Governor of Ohio news conf on guns & such

Here is the news conference from this morning from our Governor. Skip the first 26:30 minutes. Listen to the proposals he is asking our General Assembly to pass. Red flag law and deeper back round checks. Glad they are doing more on mental health but, doesn't seem like to me, imo, they are going after what is causing the problems. What are your thoughts?

Red flag laws are VERY bad idea and will get people killed. Not only retribution killings when a neighbor calls the sheriff saying he is afraid, (even though he is really mad because the guy next door put a dead cat in the garbage can and it stinks), but also because law enforcement will have to use their assault team to do the seizure and killing is going to be the result sometimes.

I saw where New Jersey is said to have the most stringent background checks in the U.S. and that both of these last two killers would've passed it.

What's that tell ya about doing this knee-jerk reaction?

Of course we HAVE to do something,anything.
typical knee jerk reaction to a bad situation.
This allows the state ,then feds and local police to seize and most likey never receive them gun back, then again how about a family member living with a total gun family. Now we will have a complete take away and again never see them. Once the police takes em there never gonna return them with court action after court action.
Maybe make a legal decree that mass shooters get 6 months to show just cause,,,then make a statement and kill them. fryem, shootem, inject them.
Maybe they should also remove All the violent gaming systems like fortnight, commando so violence isn't in there young minds to begin with.

Here in SD the mental heath history is not accessible for background checks but that might change soon with the way things are going.

They don't care about mental health. They want our guns so we can't defend ourselves.

I just watched some fer gov. Named Whaley. Her comments to the press went like this..............

Yes, we should look at mental health but we really need to look at guns.
Yes, Trump said some good things but we/he needs to do something about the guns.
People don't need guns like this.
Guns
Guns
Guns

Yep, she was a democrat.

Red flag laws, the ones I have seen are completely unconstitutional. You are losing property without due process. Not right anyway you look at it.

Truth is they want all the evil that causes and creates mass and serial killers. Things like removing God and the church from public life, destruction of the family through welfare and free sex of all perversions. Desensitization to death and consequence through infanticide up to the moment and after birth.
Then when the end result of their evil occurs they seek only tO plunge even deeper into madness.

WELL SAID ^^^^

not sure how Ohio handles 72 hour mental health hold . but in WIs if you can't find something to hold them on for 72 hours , you got NOTHING worth red flagging.

and by doing a 72 hour hold your addressing the actual mental health issue and not just trying to remove the guns.

All politicians are wolves in sheep's clothing and the biggest liars. I don't trust Trump , Pence , or none of them as far as I can spit!!! There is only one man that never lied and that was Jesus Christ and he said , don't follow man.

Red flag laws would/could strongly discriminate against military veterans. Especially those that have went through combat. If I were king and I wanted to confiscate arms, first I would want to confiscate the arms of trained professionals(veterans) through laws targeting mental illness, for their own good of course. I would feel much better with them out of the picture in my confiscation scheme. Would rather just have to deal with a good ol' boy and his deer rifle as I go door to door confiscating firearms.

It's already here in ohio. Guy I know got into a heated argument with a guy. They have been arguing for 20 years. He called the sheriff and said he was afraid he was going to hurt him and his wife didnt feel safe to go outside. Sheriff was at his door with a order from the judge. You can either bring them out or we will come in and get them. He handed them over and now its up to him to prove his innocence. He never said a word about hurting him with a firearm.

He is a PP Governor … More like Katshiz every day and almost as bad as Bob Taft was. I certainly hope he is a one termer ….

Garry-

I have the right to protect myself and family, IF I get red-flagged I have lost that protection. Who is going to be held responsible if something happen, the police, they are just following the law and they get there most of the time after the fact. JMO

Wow, these are the things that are gonna start happening even if the language of the law (if passes the General Assembly) is written well. I know I sure wouldn't want a 9th circuit Judge deciding my case. With their turn over rate it's clear they aren't Constitutional minded lol.

I don't believe all this mental health crap.
Mostly lib parents being p???sies

Indiana has a red flag law, and every time I’ve seen it used I was glad law enforcement had that tool. And in each case the person got the guns back. I guess I’m not seeing the big problem, at least the way it used here, which is reasonably and only in cases where someone was claiming that they wanted to kill themselves or someone else. I don’t know about you guys, but if someone says to me “I’m going to kill you as soon as I have a chance...”, I don’t want them to have a gun until they calm down.
And if red flag laws can actually reduce the problem, it is a worthwhile “give”, if it is a give, (again we have one and I’ve never seen it used when it should not have been), because the other types of gun control are far more relevant to us law abiding citizens than red flag laws. Don’t threaten to go crazy and kill people, don’t openly act like you are a violent criminal or about to be one, and it means NOTHING to you. I have a suppressor, and many firearms, carry a pistol on my side every waking hour, and I like Indiana’s red flag law.
Go ahead, tear into me, but if one of you guys calls me a liberal or anti-gun, do it to my face or I will call you a coward.

You can give up your freedom a little bit at a time, that's your choice.
Me,they will never take my freedom or my guns. MY COLD DEAD HANDS

Respectfully sir, if I am doing the things that allow my Sherrif to invoke our red flag law, I hope he does take them away and save innocents from my mentally unstable craze.
And if you don’t do anything crazy, like for instance run out in the street in a psychotic rage threatening to shoot neighbors and police, YOU LOSE NO FREEDOM!
But hey go ahead, give the mentally unstable guy your gun, hand it to him just to see if he is serious. Don’t want him to lose any freedom, can’t have that. As for me, I will help the Sherrif disarm him, and if you really think he has a right to have it and you decide to come to fight that battle and help him keep the guns, cold dead hands it just might have to be!

I wish it was as simple as you say, and I'm not bashing you at all, just having a conversation. The problem is with red flag laws, a lot are written that allow family, friends, neighbors, sexual partners, LE and pretty much anyone to say your a danger and bam, you have to prove your not. So all it can take is someone getting mad at you and then you have to go through all the hassle and probably spend money, that not everyone has. How is circumventing other Amendments to destroy another justifiable?

Did I mention that in Indiana I can carry a loaded long gun in my lap and drive around legally? Did I mention that if you do not have a felony conviction or a current felony indictment or domestic violence conviction you WILL be issued a handgun permit? Without any training requirements? Or that my local Sherrif shook my hand and said “have fun with that thing!” when he approved my suppressor paperwork?
No lack of gun freedom here at the state level. Red flag law means nothing to me. Nothing. Other than safety from mentally ill people who are threatening violence....

Abuse of the red flag would be a bad bad scene, and it could happen. It just doesn’t happen here. It might in less firearm friendly states.
I should say, as it is written and applied here in IN, I like it.
I’ve not lost any freedom or been negatively impacted, and it has taken guns out of the hands of people who were clearly in no condition to use good judgement with them.

I’m not bashing either. We don’t live in the same “gun attitude environment “, so in your state it might end up being a circus of abuse. It is not abused in IN, and I like the law.

The problem with Red Flag Laws is that democrats and other politicians will use them as a tool to confiscate guns from progressively more people, by tweaking their definition of what makes someone a risk, thus taking away guns from law abiding people, who pose little risk of using a firearm to commit an act of violence. It is a dangerously, slippery slope.

I can easily foresee when all people who have been diagnosed with any mental illness, including depression, bipolar disorder, mania, post traumatic stress and treatable schizophrenia have their firearms taken away and destroyed. I can also easily foresee when anyone who says anything against a minority, a woman, a religious minority or an immigrant also has their firearms confiscated and destroyed. I further can forsee that someone who criticizes the government or a political party will eventually make the Red Flag List.

Keith

So what your saying is because there is a law written and passed that makes it OK for the police to come into my house and basically steal my guns that's OK.
The law says Innocent until proven guilty.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional and theft

So to be clear, if your neighbor who has been acting out of character and howling at the moon starts telling the other neighbors that you are the Devil, and God is telling him he has to shoot you with his deer rifle or you will destroy the world (what I’m saying is he is gone psychotic), you feel that until he actually shoots you, we must afford him the same gun rights as a guy walking his dog, smiling and saying hi as he walks by with a pistol on his side?
That is to ask, you actually think someone should be allowed to act on threats made under delusional psychosis and shoot someone before guns can be taken away?
My dad says that when he was in school there were extra curricular shooting clubs. And school shootings were unheard of. We have a sickness, a problem, and is not the guns. But not letting people who are threatening to shoot up the school have a gun for a while, or until they convince a judge they are safe, just might be part of a solution. And I repeat, it has been in effect here for years, and has no impact on my gun rights.

X2

A direct threat is already unlawful


A red flag law allows your b____ ex wife to make one simple phone call , and your local police will come steal all your guns . Truth never enters into the equation

If the Red Flag laws are handled as they should be I don't have much trouble with them. However, with the democrats making everything political, it will not be handled the way it should.

I fully expect that if these laws are enacted that the time is coming when every gun owner will be considered a threat to society.


Garryowen

Agree 100%

Direct threat may be unlawful in some states, but does that person still have a right to own guns in the face of that crime? If not no red flag law needed. Because there is a defacto red flag law - or at least that crime can be used as one, which seems to be the same effect. Indiana needed one apparently, and I’ve never even heard of it being abused. Do you suppose arresting the psychotic guy and making him post bail will make him straighten up and be less of a threat? It would me, but then I’m not a psychotic guy who has spent the last month convincing myself the devil next door needs shot. A night in jail might not help that guy, in fact I dare say he might be even more sure that the devil who got him arrested needs to be shot. I understand the concerns, but seriously it is not abused here, so I will narrow it down and just go with the fact that I like the law here in IN because we are a very pro gun state, and I’m not worried about it being abused. No elected Sherrif will last long around here doing that.

Me either.
It’s not humane to lock up a mentally ill person.

There are 1001 ways for red flag abuse

Of course not.

Unless you are obviously deranged and making threats.
Then yes, I think your guns should be taken, for a period of time that allows due process to determine if you actually are a threat. Before you actually shoot an innocent person. And that is not stealing, that is removing/confiscating for a limited time.

And it is reasonable. I would take your guns myself if you were stating a psychotic induced threat to me or my family, and are obviously not capable of sane reason. Yep, I would “theft” your guns for that ( it’s clearly not theft, I’ve read the law, but just for the sake of argument we will call it theft), because it makes me feel less bad than just killing you first to be sure. And involves less jail time for me if I get caught. But I’m not waiting till you actually shoot me or mine to act. If the role was reversed, what would you do? Again I understand concerns about abuse, but it can work and be reasonable. I know because it does here. But perhaps my comfort is enhanced because it has never affected me in any way. Indiana does not abuse it, and when it is not abused it is a good thing. And if it is unconstitutional, it needs to be addressed by Congress to change that. Because only a fool would give a gun or leave a gun with a clearly psychotic person.

Have you paid any attention at all to what South Bend, Indiana mayor, Pete Buttigieg, the presidential candidate from Indiana, has been calling for in regards to gun laws? Buttigieg claims to be pro Second Amendment and yet calls for registration of all firearms, the ban on private ownership of semi automatic rifles and their confiscation and destruction.

Have you looked at the statistics for whose guns have been confiscated and destroyed in Indiana? It seems wrong to take and destroy well over 70% of the people's guns for such things as feeling suicidal at one point in their lives or being drunk and saying something stupid.

Keith

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

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.

The main problem is the mental health issue they throw in there.
Remember hate speech is now violence. And if you don't agree with them it's hate speech.
It's not a slippery slope, it's a drop into the abyss.
If you can't see that far down the road, your either a millennial or a sheepal.
Either way I'm done.

The statistic is in the study.

Keith

The study estimated on the low end that 1 in 20 lives was saved. That means that at least 95% of the time someone had their personal property confiscated and lost their Second Amendment Rights, when they were not a threat. They also did not do anything illegal. They basically committed a "thought crime", which as much as liberals want it to be a real thing, still is not. The analyst's belief that 5% of the victims of gun confiscations lives are saved, as a result of the confiscation, is probably a WAG, because they don't even bother to describe how they reached that figure. The study was obviously designed to support Red Flag Seizures.

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.

You are missing my point. Indiana is very pro gun compared to states like California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois and yet there are still obvious, to most of us, problems with it's Red Flag Laws. How much more problems with the Red Flag Laws of those liberal states will there be for American gun owners, who have committed no legal crime.

What happens when a future Democratic president creates by executive order an even more restrictive Red Flag Law?

Keith

I am sure there is many more examples. I don't want to spend more time looking for them.

Keitn

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?

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

Going by the comments so far it would appear that you are correct. I’m sticking to my position though. You tman members may not like it, but I’m an anomaly. Gun on my hip almost every waking hour for the past 26 years, and I like our red flag law as it is being implemented in my part of the state.

that is a crime. you don't need red flag laws. people go to prison in ks for terroristic threats. red flag laws allow a persons guns to be taken when NO CRIME IS COMITTED. just like nics insta check it is worse than stupid to think it will make your family safer

Personally I would want someone to step in and take my guns if I had some type of mental problems that caused me to have the feelings that I needed to shoot people. I had a friend that slowly drifted into a dark place and started burning places and had voices in his head. He is in a mental institution today but it took a long time and many events of threading to hurt his wife and daughter before he could be helped. The couple of years of fear of what he may do at any minute took a huge toll on his family. He was a very great guy good family man and friend to all. I believe in the second amendment but I also believe in certain situations that there’s gotta be a way of preventing a senseless killings in the case of mental illness. Don’t think that mental illness can’t happen to you! Ask yourself if it did would you want to end up being a mass murderer or wouldn’t you want someone to step in and stop you before it happened? Just my own feelings about this subject.

The mentally ill in the past were put in mental hospitals. Ronald Reagan put an end to that. Vermonster you wrote "started burning places ". That too is a crime. We have plenty of laws now. For whatever reason trying to get them enforced can be tough. That's a civil matter seems to be the mantra here when LE or county attorney's don't want to do their job.

Danny I agree with you civil matter and they didn’t realize it was him doing the burning for sometime. Then he progressed to where his wife started asking for help. I think that help was a long time coming. She and her daughter would at times go into hiding in different locations so if something happened possibly one would survive. I don’t understand why it took the authority’s so long to act. Plenty of police visits and take him away but quickly released.

The potential of abuse with red flag laws outweighs the benefits such laws could have. As Danny pointed out there are already laws against threatening,arson,and such.
Say for example you lose your wife in an automobile accident and become depressed. You go to the doctor for help in relieving the depression you are in. In IN, can the doctor determine you are depressed and say you are a threat to yourself and/or others even though you didn't express such views? What mental disorders are okay and which are not? Who is the king who decides such things? You, the sheriff, the doctor, or the neighbor that don't like you? Gun friendly state here in Arkansas and no red flag laws and hope to keep it that way.

How many people get divorced?
How many divorces go sideways?
How many ex wives are half bonkers?
How many soon to be ex wives would invoke red flag just because and rake you over the coals?

What constitutes mental heath problem to lose your rights?
Where do you draw the line?
Someone that takes anti depressants allowed to have a firearm?
Guess what one of the most prescribed medications in America is.

"6. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation.7. Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce.8. 60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.9. 73 percent of all third marriages end in divorce.10. The United States has the 6th highest divorce rate in the world"

"Over all, more than 34.4 million adults took antidepressants in 2013-4, up from 13.4 million in the 1999-2000 survey."

Firstly, in the bold, you are saying your ok with having your property seized without due process, another right being trampled. Secondly, if a person says those things they are not acting as a normal person acts and should be swooped up and evaluated. If the psychiatrist deems him or her mentally unstable why are you ok with civil forfeiture of his or her guns? If he or she is deemed unstable they shouldn't be released into the public period. If said person wants to kill you do you think by them not having guns that those thoughts will go away?

what will stop them from buying another gun? the same kind of laws that make buying methamphetamine a crime? surly a crank dealer wont take a firearm in lieu of cash and then sell it to another dope fiend or schizophrenic with more money?

red flag is just another feel good bunch of nonsense that protects no one and will be detrimental to honest law abiding people.

My arguement to that would be...........trying to fix what's been happening, focus more on new gun purchases not on red flag laws. Just going from memory here, but it seems to me that just about every mass shooter in the last 10 years purchased their gun shortly before going postal.
Only 1 or 2 come to mind that had their guns for years.
So they should be looking at where they (the gov't) are not doing their job according to laws we alre4ady have regarding background checks.

I think that the idea around the red flag laws are a bad thing. There is too much room for abuse, and as catch22 pointed out those who are threatening should be evaluated individually and dealt with appropriately. The responsibillity of teachers, parents, and other aquantances to not sweep those threats under the rug or ignore them should be taken seriously.

Well as long as saying you want to kill someone is a crime, no red flag is needed. Because that law does the same thing by making it a crime. So now the thought and speech is a crime, not a red flag.

what is a crime is making a threat. that doesn't violate free speech any more than making armed robbery a crime violates the 2nd.

I know a guy who got time here about 25 years ago for leaving threats on his estranged wifes answering machine. now he is a felon and can not legally own a firearm. the charge as I remember it was making a terroristic threat

I’

That works then. I don’t think Indiana had any law against making a threat, so our legislators chose to go red flag route. The goal is to keep a psychotic person who is threatening violence from actually committing that violence. Making that illegal works, but then it seems to me like you are criminalizing thought and speech - and I’m fine with that in some cases. Keeping them in jail is way better than just taking the guns and leaving them free. If Indiana has done that, officer Laird might still be alive. I’m not sure why our legislators chose red flag instead of criminalizing. But either way, I recommend not giving or leaving guns with a person who is stating they want to kill you. I like the jail option better, can’t shoot me from jail, but can find another way or another gun if not in jail.

Indiana also has no law against acting like you are going to hurt someone. No assault without an actual contact punch for example. At least that’s what I’ve been told by a lawyer. Each state is different. I’m telling you guys straight - our red flag law does not affect my or any of my many gun toting friends’ gun rights. That’s because we aren’t doing stupid stuff and acting crazy, and our Sherrif’s are not abusing it. Nothing is perfect though, any law can be abused, and it happens.

I believe you were lied to. its not uncommon for L.E. to not do their job. Same with prosecutors.

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-45-2-1.html

If any individual is deemed to unstable to possess firearms then that person is too dangerous to be out on the streets, period.

I think I was told that before this was amended (around 1980 or a little before). Thanks for the link, I know the lawyer and I will ask her about that. Doubt she was lying at the time, she is a friend not my lawyer, and laws change. That section has been amended many times since 2003. It makes me wonder if the Indiana legislators wanted a less-than-criminal option. Because again, it just is not affecting anyone I know. And I know a lot of Hoosier gun nuts! But of course other states might be different.
With President Trump supporting red flag laws, I predict that it is going to happen, so we better start participating in the process and doing our best to ensure the laws are written in a way that makes them difficult to abuse and only applicable.
As gun rights supporters, we need to do our best to be part of a solution and promote safe gun ownership, because to not do that will make it easy for the other side to portray us as extremists who value guns more than public safety. And that can be used to defeat us at the polls. I do feel that mental health is a huge part of the equation. No sane person shoots up a school. Let’s talk about ways we can help reduce this kind of thing. Because right now, it is not looking good for gun rights, and we can all agree that we want to preserve our right to bear arms.

Red Flag laws criminalize predicted behavior. Can the government deprive a citizen of a constitutional right based solely on a prediction? Can the government take someone's firearms without due process PRIOR to the taking of said firearms? Anyone who supports gun rights should be very cautious in supporting Red Flag Laws.

I may have missed a reply that has already made this point if so forgive me. The OP stated that in all the times that guns were confiscated using the red flag laws that the persons all got their guns back. If this is the case in my opinion that means the confiscation was unwarranted or just plan wrong. Sorry we took your property, uh, you can have it back now. That was just stupid and should be illegal under the fourth amendment.

Sorry it wasn't the OP that posted about Indiana red flag laws working it was loosanarrow's post.

Completely aside from guns this can be applied in so many ways. Let's say we lock up men on a temporary hold for looking to long at a lady to prevent rape. Taking away vehicles because you've been known to bend an elbow. I'm sure whatever they want to stop in the future they'll be able to justify.

Only a fool would trust the government ....................

Define False Flag: A horrific STAGED, EVENT blamed on a political enemy and used as a pretext to start a war or enact draconian laws in the name of national security.
Thinking back on our history, my blood begins to run cold.
Search the subject of crisis actors. It's interesting...and remember that the term "conspiracy theory" was invented by the C_A to keep people from asking questions.

It would be nice to be able to lay your head down on a pillow at night and go to sleep thinking they could be.

Always wondered what Don Knotts was doing these days.

I agree 100%.

What about a government that does trust its citizens with guns? I have a hundgun on my side right now, and every single gun Ive ever wanted (and have managed to find the cash to purchase), I own one. Or more.

But your right, only a fool would blindly trust the government. And only a fool would hand a gun to someone clearly acting crazy. Neither statement says it all, but both are true.

^^^ Who deicides who is unstable? Dangerous is every human.