accusation just to punish, extort, political gain, divorce gaming, etc. the crime must be federal civil rights violation on top of any local crimes, punishable by 10 years in federal prison with no judicial discretion. Lawyers or doctors involved also have their licenses revoked. Permanently

                          Any other additions welcome.
                          Citizens do not deserve to lose their second amendment rights because of an "accusation" and hearsay. They were NOT arrested/charged with a crime. If someone is deemed too dangerous to have guns they shouldn't bee free roaming in our society. You give the antis an inch they will take a mile, it will never be enough for the anti gunners, if you try to compromise they will always want more.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by M_F View Post

                            Citizens do not deserve to lose their second amendment rights because of an "accusation" and hearsay. They were NOT arrested/charged with a crime. If someone is deemed too dangerous to have guns they shouldn't bee free roaming in our society. You give the antis an inch they will take a mile, it will never be enough for the anti gunners, if you try to compromise they will always want more.
                            I agree 100% however, we have already lost about 18 states and to most people it sounds like “common sense”. We are not likely to win that battle any time soon. There is no more compromise in NYS. That is why we need some checks and balances written into the laws. It would be better if there were strict guidelines and burdens of proof for “dangerous” but I don’t see that coming either with all dems in the state govt.
                            There are no longer any adults in the room.
                            Give peace a chance, I'll cover you in case that doesn't work out.

                            LIBERALISM should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Sparks25 View Post

                              I agree 100% however, we have already lost about 18 states and to most people it sounds like “common sense”. We are not likely to win that battle any time soon. There is no more compromise in NYS. That is why we need some checks and balances written into the laws. It would be better if there were strict guidelines and burdens of proof for “dangerous” but I don’t see that coming either with all dems in the state govt.
                              There are no longer any adults in the room.
                              Sadly even if no red flag law occurs at the federal level the number of states (even pro 2A states) with this law will increase. As long as people keep parroting "common sense" and "safety" the masses will keep accepting this infringement, I'm afraid this and "universal background checks" will become the law of every state in the near future.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X