bignflnut wrote:More than
1,700 court orders to temporarily seize guns from people deemed a threat to themselves or others across more than a dozen states were issued last year, according to an Associated Press report published this week.
SNIP
The National Rifle Association told the Washington Free Beacon it supports the laws but only if they meet certain due process requirements.
"Nobody wants dangerous people to have access to firearms, which is why the NRA supports risk protection orders with adequate due process protections and ensure those adjudicated to be dangerously mentally ill receive treatment," Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said. "The NRA believes that any effort should be structured to fully protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while preventing truly dangerous individuals from accessing firearms. We will only support an [Emergency Risk Protection Order] process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time."
SNIP
Other gun-rights groups have opposed any implementation of Red Flag laws. Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said his group "has consistently opposed ‘red flag' legislation at every level of government because they are a truly dangerous, unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral policy."
He said the laws punish people who haven't yet committed a crime and can create deadly situations when police attempt to confiscate firearms from those subject to an order.
"These Minority Report-style ‘pre-crime' laws target people for disarmament and seizure of their property before they even commit a crime," Combs told the Free Beacon.
We can always thank the NRA for protecting our rights
The caveat about adhering to due process is one that is routinely ignored. Besides, that due process is something that the authorities and courts may only address after your guns are in the police property room.
Then it's up to you to prove that you should be able to keep your guns. The burden of proof isn't placed on the state or the accuser.
Then there is the other problem with the "Trier of Fact." That may be a Judge, Jury or Tribunal. In case some of you have never been before a "Trier of Fact," I'd like to enlighten you.
The "Trier of Fact," will determine who is truthful in a court of law. In other words, if it comes down to one person's word against another's the "Trier of Fact," will determine who is telling the truth.
So if your ex-wife, mother-in-law or brat kid wants to become a PITA to you or get you shot then they make the accusation. If you aren't shot when the cops break down your door then you go to court and listen to their lies.
If you don't have any supporting evidence or testimony then it's your word against their's.
BTW, there is also a little thing called the 5th amendment. You don't have to take the witness stand but if your case stands or falls on disproving their testimony then you better hope the "Trier of Fact" is smart enough or honest enough to recognize a liar when they see it.
Real due process would require that the accuser have substantial proof of their allegations at the ex-parte hearing. That's a little something that most "Triers of Fact" ignore.