More on "Red Flag" Laws...

I note that, in my last entry, I did not elabourate upon what I thought would constitute an "ideal" "Red Flag Law."  Please allow me to now correct that oversight.  Here - in no particular order - are the points I think an "ideal" "Red Flag Law" should cover and/or entail:

(Nota Bene: "Petitioner" is the party seeking the order, "Respondent" is the party against whom the Order is sought.)

- No anonymous reporting.  You will be able to face your accuser in open court, just like in any other criminal matter (if you stand to lose property and/or rights, it's a criminal matter.)  Failure of the Petitioner to show up in court constitutes immediate dismissal of the Order with prejudice.  Failure of Respondent to appear in Court shall result in the granting of the Order for a period of six months.

- Summons for such hearings are to be delivered personally by police or deputy Sheriffs by hand to Petitioner and respondent.  A signed receipt is to be obtained.  This is to stave off complaints of "I never got notice!"  "Substitute Service" is disallowed - service may only be upon named parties.

- The "default" position on this shall be "No ORder Granted/Continued."  A position to maintain the order must be articulated in order to grant or continue the order.  Failure to do so results in dissolution of the order.

- Storage of any property seized under such an order shall be under proper conditions as to prevent deterioration and the owners shall not be charged storage fees.  Failure to return property in the condition as it was when it was seized shall require the immediate replacement of such property or restitution of the value of collector items which may not be replaced.  "Sentimental value" for heirloom firearms shall be considered when calculating restitution.

- No property is to be seizeduntil an order is granted.

- No order is to be granted until a hearing is held.

- The judge shall be accompanied on the bench by a clinical psychologist (doctoral-level) or psychiatrist, whose opinion shall be consulted, heard, and considered toward issuance or dismissal of such Orders.

- A credible fear must be articulated and assessed against Petitioner by Respondent in order for an Order to be put in place.

- Any "frivolous" accusations in an attempt to obtain Orders are to be penalized by the payment of all court costs by the Petitioner, a fine from the Petitioner to the Court, and a fine from the Petitioner to the respondent.  Such fines are not to be lower than one thousand dollars ($1,000) each, and not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) each.  In the event of a conflict in payment, the Respondent shall be paid his fine first, then the Court costs, then the Court's fine.

- If an Order is granted, part and parcel of that order shall be an immediate psychological evaluation to determine if Respondent presents an immediate or imminent danger to himself or others.  This may or may not require a 96-hour hold, at the Court's discretion.  Nota Bene: Respondent's workplace may not discriminate or retaliate against Respondent as a result of a 96-hour hold, if such is deemed to be necessary.  such evaluation may also be conducted on an outpatient basis, and may be scheduled around the Respondent's work schedule in such cases.  If the Respondent is found to present no risk to himself or others, the Order is to be lifted and considered frivolous, and handled as in the previous point.

- Any Order granted under such measure shall be in force for not more than 365 days, at which time it is either renewed or dismissed.  The original Petitioner must return to court, with respondent, and articulate a continuing credible fear in order to continue the order.  Failure of Petitioner to appear in court will see the Order dismissed with prejudice in absentia.  Failure of Respondent to appear in court shall constitute automatic renewal of Order in absentia.

- Orders granted under this measure shall be in force for not less than 90 days.

- When any such order previously granted is lifted, any property previously seized has not more than one week to be returned in the condition as seized.

- Any property seized shall be photographed for record, with a copy of the photographs saved with the case file, a copy of the photographs saved with the property seized, and a copy of the photographs given to Respondent for his records.  Such photographs are to be consulted when property is returned to assess its condition.  Such photographs shall include "boresight" imagery of the barrel bore and chamber, and images of the open fire control mechanism (where such may be readily accessed.)  All photographs shall be stored for record on fixed digital media - CD-roM for maximum compatibility.  Multiple discs may be used, if required.  Images to be stored in uncompressed format as individual files.  Original data card to be set as "read-only" physically and in software and retained in the file along with the digital media copy.  Files may be renamed (on original card, prior to making optical media) to reflect the firearm they pertain to - listing by serial number should be sufficient.

- Upon return of property, Respondent is allowed one day per five firearms (or fraction thereof) returned to make a claim for damages in storage.  This is to allow time for detailed inspection of returned property.
- Any ammunition seized is to be returned (in serviceable condition) or replaced anew.

- Any NFA items shall have particular care taken.  Any pre-1986 NFA firearm that has a post-1986 replacement, if damaged beyond utility, is to have a new replacement issued and a new entry for it entered into the NFRTR.

That's what I can think of at the moment.  Discuss.

JDK

- CCW is to be suspended while such Orders are in effect.  Upon expiration or termination of such Orders, CCW shall be reinstated with balance of original term allowed.  CCW may be renewed as per normal.

GVROs and UBCs...

Things have been hectic lately - but I never did promise regular updates, did I?

GVRO = Gun Violence Restraining Order, a/k/a Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO,) or, colloquially, "Red Flag Law."

UBC = Universal Background Checks.  Also going under "Enhanced Background Checks."

I shall deal with the latter point first.

Of course, it's the left pushing for UBCs so hard - there are currently two House bills pushing this (H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112.)  H.R. 8 Forces all firearm transactions to go through an FFL, with all such transfers occurring as if the FFL had sold the firearm through inventory (id est, the sale is also logged and tracked.)  H.R. 1112 looks as if it redefines "mental illness" (expands it somewhat,) and there are mention of 3-, 10-, 25-, and 30-day periods I haven't managed to decipher yet (I hate reading laws.  Why can't they write them clearly and logically?)

In any case, the key fact here is that the sale is recorded - therefore, it's backdoor registration of firearms (assuming one were to always comply with the law as passed, if/when passed.  I foresee a good deal of civil disobedience, myself.)  Understandably, this has firearm owners upset - we don't like being registered, and filed, and all that rot.  As said in the intro to The Prisoner - "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!"

How would I have done UBC?
- NICS is now open to citizens to use, with applications for Android, *nix, Windoze, and iOS.
- No firearm information is entered into NICS.
- NICS searches are triggered by taking a picture or a scan of the individual's ID and a picture of his face (NICS compares the two.)  No firearm information is entered.
- NICS replies with an upcheck or a downcheck, and a confirmation number.  Either way, the number gets recorded by the (potential/erstwhile) seller.
- If the sale goes through, the seller writes out a receipt for the buyer (describing the firearm and recording the NICS check number) and keeps a copy for his own records.
- NICS records the fact that there was a check, and that the check was a PASS or a FAIL.  In order to prevent confusion, two different formats are used for the "PASS" and "FAIL" numbers.  Again, no firearm information is recorded in NICS.  Upon the death of the seller, his sale records are to be treated as the "bound book" kept by FFLs - they get sent in to F Troop (so they can screw up their records.)

I think that's fair.  Now, on to "Red Flag" Laws...

I think the biggest problem that I have with this idea is the fact that the order is granted in an ex parte hearing (you have no idea that the hearing is happening until the cops come around to serve the order on you, and they can do it at any time of the day, and it can be a "no-knock" order,) you are "guilty until proven innocent," you do not get the opportunity to face your accuser (so you can pull their case apart,) and no medical or psychological professional need be involved (which is interesting - because wouldn't you need a psychological diagnosis to determine that someone is a danger to himself or others?)

Oh - and the way these laws are being written, just about anybody can dob you in.  Cops, co-workers, that blind date you didn't get along with very well last night, your kids' teachers, &c, &c.  Some are written so broadly that your liberal neighbour three doors down can SWAT you, just because he doesn't like firearms (and therefore, doesn't like you.)

This turns the idea of "Due Process" on its head, and reverses the basic underpinning of our judicial system - "innocent until proven guilty" becomes "guilty until proven innocent."  Yep - you have to prove you are stable and no risk - to someone who is not a medical professional, and who may have his own agenda (read, you're not going to win this one.)  You can fight this for a year or so, while your collection is in storage (that you often have to pay for,) and usually not stored very well, so everything can rust in peace.

This is assuming that you don't get killed in the course of serving the warrant - which has already happened. (https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/)  And, while I can't find any links offhand, I do remember reading of at least one governor (Colorado?) saying that the purpose of the law wasn't "public safety" - it was "getting guns off the street."

Sounds like an admission of guilt, to me.

I'm just tired of the rampant hoplophobia* of the Left.  If they have such problems with the state of civil rights in the United States, then they're perfectly welcome to pack up and blow - I'm certainly not keeping them here!  There are places they could move to where their wishes have already come true.

And leave the rest of us - who don't have hoplophobia - alone.

*Hoplophobia is the unreasonable and unremitting fear of inanimate objects, typically firearms.  Believed to be coined by COL Jeff Cooper, USMC (ret)

Is it worth killing someone for?

Ok, I know, I've been away for a while.  Can we just say I've had an awful lot happening around here, and leave it at that?  I never promised regular updates, that was in the very first post...

Anyhow, here's something I'd planned on sending to my Congresscritters (all of them - at all levels) and I think it makes for a good post here as well.  Let me know what you think.

-----     BEGIN     -----

Is this worth killing someone for?

              Before you propose a new measure, or a new law, that’s a question you should be asking yourself.  Is what you’re proposing worth killing someone over?

              Why?  Because that is what can happen.  It’s not guaranteed to happen, but it’s possible.  Id est:

-          Someone doesn’t wear their seat belt

-          Officer Law sees this.

-          Officer Law pulls the wayward citizen over to cite him

-          Citizen refuses citation, chucks it back out through the window.  Officer Law puts it back in citizen’s hand.

-          Rinse, repeat.  Officer Law gets frustrated with this, and decides it’s time to remove citizen from his vehicle.

-          Enforcement for not wearing a seat belt has now risen to the point of battery.

-          Citizen, not liking being treated this way, keeps trying to get out of Officer Law’s grip and restraint, trying to free himself.  Battery continues.

-          Officer Law finally gets citizen proned out on the pavement, kneeling on his upper back, and finally trying to get cuffs on his hands.  Battery continues.

-          Forgot to mention – citizen is asthmatic.  So, not only have we triggered an attack with all this rough handling (over a law where the only person being endangered is the citizen himself,) but we are now compressing his chest and making it difficult for him to get a lungful of air.  Enforcement has now risen to the point of attempted manslaughter.

-          Officer Law does not listen to citizen’s pleas for air (it’s happened in actual fact,) and maintains pressure on the citizen’s back until a backup officer arrives so he can have help handling this man.  Breathing stops.  Enforcement has now elevated to the point of manslaughter in fact.  Call the coroner, write the report.

Now, do you honestly think that someone not wearing his seat belt (just an example, mind) was worth getting killed over?  How about that fellow – Eric Garner? – in New York selling single smokes, and pretty much this happened to him.  Was “selling singles” worth killing a man over?  I am highly inclined to think not.

Every new regulation, every new measure, every new law that you propose, you should be asking yourself that question – is this worth killing someone over?  My own past experience notwithstanding, death is permanent.   You’ve ended a life – and for what?  Six bucks’ worth of smokes?  Not wearing a seat belt?  Someone who just got through a gnarly day, and now he’s being pestered for a taillamp being out (as opposed to simply being told such on the loud-hailer, which is how these things used to be handled.)

If you think that such minor infractions are worth killing over, you have a seriously skewed sense of priorities, and I question your ability to serve in elected office.

-----     END     -----

There's a comments section here, so let me know what you think!