One of the very few studies on Red Flag Confiscations finds that 95% of the time, in the case of a potential suicide, the person whose guns are confiscated and over 70% of the time destroyed, was at no risk of harming themselves.

http://jaapl.org/content/early/2019/04/15/JAAPL.003835-19

At what percent risk is confiscating and destroying personal property, which a person has a constitutional right to, acceptable?

Keith

there are people running for office in every state with anti gun views. And probably mayors in every state similar. He has better chance being elected president than govorner of IN, IMO. We aren’t exactly known for being liberal Democrats. But they are around, no doubt about that.

Do you have a link to this 70% of people’s guns being taken and destroyed because they said something stupid?

Cause I live here, and I have never seen it abused. I know and meet a lot of people, and I’ve not known anyone who has had their guns taken OR destroyed. It’s like you are just saying random things, trying to confuse or distract from the points being discussed. Man, 70% is a lot of guns from a lot of people in THIS state! Not buying that without clarification or proof. Not for a second. Maybe you meant 70% of the people who had them taken away due to red flag had them eventually destroyed? Yeah, those are probably mostly the ones I DONT WANT HAVING GUNS EITHER! I tend to agree with our conservative judges around here, and if they say someone is too crazy to have a gun, and the Sherrif flagged them for making threats, I support that. The other 30% got due process and got the guns back. Which means that 70% of the time a judge agreed with the Sherrif. Not a perfect record, but not bad either, especially when the ones who were wrongfully flagged were given the guns back. I’m just kind of scratching my head, wondering why people don’t like this law. Again, it is not abused here where I live, and I understand how it could be abused. But when it is not abused it is a good thing.

Study examines 395 cases of removal over 7 years in Marion County (Indianapolis) and finds based on statistical analysis that it saved around 40 suicides from happening. The study did not include potential averted murders.
Most of those who had guns destroyed apparently chose to not show up or have representation at the court hearings, so the judge ruled against them. All very interesting. And I still like the red flag law Indiana. Maybe even more now that I read that. Thanks for the link.

Here's an example of what happens in "pro gun Indiana", when a man acts admittedly strangely and then goes 6 years without any incidents and is judged safe by many doctors.

"Man seeks return of 51 guns taken under ‘red flag law’
February 27, 2019 | Katie Stancombe
An Indianapolis man is again petitioning for the return of his 51 confiscated firearms after a judge previously determined him dangerous due to his bizarre behavior near a Bloomington bar. But an Indiana Court of Appeals panel Tuesday seemed to struggle with the argument that he was still dangerous six years later.

In 2012, Robert Redington was found across the street from Kilroy’s Sports Bar looking through a range-finder at the place where missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer was last seen. Bloomington police detained Redington for mental observation after he told them he could see spirits and that he was investigating Spierer’s disappearance.

A Monroe Circuit Court judge then ordered Redington’s 51 guns and ammunition be confiscated after determining him to be “dangerous” under I.C. § 35-47-14-1(a)(2)(B). Known as Indiana’s “red flag law,” the statute allows law enforcement to take possession of firearms, pending formal hearings, from people who are found to be statutorily “dangerous."

Redington initially challenged the confiscation to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s order in a divided August 2013 decision. Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court likewise denied Redington’s petition to transfer the case in November 2013. Two years later, Redington again appealed to the trial court for the return of his firearms, but he was denied upon the finding that Redington failed to carry his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that circumstances had changed since 2012 and that he was no longer dangerous.

During a Tuesday oral argument before an appellate panel consisting of Judges Patricia Riley, James Kirsch and Margret Robb, appellant counsel Guy Relford argued that Redington was never proven to be an imminent risk of personal injury to anyone. Relford noted that in the more than five years since the first hearing took place, Redington had been evaluated by three certified doctors and psychiatrists, all of whom found him not dangerous.

“Yet, despite the state not offering a bit of evidence at that hearing, specifically no expert testimony that refuted the expert evaluations and conclusions of the mental healthcare practitioners who had observed and examined Mr. Redington, the trial court still rejected all of those professional opinions and found him to be dangerous,” Relford said. “We think that is clearly erroneous.”

Relford argued that the issue before the trial court was whether Redington was dangerous at the time of the 2018 hearing, not whether he was found to be dangerous at the initial hearing in 2012. He further argued that Redington was not found to have a mental illness under the statute, but rather that the issue at hand was whether Redington had a current propensity for emotionally unstable conduct.

Story Continues Below

Relford added anyone could be potentially dangerous in the future, but no one is able to predict that without speculation. When asked whether his argument would be different if Redington had asked for his guns back six months after the initial confiscation, Relford said the current argument for their return was substantially stronger as to the amount of time that had passed.

“What’s changed is the six years since that initial hearing, were any prediction that Mr. Redington was ever going to be dangerous have not come to pass,” Relford said. “How long do we have to wait?”

Opposing state counsel Ellen Meilaender said that Redington’s potential dangerousness could be quantified by the way it was given credence originally in 2012, arguing that the statute did not require Redington to be dangerous within a set period of time.

However, the appellate panel questioned Meilaender’s argument, noting that the initial evidence was several years old and that no new evidence was presented as to whether Redington’s formally diagnosed psychiatric conditions had resulted in any dangerous or violent conduct, or would in the future.

“He could have gone to counseling and had somebody say he's loonier than he was before,” one judge said. “I mean, the best evidence is nothing's happened, and we've got five more years, so how do you say nothing's changed, that it's still operative?”

Meilaender then struggled to agree with the appellate panel regarding testimony of medical professionals on Redington’s behalf who found he was no longer dangerous, and ultimately requested the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court’s judgment in Robert Redington v. State of Indiana, 18A-CR-00950."

Keith

This just might have been a case of injustice. Congratulations, you found one potential example. That’s Bloomington, by far the most anti-gun place in this state, so if it will happen it will probably be there. Notice there was a big article about it - it was news. Maybe that’s because we really are pro gun, and we are watching closely to expose any abuse. As I’ve said, I understand the concerns about abuse, and of course it can happen. But it can also be a good thing when used appropriately.
And I would like to hear from that 3 judge panel as to why they ruled against him. And why our Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Maybe your right, Indiana is just full of judges and police who are anti gun and willing to abuse the red flag law to further an anti gun agenda. But you won’t convince me of that easily, certainly not with one POTENTIAL example from Bloomington. And what’s up with that “this is what happens in pro gun Indiana...”? Are you saying we aren’t pro gun? Because I’m feeling fairly confident that we are, and I live here. But with Ohio’s gun law history (one of my best friends is a police officer in Ohio, and we have discussed gun laws for 25 years as they have changed) I’d probably worry about rampant abuse too if I lived there. Or California. So I GET IT, abuse can happen, but the way I see our red flag implemented, with now one POSSIBLE exception, I like it.

This just might have been a case of injustice. Congratulations, you found one potential example. That’s Bloomington, by far the most anti-gun place in this state, so if it will happen it will probably be there. Notice there was a big article about it - it was news. Maybe that’s because we really are pro gun, and we are watching closely to expose any abuse. As I’ve said, I understand the concerns about abuse, and of course it can happen. But it can also be a good thing when used appropriately.
And I would like to hear from that 3 judge panel as to why they ruled against him. And why our Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Maybe your right, Indiana is just full of judges and police who are anti gun and willing to abuse the red flag law to further an anti gun agenda. But you won’t convince me of that easily, certainly not with one POTENTIAL example from Bloomington. And what’s up with that “this is what happens in pro gun Indiana...”? Are you saying we aren’t pro gun? Because I’m feeling fairly confident that we are, and I live here. But with Ohio’s gun law history (one of my best friends is a police officer in Ohio, and we have discussed gun laws for 25 years as they have changed) I’d probably worry about rampant abuse too if I lived there. Or California. So I GET IT, abuse can happen, but the way I see our red flag implemented, with now one POSSIBLE exception, I like it.

Keith when you say “obvious, to most of us...” who are these “most of us”? People who live around you in Ohio?
I can tell you this, I run with some gun toting folks, who carry a pistol on the hip and an AR in the truck, who live and work in IN all day every day, and we are not seeing these “obvious “ problems. Never been an issue around here.

I mean most Trapperman members.

Keith

loosanarrow:

saying they want to kill me,

I do understand what you are saying Keith. I hope you can understand that I see our red flag law being used reasonably.
I agree that no crime has been committed when the guns are removed. But I also see that without this tool, at least in Indiana, you have to wait for the crime to be committed; and when that crime would be shooting me or my family, and someone is clearly not acting sane and rational, and saying they want to kill me, don’t want to wait for that. And I’m not sure it is a crime to act psychotic and admit to wanting to kill someone. Maybe that’s the law Indiana could have went with, make it illegal to act psychotic and say you want to kill someone... Or maybe some think I should have to wait till he shoots and hope he misses? I don’t know what the answer is. But I’m good with our law the way it is being implemented around here 4 hours north of Bloomington.
May I ask, what would you do in Ohio in this scenario- crazy person clearly not acting right, saying he thinks has to kill you because you are a demon? I know Ohio can pink slip someone for 72 hours at hospital, but what about when they are released? Do you feel that you must take your chance and hope he doesn’t shoot or misses if he does? Is it a crime to do that in Ohio and can he be arrested? I’ve never asked my Ohio police buddy that so I don’t know. What is is your favorite way to handle a situation like that?