These purposed Red flag laws are a bit concerning, and am sure they don?t always work as designed. The concept of disarming someone for untruthful or bogus reasons seems problematic. In some situations red flag laws may work as intended, but is just too easy for an irate spouse or relative to make something up, plus, once taken away, who?s to say you?ll ever get them back.

I don't like to speculate.  But, here's how it works in my state.

Someone is pissed off, or is trying to use everything at their disposal during divorces (and especially custody battles). So, they ask for an emergency protection order from either a constable or other administrative law judge or family judge or whatever.

I have NEVER known of a complaint being denied up front, so all that it takes is a call saying "I'm in fear for my safety and/or my childs safety.

Bam.  No ALJ is going to deny that because if they do, if something would happen would shine an unfavorable light on them.  So, they always "err on the side of caution".  Meaning, the next thing you know, bam, you're being served with an EPO (emergency protection order) by a deputy and not allowed to see your kids, and have to hire an attorney, miss work, maybe get a court hearing in a month or two to be able to explain to the judge that your ex is a lying **&^%.

All depending on the claims, it may escalate into more permanent restrictions or even charges because she's lying.

I have NEVER heard of anyone being successful in suing the other party making the wrongful allegations in damages or anything else, because apparently women never lie about anything like that. [I hope you can sense the heavy sarcasm in that sentence]

So, the children are often the victims that suffer the most, despite what the fathers go through.

I hate red flag anything.  I've seen it happen far too frequently.

It's so bad here, most epo's are dropped at the first hearing when you finally do get to go to court about it.  But, it often happens repeatedly months or weeks later and there you go again starting over with the process.

My sons ex had filed an EPO on him and he was on the other side of the country at the time.  Or, at least working 8 states away.  True story.  And she has had him served twice in total.  The last time, she didn't show for the first hearing so the judge postponed it for another 6 weeks.  And the time after that, the judge had to dismiss the case because she didn't show up again.  But that's months of time that my son and grandaughter has lost with each other and is just wrong.

There are already methods where you can report anyone making threats already without making red flag laws.  Most local police and state police have tip lines and even the FBI has tip lines too. 

So, there's no reason to do red flag, other than to harass gun owners.

Well put John

just another tool to take our guns. when they do know of a legitimate threat like the last few school shooters, they ignore it. like all their other "common sense" gun laws, it has NOTHING to do with protecting people and everything to do with furthering their agenda!!

Scotus has ruled that police are under no obligation to protect you.

Therefore, you should only assume that you have to protect yourself.

sadly, our children have no way of doing that themselves during a school shooting.  Which is why I believe there should be armed guards/security/police posted at each school.  Having gun free zones should be unconstitutional because it violates your basic civil right to self defense.

Judges have armed security everywhere they go.  Often with either state or federal officers.  Courthouses have security.

Politicians have armed security, or even entire security details in some instances.

I believe that our children should be afforded the same luxury.  And that's what it is really, but they should be protected to the best of our ability.

I do not understand their reluctance to do so, other than to politicize school shootings to further their agenda.  They should set that aside and do what's right, but for some reason they are hell bent on not doing it and it really makes me angry.

If what means the most to us (our children) are not protected, they should not be protected either.

^ THIS! I agree 100%

Red flag laws would be the most abused laws if approved. What I really hate is that they want to make a red flag law that does not require that the person making the complaint identify themselves. What about the law that allows you to confront your accuser? This would also be very dangerous for law enforcement. Some gun owners will not comply with cops coming to their home, demanding the gun owner's guns and refusing to I.D. the person who made the complaint. Talk about a police state! Democrat politicians will make sure that as many guns as possible are confiscated.

And then getting them back, which could take years, if even then

These laws circumvent due process and that is a problem.

There are also problems providing safety to victims of domestic violence which I have seen first hand.

Not sure I know the solution, I just know there are problems on both sides.

All that's required to punish you is a complaint, possibly even an anonymous complaint in which somebody says you seem dangerous. Now, that complaint doesn't come from a grand jury. It can come from anyone, including someone who dislikes you or someone who simply doesn't like your politics.

Kenk, I agree that is wrong.

On the other hand....

Friends recent high school graduate daughter can't get a restraining order against her mentally unstable ex despite having bruises on her neck from where he choked her, bruises on her face from where he hit her and testimony from his counselor that he is not stable and a past history of vandalism and other mischief.  Why?  She was assigned a brand new attorney from the local DA's office and his parents retained a high end attorney.

Yep, it?s a tough one, I?m sure some would be flagged that should be, but at the same time it could be easily abused

I agree.  The problem with red flag laws is the bypass due process for the individual, and set the bar for restoration of rights too high.

Correspondingly the due process to get a protective order is similarly way to high.

It's like the process part of due process is weighted against anything that would impact the municipal budget.

Very well put, Thanks!