So when Hole went on his shooting spree, the question naturally arose…how did he get the gun he used? Wouldn’t he have been prohibited under Indiana’s red flag law?
Well, no. That’s not due to a “loophole” in the law, but because the local prosecutor chose not to petition the court within the required 14 days after the shotgun was confiscated. Why? Because, as
Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears told reporters, he didn’t want to give the shotgun back.
From the Associated Press . . .
The “red flag” legislation, passed in Indiana in 2005 and also in effect in other states, allows police or courts to seize guns from people who show warning signs of violence. Police seized a pump-action shotgun from Hole, then 18, in March 2020 after they received the call from his mother.
But prosecutors were limited in their ability to prepare a “red flag” case due to a 2019 change in the law that requires courts to make a “good-faith effort” to hold a hearing within 14 days. An additional amendment required them to file an affidavit with the court within 48 hours.
“This individual was taken and treated by medical professionals and he was cut loose,” and was not even prescribed any medication, Mears said. “The risk is, if we move forward with that (red flag) process and lose, we have to give that firearm back to that person. That’s not something we were willing to do.”
What he wasn’t willing to do was return the shotgun.
Psychiatrists had examined Hole had let him go. Mears said that, because of that, he was worried he couldn’t make the case that Hole should continue to be deprived of his guns under the Indiana red flag law.
So rather than argue that point in court, he just let the matter slide…and held onto the gun.
That succeeded in keeping the shotgun out of Hole’s hands, who apparently made no attempt to get it back. But the pass by the psychiatrists and the lack of a determination by the court also ensured that Hole would be able to legally buy more firearms, something he did twice in the following months. Those were the guns he used to murder those eight people last week.
The prosecutor’s actions — or inaction — have one benefit. They clearly highlight the problems inherent with red flag laws.
So...
A. Red Flag Law failed to prevent rapid multiple homicide, which was the stated intended goal.
B. The prosecutor
intentionally didn't follow the law, preferring to act as judge, jury and executioner over a shotgun.
B1. Mears, the prosecutor has no fear for his job as he continues to justify his actions, despite having no reason to deprive someone of property. See how this official has been trained / discipled? He values
the confiscation over the mental health of Hole. He values
the confiscation over the employees lives. He values the confiscation over due process. He values
the confiscation uber alles, and has zero shame in his decision.
C. A shrink was willing to be impartial, and this will be the new pressure point to conceal the intentions of prosecutors in the future.
C1. Shrinks shouldn't be the strongest link in the justice system. Who wants to trust their rights to their local, un-elected, albeit perhaps impartial (for the moment) shrink?
D. NICS didn't prevent the rapid multiple homicide, because the database doesn't include a rouge prosecutor being overruled by an impartial shrink. NICS doesn't need fixed, it needs eradicated. It doesn't keep us safe either.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798