I’d like to see no Red Flag law.
But if they do impose a 48-hr rule (or whatever) and the targeted person gets their day in court, with full due process, and is found harmless and competent to own a gun, then I would like the original instigator of the “emergency” to be fined $50,000 directly payable to the victimized gun owner. Seems only fair.
We already have state laws for judicial commitment. And those laws cover people who are imminent threats no matter the weapon of choice.
that’ll never happen- and forcing people to go to court because someone makes false accusations, which will happen a LOT if red flag laws are passed- puts a huge burden financially on people that likely will not be able to afford it, they will get crappy representation, and likely lose-
The risk of red flag laws is just too great- our constitution never envisioned such nonsense-
Unfortunately, all the accuser has to say is they were concerned. Pretty hard to prove malice.
No one should ever have to prove they are harmless and competent to own a gun, it should always be incumbent upon the state to prove they are not, BEFORE taking away any weapons.
“harmless and competent”
That’s the problem. Define ‘harmless’.
“He’s a Republican...Jail him! He’s an obvious menace to society.”
“He’s doesn’t believe in global warming...Jail him! He’s an obvious menace to society.”
These are pre-crimes: We declare him to be a potential criminal, so make him do what we want!
Call them the Fredo Flag laws.