Remember JTV and others like “red flag” laws backed by Trump's administration. This just teaches police officers the proper way to confiscate citizens firearms without due process.
JTV said this is the best thing for Indiana as he has saw it first hand....
In Order to Have the Right to Due Process For ALL People You are darn right...
"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. ...."
Your feelings on this issue betray the Constitutional rights of every person in your state.
It doesn't matter if I am a called a stupid SOB by a paranoid gun grabber I will always be vigilant.....
You can be a gun grabber and still support 2A.
Any law allowing "authorities" to take ANYTHING away from people who "they say are at risk of committing acts" is a violation of Due Process rights.
Do red Flag laws in Indiana work for cars as well?
What if the neighbor said I was going to run people down with my car?
Will "authorities" confiscate my vehicle in front of my neighbors?
Will they drag me into court and require me to prove I am innocent?
Will they make me get a lawyer or do they provide one for free that's substandard?
Will I get my car back? When? Is it asset forfeiture that will require me to get another lawyer to get it back?
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.
I do not like them. They will be abused far more than they will stop a crime.
Relax some of the stupidity and they just might.
Why do support the suspension of due process???????
When a troubled teen takes their life in my area, it is by hanging. Not firearms.
Laws like these edge close to Gestapo activity...
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.....
for you, here they come ....
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.
It just disgusts me when people think it's ok to take people's rights/property without due process.
"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!
"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."
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.
The regime got to determine who was mentally ill and what rights they would lose.
Don’t fall off your Segway patting yourself on the back.......
Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Hussein, and Castro would have loved you to be their guy....
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.
See..... I can play your insult game too......