Okay, I read it wrong. He is charged with attempted murder for shooting at his friend over the cell phone. That apparently hasn’t gone to trial yet.
He was supposed to turn in his weapons as a condition of his bail bond. He did not.
So police went after him with the red flag law, which seems a little redundant with the bond conditions. And he was convicted for refusing to turn over his weapons under the red flag law. Seems like he should have been convicted for refusing to turn over his weapons for the bond condition as well.
Confusing.
I guess the bond rules and stuff probably would have taken a judge, more paperwork, etc. And why use old-fashioned stuff like that when you can use your shiny new rules and just declare he shouldn’t have guns and then take them away.
In my local area we had some 23(?) year old post stupid stuff on his social media. Posed with a rifle and pistol and said “One ticket to the Joker movie please!” Then the cops went through all of his posts. Found one from 2016 that said “Death to all women” or something.
No criminal record, but they took his guns.
I think it took a few weeks, but a judge said the guy was no threat and gave him back the guns. But I was surprised to hear that since we have these laws in our area (Jan. 1, 2019?) that our town of 40,000 has had 9 people with their guns taken, and 2 that upon review by a judge the guns were kept. But nobody was ever charged with a crime! Although IIRC, the people that had their guns kept from them get a review after a year?
Confusing, or perhaps just ignorant or slanted reporting, as is commonplace these days.