"Among the legislative proposals introduced today: ?AB 165 by Gabriel, which would call for standards to be developed to teach police officers how to temporarily remove guns from those a court has decided poses a threat to themselves or others. That may include those charged with domestic violence. After a man shot and killed 12 people at a Thousand Oaks bar last November, it was reported that police had paid a home visit to the shooter prior to the incident, but decided not to seek a “gun violence restraining order” against him. ?A proposal by Wicks (yet to be formally introduced) to boost funding to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention grant program, which funds local programs that strive to reduce gun violence. ?A proposal by Assemblyman Mike Gipson from Carson (yet to be formally introduced) that would regulate certain metal components that can be assembled into firearms. A similar bill of his was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year."
Gstring, is so daft, he would rather leave firearms in the hand of a mentally disturbed person or a wife /husband beater or some school kid who has threatened fellow students ..... where is all that "we" must do something about the mentally sick who get hold of fire arms... Gstring you are one stupid son of a bitch .... Our law here dates back to 2005, it has worked many times as I have shown, your to dense to realize that .... I guess you want firearms in the hands of the mentally sick, the felons, the drug addled minds, the suicidal school kids, the wife beaters/the husband beaters, etc. .... I havnt read the Calif. Law, so I wont comment on that in its entirety, but considering is is Califas, it would be wise to check every wording of that before is put into a law, considering the Dems hold both sides of the isle there and the Gov.ship, and IF it is detrimental to the 2A, then is should be fought tooth and nail .... The Indiana law does work and it has saved lives ..... NO ONE supports the 2A more than I do, some are just so paranoid they refuse to see that at times certain individuals are a threat to themselves and others when it comes to firearms .... no one here is kicking in doors just to take away firearms, there are safeguards that protect the rights of individuals, we here are very much a pro-gun state.....hell, we have two more great laws proceeding thru our Government that will help gun owners that if they are forced to use a firearm in self defense so the perp cant come back and sue the shooter .... so, go ahead and spout off your gibberish, spout off your paranoia , spout off crap you know nothing about... no one takes you seriously any longer ..... Be vigilant, not paranoid
yep, people like you are why the anti-gun sycophants use the term "gun nut", all common sense and rational is tossed out by such people ..... every attempt in Indiana was put into our law to make sure the rights of a person who is scrutinized under the Laird Law are abided, as for other States I just hope they use the same discretion and prudence ...
This article my be a bit heady for Gflight to comprehend, but this is why we have the law we do and the safeguards in place to protect an individuals rights ....
POSTED IN BLOG,CRIMINAL LAW ON JUNE 7, 2016
A Look at Indiana’s Jake Laird Law – Returning of Firearms in a Criminal Case
Despite an individual’s constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, if certain circumstances exist, the police are authorized to take one’s firearm to hold and even potentially destroy. The law that allows the retention of firearms is Indiana Code 35-47-14, or otherwise known as the “Jake Laird” law. This law was enacted in 2005, subsequent to the murder of Indianapolis Police Officer Jake Laird. Officer Laird was shot and killed in August 2004 by Kenneth Anderson. Prior to shooting Officer Laird, Anderson shot and killed his mother and then opened fire in the streets in a near-southside neighborhood of Indianapolis. Officers were dispatched to the shooting and in addition to Officer Laird, 4 other IPD officers were shot before Anderson was finally taken down. After this incident, information surfaced that earlier in 2004, Anderson had been admitted to St. Francis Hospital for an emergency detention and during that process, police confiscated guns from Anderson’s home. Anderson was evaluated and released by the hospital and then wanted his guns back. Due to the lack of legal authority to retain Anderson’s weapons, they were returned to him in March 2004. This tragedy prompted lawmakers to pass HEA 1776 which allowed IC 35-47-14 and the proceedings for the seizure and retention of a firearm.
Pursuant to this law, police may seize firearms from a person who is determined to be a “dangerous individual.” According to IC 35-47-14-1, an individual is dangerous if: (1) that individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to themselves or to somebody else; or (2) that individual may present a risk of personal injury to themselves or to somebody else in the future and the individual: (A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or (B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct. However, the mere fact that an individual was previously released from mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not automatically qualify them as dangerous.
Seizing a firearm from a dangerous individual may be done with or without a warrant. A court may issue a warrant to search for and seize a firearm if they find probable cause to believe that an individual is both dangerous and in possession of a firearm. In order to obtain a warrant, a law enforcement officer must present the court with a sworn statement which states why the officer believes the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm. The officer’s belief may be based on their own interactions with the individual or their interactions with somebody else the officer deems to be credible and reliable that led the officer to believe the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm.
If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm for a person they believe to be dangerous without a warrant, the officer must then submit a sworn statement, to the court, describing the basis for why the officer believes the person to be dangerous. If the court finds probable cause to believe the person is dangerous then they must order the agency that took possession of the firearm to retain the firearm. However, if probable cause is not found, then the firearm must be returned to the individual. It important to note that this law does not allow a warrantless search and seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required to get to the firearms in the first place.
Once a firearm is seized, a hearing must be held in order to determine if the firearm is to be kept in police custody or returned. This hearing must held no later than 14 days after the return from the warrant was filed if the seizure was based on a warrant, or from the date the officer submitted the sworn statement if the seizure was warrantless. At this hearing, if the court determines the firearm to be retained in police custody, the individual from whom the firearm was seized must wait 180 days before filing a petition with the court for a return of the firearm. Once a petition is received, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not a dangerous individual. If the court finds them not to be dangerous then they must order the firearm to be returned. However, if they deny the petition, then the individual must wait at least another 180 days in order to be eligible to petition again to return the firearm. Once 5 years have passed from the first hearing regarding the retention of the firearm and the firearm has still not been returned to the individual, the Court may order the law enforcement agency in possession of the firearm to dispose of, or destroy the weapon in accordance with IC 35-47-3.
Rather than try to get a gun back after it has been seized, an individual may also request that the court order the law enforcement agency holding the firearm to sell the weapon and give the proceeds to the individual. The individual may make this request anytime before or during the hearing the court must have if the firearm has been retained for at least 5 years. As long as the serial number has not been obliterated and the individual makes a timely request, the court must order the law enforcement agency to sell the firearm at auction within 1 year after the agency receives the order with the proceeds being returned to the owner. The agency is allowed to keep up to 8% of the proceeds to offset to costs of the sale.
The problem with red flag laws is that a vindictive person, and believe me I have seen plenty of them, can abuse the system. Such as the person who gets a warrant the day before elk season, just as the vindictive folks will allege a sexual offense against the child right before Christmas holiday.
I do not like them. They will be abused far more than they will stop a crime.
that is why vigilance of it is of the utmost importance, and I only support these if that vigilance is adhered to ...... just think, if there was a way to have stopped the Vegas shooter before hand, if there was something in place and he was identified as being mentally unstable long before he went to the hotel .... what about that 'crazy' neighbor down the street who has threatened the block for years .... what about that suicidal teen, or the teen that posted online he was going to shoot up a school, the husband who has threatened to kill his wife and family because he says shes a bitch ....... this is who these laws should be for, with oversight ...
And the person it's exercised against needs to be able to challenge it without spending thousands and months to years on legal expenses. If reserved for the most egregious cases, I can see it being a good law that protects innocents. But I can see how it could be abused as BK points out. Should be used sparingly and have judicial review. I'm ok with thugs and nut-jobs having their guns taken away. As long as it's just thugs and nut-jobs.
there is due process... read the law, which I guess you really havnt..... its been posted here multiple times... Why do you support the mentally ill, suicidal teens, wife beaters, husband beaters, those who have made obvious threats and the like having access to firearms ?? ...... if you dont like these laws try and take them to the SCOTUS ... ours has already been thru our state courts, and we still have it, same as our voter ID bill has ..... we are a very pro-2A state, as am I .... be vigilant, not paranoid ....
If a person has a registered AR I would take it apart in case they ever come after them. Then just give them the empty lower since that’s registered. It’s illegal to have a 30 round capacity magazine but if you take 5 seconds and take it apart it just becomes parts and parts is parts
And Illinois isn't far behind Commiefornia. From the ISRA on new proposed state gun laws:
HB 174 - Lost & Stolen Firearms – Penalty: If this bill passes, the firearm owner becomes the victim twice. First, when they get their firearm stolen and then they are punished for not reporting it within 72 hours of discovery. The felony levels increase if it happens more often. The punishment is a class 4 felony which, of course, means that not only will you be punished for the felony, but you will also lose your FOID card. Who will be affected by this? The law abiding gun owner. The criminal who stole the firearm doesn’t care and may be getting a lesser punishment than the victim.
HB 899 - Firearms Owners ID – Revoked: This bill provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke for one year a person’s FOID card if a person reports 3 separate theft incidents in a 2-year period.
"So, isn’t this a dandy situation. Under HB 174, if you don’t report a firearm lost or stolen, you lose your FOID card and under HB 899, if you do report your firearm lost or stolen you lose your FOID card. "
"The Ammo Tax Bill, SB 121, is another beauty. This bill puts a $.01 tax on every round of ammo that is sold in Illinois. That includes everything, .22’s, shotgun shells and center fire ammunition. The claim is that this will create a Community Mental Health Services Fund. As I have said before, mental health funding is a problem but why is it the gun owners’ responsibility? The State of Illinois created the local problems when they closed Zone Centers years ago and literally left those folks who needed help out in the cold. We now call them the homeless. If anyone thinks the state will reserve this or any other earmarked money for what it was intended, they are smoking dope. Remember the lottery and how it was supposed to fund schools? After a few years that money disappeared into the General Fund and the same will happen to this money. The purpose of this tax is to burden gun owners. The mental health idea is just putting lipstick on a pig."
Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are violated under these laws but hey its for the chillern.
Be a good little socialist and go get them guns from the (Jews) Muslims you have issue with in Indiana cause I heard from the neighbors they were plotting against you jack booted thugs (Nazis). Papers let JTV see your papers.....lol
Your law has citizens begging for their property that was confiscated or have it sold for them. Nazi Germany coming to a state near you.....
The general concept of a red flag law is not inherently bad. But given that the Democrat loonies dominate state and federal legislatures today, you can expect an onerous bill that will be horribly invasive, offensive and likely lacking anything near good due process.
The idea that the guns are seized first, then you must go to court to get them back, is repulsive. It makes one want to store weapons in several places and/or build some clever hiding spots, so that you give up a few should they come to take your laws. I guarantee you this will be a weapon for vindictive ex-spouses. That happens so frequently with domestic violence protection orders as to keep me quite busy. I get about one a quarter that is ridiculously false.
And bear in mind, it's a few thousand dollars to fight these things. So, the wrongly accused has to spend a few grand to get back to where he should have always been.
yea, it is kinda funny aint it ..... people bitch, moan and complain about the mentally ill (others) getting/owning firearms they shouldnt have and then killing someone, a bunch of people or themselves ... then Law enforcement is given a tool to use because other laws had many loop holes and didnt work for these cases/people....but yet not one (many above ^^) has an answer to this, not one has a working solution ..... our law was quietly working since 2005, and only in the most dire circumstances was it used, but it was used ... it wasnt until Parkland where the ball was dropped by LE and local govmnt that these laws became widely known, there were only 5 states at the time that had them, and they were quietly working with success ... with ANY law, abuse can happen, without laws anarchy reins .... it is up to the law abiding 2A supporter to make sure they are NOT abused and if they are, be fought tooth and nail... they are but one of many tools available with LE and the courts .... be vigilant, not paranoid
"In the old days" .... a crime has to be committed before 'the police/courts' could take action! ...... now today 'snowflakes & politicians' push and pass "laws" to only serve "their agendas" ..... as for firearms, "Never to be infringed upon" .... PERIOD!
"JTV" ...Jeff, I am really surprised you 'think' .... Red-Flag law is a fix .... I think it is to broad and open to 'abuse' by vindictive people out to 'harm others' and they will use it to do just that!.... and politicians that passed these laws are a major part of that problem! ......."THEY" want to disarm America! .... that simple!
Remove the individual and give them due process .... it's NOT the gun that's the problem! That firearm will never hurt a individual, .... until the wrong bad vindictive individual picks it up to do harm. ...... Don't make criminals out of law abiding American citizens!...just my $.02 cents!
"In other words, those who are pushing for red flag law are making it easier to disarm the disadvantaged and minority populations in our communities while doing little or nothing to stop the actual mass shootings or other violent outbursts these laws are supposed to prevent."
I am sure you would use what ever laws are at your disposal if and when Michigan enacts such a law .... To Protect and Serve .... Just so you are aware, our law came about AFTER one officer was killed and others wounded after a person was released from the psyc ward of a Hospital ('immediate attention' it was called) and his firearms returned to him as there was no existing law to prohibit the police from returning the firearms .... months later, he went off the rails and killed the officer and wounded the others...This is called the "Laird Law" - after Officer Jake Laird ..... I am sure YOU wouldnt want firearms returned to a person such as that ...
"Indiana's policy was born out of a tragedy in 2004" ........ (IndyStar.com)
"Carrying a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns, 33-year-old Kenneth Anderson fired several rounds at homes and vehicles in a south-side neighborhood.
Responding to reports of gunfire, Indianapolis Police Department officer Jake Laird was shot and killed by Anderson. Four other officers also were struck but survived. And the shooter's 66-year-old mother was killed in her home.
Officials later discovered that police earlier that year had put Anderson under "immediate attention" at a hospital. A cache of weapons and ammunition also were seized by police.
But without the law on their side, officers were forced to return everything in March — five months before the shooting.
The next year, the "Jake Laird law" gained near unanimous approval from the Indiana General Assembly. The House passed it 91-0; the Senate passed it 48-1."
The gun didn’t kill the Officer Jeff.... A crazy man did.
A crazy man can easily get a gun illegally.........
You are really digging yourself a deep hole in with the gun grabbers......
The issue in the case should have been centered on the fact that the mentally impaired man was released from a psych ward. Decommissioning mental institutions in our country has caused more problems than most people realize.
but he didnt, he used his OWN firearms and there wasnt anything that PREVENTED him from getting them back at that time .... .... speaking of digging a hole, you are in waaaay over your head, and that hole is filling with water ..... Do you even support laws as tools LE can use, or do you only use and support the ones you deem worthy ..... .... smh ....
ahhh, every one is deflecting .... that can be said about many laws we have and disagree with .... and again, no one here has provided an answer, they have deflected, tippy toed around not wanting to step on the busted glass ....
ROFLMAO ........ there are really some tried and true dupes here ... A LE officer who wont use the laws if they were given to him, "To PROTECT and Serve", your superiors would be so proud ........he dances away from the questions and another who continually shows his pure ignorance ... and again no one has came up with an answer on what to do in cases like these .... I would love to see something .. come on now, you guys are the brain Trust here
Jeff.... You think you know everything. You don’t. “Won’t use the laws if they were given to him”..... You’re the one in way over your head pal. You think you’re the greatest thing since sliced bread. You don’t know me. You don’t know squat. I do my job. My job is not to agree with every law on the books. My job is to enforce the laws that are on the books.........
What is your Job Jeff.... ??? No one here knows because you won’t say. Why ??? You want to beast on me about my job when you hide what you do for a living......... man up Jeff.
Nope.... there are personal and employment reasons I'm silent ..... So, You answered my question, thank you .... So you would use a law if it was on the books in Michigan to keep firearms out of the hands of a mental person or those specified within the law .... Thank you for saying so ... I dont agree with everything I do, I dont agree with every law there is, they are tools that LE uses ... wouldnt it be so damn nice if it didnt have to come down to such laws, be able to protect people and save lives ... people dont want to answer the tough questions... this is what has got us where we are now ..... what do states do that dont have laws on the books that follow the rights of people/firearm owners, but yet deaths occur by someone who is KNOWN by family, neighbors, LE, the community to be a threat... we heard it before, IF something could have been done, I told you he was crazy, he made threats before, he quit taking his meds, the authorities said there is nothing they can do....... leave them go until the damn bursts and and dozen people are murdered ... quite a conundrum isnt it ..... think about it, rather than attacking a person who see's a law that can work when used properly ..... yea, these laws must be watched very closely or they will be abused .... States like Califas. is a problem I believe because of their ultimate stance on the 2A is negative ... States like Indiana is pure conservative 2A loving state that passed this law to help LE with these problem cases, not to trample on rights of its citizens ..... think about that for a second ...
It’s pretty easy to sit back on your computer and critique what another man does in his job when you’re too chicken sh— to ever say what you do for a living. What are you.... the secret service of mall cops ??
lol .... SWING and a miss .... nice try .... there again deflecting from what I wrote above ... these laws are not perfect, but I have yet to see answers of workable solutions to these problems ..... its all attack the messenger, and not providing an answer or a solution ..... so typical of a few on here ......