Red flag law in VT used against a relative of a suspect ?

[M-Quigley]

https://www.davenportguns.com/vermont-p ... gun-owner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and original source

http://www.addisonindependent.com/20181 ... l-shooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The suspect claimed he had access to the guns, unknown if that's really true or not. Didn't matter to the cops, 10 guns taken.

[qmti]

Question; what recourse does the gun owner have? I know he will have to get a lawyer.
*can he sue to get his guns back?
*can he sue for damages to guns like scratches to collectible guns from law enforcement?
*can he sue the parents of the kid who stated his access to the guns?

[djthomas]

The suspect claimed he had access to the guns, unknown if that's really true or not. Didn't matter to the cops, 10 guns taken.

Wonder what would happen if the suspect would have said his plan was to steal guns from parked Middlebury police cruisers? It's not that hard to open the more common shotgun/rifle locks if you come with the right (and very commonly obtained) tools, and no damage done to the vehicle or the lock. Requires more gumption than hitting Uncle Jim's safe for sure but not at all technically difficult.

I'm not familiar with VT's red flag law but most of them allow any person to file for the order and once granted by a judge law enforcement must enforce it. It'd be hilarious to watch VSP show up and take the police department's guns on that basis.

[DontTreadOnMe]

That's an interesting - and dangerous - interpretation of the state's ERPO law. From reading that it sounds like the relative wasn't the subject of the ERPO, the student was. However because the student claimed "he had access to them and could get them" (despite the fact they were locked up inside the relative's home) I'm guessing the state is claiming that means the student has "possession, custody, or control" (which is required under Vermont's ERPO law).

Also, if the relative isn't the subject of the ERPO I don't see that he has any rights to challenge the order. I doubt there's any way for him to get the guns back other than a lawsuit.

[WestonDon]

These ERPO laws need to be challenged all the way to SCOTUS pronto. I wonder if NRA is watching and waiting to pounce on the right case. This one is so egregious it should be a slam dunk.

[JediSkipdogg]

These ERPO laws need to be challenged all the way to SCOTUS pronto. I wonder if NRA is watching and waiting to pounce on the right case. This one is so egregious it should be a slam dunk.

I concur but also think they may be waiting for the current seizure case to have an outcome as that may make any ERPO case much easier to handle. After all, both deal with the government's taking of private property.

[M-Quigley]

Additonal information:

http://www.addisonindependent.com/20181 ... estigation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The man from whom the weapons were confiscated was cooperative, though miffed at having to surrender his firearms when he had done nothing wrong. Hanley said he understood the gun owner’s concerns, and said he’ll be able to go through the courts to secure return of his weapons at a future date.

Cooperative? Like he had a choice? And how much is it going to cost him to get his own lawfully owned property back at some future date?

[djthomas]

Additonal information:

http://www.addisonindependent.com/20181 ... estigation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The man from whom the weapons were confiscated was cooperative, though miffed at having to surrender his firearms when he had done nothing wrong. Hanley said he understood the gun owner’s concerns, and said he’ll be able to go through the courts to secure return of his weapons at a future date.

Cooperative? Like he had a choice? And how much is it going to cost him to get his own lawfully owned property back at some future date?

One thing we really don't know is the extent of the relationship between this relative and the degree of access these youts actually had to his firearms. If it's a situation where the nephew has a key to his uncle's house and knows the combination to the safe and the hours that the home is unattended then that's one thing. On the other hand if all the kid knows is that his uncle has a green safe in his basement that's a horse of a different color entirely.

I do know that the parents of said youts would be paying all of my out of pocket costs, especially in the latter case.

By the way, this is reason 764 that nobody but me knows the combination to my safe. My wife is not in to guns so she doesn't even know it nor does she want to. If I go before she does she'll have to hire someone to drill it. My kids do not know the combination and never will. Once they're of age I'll gift them "their" rifles and they can store them as they see fit.

[JustaShooter]

Additonal information:

http://www.addisonindependent.com/20181 ... estigation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The man from whom the weapons were confiscated was cooperative, though miffed at having to surrender his firearms when he had done nothing wrong. Hanley said he understood the gun owner’s concerns, and said he’ll be able to go through the courts to secure return of his weapons at a future date.

Cooperative? Like he had a choice? And how much is it going to cost him to get his own lawfully owned property back at some future date?

One thing we really don't know is the extent of the relationship between this relative and the degree of access these youts actually had to his firearms. If it's a situation where the nephew has a key to his uncle's house and knows the combination to the safe and the hours that the home is unattended then that's one thing.

Then the appropriate action would be to have the relative secure the firearms in a manner that prevents access to the accused. Change the combination, lock the dial, etc.