Red Flag law and safety

Firearms related political discussion forum

Red Flag law and safety

Postby Chunkychuck on Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:55 am

If the goal of Red Flag laws (as declared) is safety for all concerned, does the proposed law here in MN have a provision for the temporary detainment of the individual instead of their firearms? I have looked at a .pdf booklet put out by The National Alliance on Mental Illness- Minnesota ( https://namimn.org/wp-content/uploads/. ... l-2016.pdf ) that seems to indicate that the civil commitment process does provides the safety desired but yet also protects the individual by mandating a hearing within 72 hrs of the commitment. I couldn't find anywhere in the booklet that anything needed to be seized other than the individual. Is the existence of the civil commitment process a valid argument against the need for a Red Flag law?

From the booklet:
The civil commitment process has two main purposes:
1. To treat persons with mental illnesses when they are unable or unwilling to seek treatment voluntarily
2. To protect the person with a mental illness and others from harm due to the illness


In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature changed the commitment law by removing the words “imminent” or “immediate” from the statute in order to allow courts or families to intervene earlier when a person does not recognize his mental illness and needs treatment to prevent further deterioration or crisis. The statute still requires that the person or others may be in harm if not immediately detained. As soon as a danger is posed to the person with a mental illness or others around her, the civil commitment process can be started.
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 502 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Holland&Holland on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:04 am

Chunkychuck wrote:If the goal of Red Flag laws (as declared) is safety for all concerned, does the proposed law here in MN have a provision for the temporary detainment of the individual instead of their firearms? I have looked at a .pdf booklet put out by The National Alliance on Mental Illness- Minnesota ( https://namimn.org/wp-content/uploads/. ... l-2016.pdf ) that seems to indicate that the civil commitment process does provides the safety desired but yet also protects the individual by mandating a hearing within 72 hrs of the commitment. I couldn't find anywhere in the booklet that anything needed to be seized other than the individual. Is the existence of the civil commitment process a valid argument against the need for a Red Flag law?

From the booklet:
The civil commitment process has two main purposes:
1. To treat persons with mental illnesses when they are unable or unwilling to seek treatment voluntarily
2. To protect the person with a mental illness and others from harm due to the illness


In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature changed the commitment law by removing the words “imminent” or “immediate” from the statute in order to allow courts or families to intervene earlier when a person does not recognize his mental illness and needs treatment to prevent further deterioration or crisis. The statute still requires that the person or others may be in harm if not immediately detained. As soon as a danger is posed to the person with a mental illness or others around her, the civil commitment process can be started.


Wait, safety of all concerned? No, that might be their stated goal but their goal is the eventual confiscation of all weapons owned by those who have views counter to those trying to consolidate power.

I mean who else except a mentally unstable person would support Trump?
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 9021 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Chunkychuck on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:13 am

Holland&Holland wrote:
Chunkychuck wrote:If the goal of Red Flag laws (as declared) is safety for all concerned, does the proposed law here in MN have a provision for the temporary detainment of the individual instead of their firearms? I have looked at a .pdf booklet put out by The National Alliance on Mental Illness- Minnesota ( https://namimn.org/wp-content/uploads/. ... l-2016.pdf ) that seems to indicate that the civil commitment process does provides the safety desired but yet also protects the individual by mandating a hearing within 72 hrs of the commitment. I couldn't find anywhere in the booklet that anything needed to be seized other than the individual. Is the existence of the civil commitment process a valid argument against the need for a Red Flag law?

From the booklet:
The civil commitment process has two main purposes:
1. To treat persons with mental illnesses when they are unable or unwilling to seek treatment voluntarily
2. To protect the person with a mental illness and others from harm due to the illness


In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature changed the commitment law by removing the words “imminent” or “immediate” from the statute in order to allow courts or families to intervene earlier when a person does not recognize his mental illness and needs treatment to prevent further deterioration or crisis. The statute still requires that the person or others may be in harm if not immediately detained. As soon as a danger is posed to the person with a mental illness or others around her, the civil commitment process can be started.


Wait, safety of all concerned? No, that might be their stated goal but their goal is the eventual confiscation of all weapons owned by those who have views counter to those trying to consolidate power.


I know what the unstated goal is. I'm asking the question to see if the civil commitment process is a means to deter Red Flag laws with those few politicians that might be sitting on the fence.
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 502 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby xd ED on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:46 am

Holland&Holland wrote:
Wait, safety of all concerned? No, that might be their stated goal but their goal is the eventual confiscation of all weapons owned by those who have views counter to those trying to consolidate power.

I mean who else except a mentally unstable person would support Trump?


...or want to own a gun...
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 7820 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Holland&Holland on Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:43 am

xd ED wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:
Wait, safety of all concerned? No, that might be their stated goal but their goal is the eventual confiscation of all weapons owned by those who have views counter to those trying to consolidate power.

I mean who else except a mentally unstable person would support Trump?


...or want to own a gun...


Well that goes without saying...
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 9021 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Ghost on Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:46 am

The goal isn't safety.
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8033 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby bstrawse on Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:32 pm

Chunkychuck wrote:If the goal of Red Flag laws (as declared) is safety for all concerned, does the proposed law here in MN have a provision for the temporary detainment of the individual instead of their firearms? I have looked at a .pdf booklet put out by The National Alliance on Mental Illness- Minnesota ( https://namimn.org/wp-content/uploads/. ... l-2016.pdf ) that seems to indicate that the civil commitment process does provides the safety desired but yet also protects the individual by mandating a hearing within 72 hrs of the commitment. I couldn't find anywhere in the booklet that anything needed to be seized other than the individual. Is the existence of the civil commitment process a valid argument against the need for a Red Flag law?

From the booklet:
The civil commitment process has two main purposes:
1. To treat persons with mental illnesses when they are unable or unwilling to seek treatment voluntarily
2. To protect the person with a mental illness and others from harm due to the illness


In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature changed the commitment law by removing the words “imminent” or “immediate” from the statute in order to allow courts or families to intervene earlier when a person does not recognize his mental illness and needs treatment to prevent further deterioration or crisis. The statute still requires that the person or others may be in harm if not immediately detained. As soon as a danger is posed to the person with a mental illness or others around her, the civil commitment process can be started.


The Red Flag law allows for the seizure of firearms. That's it. There's nothing about the civil commitment process in this bill.

Learn more about the bill at http://gunowners.mn/tracker

Take action at http://gunowners.mn/action
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 3771 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Chunkychuck on Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:33 pm

First of all, I totally understand that those who are trying to pass the Red Flag laws only want to get rid of guns. They don't really care about safety even though the purpose of the bill is couched in those terms. I am considering coming up to the capitol on Thursday and participating in the lobbying effort and am looking for way, from my point of view, to show the law is about getting guns only and not about safety. My point being that the civil commitment law already provides a way to protect an individual and others by detaining the individual considered to be a threat. I couldn't find anywhere in it a provision that allows for confiscation of firearms. That law requires having a hearing within 72 hrs of detention to determine whether they are a threat or not. The Red Flag law does nothing to determine the actual threat a person may be, has a much longer process, and only removes one means, firearms, of that persons ability to harm themselves or others. My point would be that if a person is said to be dangerous enough to have their firearm's seized, aren't they really dangerous enough to have their mental health evaluated since other tools are available to harm themselves or others. Is there something wrong my premise? I understand that may mean sitting in detention for 72 hrs for a false accusation. But one would get a much quicker hearing and a court ordered release and vindication when the accusation is proven false.

I will sign up at MNGOC if I am able to come Thursday and will ask that all the bills be defeated that MNGOC is recommending to be defeated. I just thought that if one could show that an existing law that addresses safety exists, it might help those lawmakers who are on the fence decide to vote against the Red Flag law.
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 502 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby bstrawse on Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:45 pm

Chunkychuck wrote:First of all, I totally understand that those who are trying to pass the Red Flag laws only want to get rid of guns. They don't really care about safety even though the purpose of the bill is couched in those terms. I am considering coming up to the capitol on Thursday and participating in the lobbying effort and am looking for way, from my point of view, to show the law is about getting guns only and not about safety. My point being that the civil commitment law already provides a way to protect an individual and others by detaining the individual considered to be a threat. I couldn't find anywhere in it a provision that allows for confiscation of firearms. That law requires having a hearing within 72 hrs of detention to determine whether they are a threat or not. The Red Flag law does nothing to determine the actual threat a person may be, has a much longer process, and only removes one means, firearms, of that persons ability to harm themselves or others. My point would be that if a person is said to be dangerous enough to have their firearm's seized, aren't they really dangerous enough to have their mental health evaluated since other tools are available to harm themselves or others. Is there something wrong my premise? I understand that may mean sitting in detention for 72 hrs for a false accusation. But one would get a much quicker hearing and a court ordered release and vindication when the accusation is proven false.

I will sign up at MNGOC if I am able to come Thursday and will ask that all the bills be defeated that MNGOC is recommending to be defeated. I just thought that if one could show that an existing law that addresses safety exists, it might help those lawmakers who are on the fence decide to vote against the Red Flag law.


Totally agree with you on this -- we've had pretty good success explaining the 72 hour process to legislators that "get it".

The hard core anti-gun folks are a lost cause though.

THanks for your support!
Bryan
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 3771 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby LarryFlew on Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:21 pm


The hard core anti-gun folks are a lost cause though.


Pretty much says it all
User avatar
LarryFlew
 
Posts: 4470 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Young America - CZ fan - Class of 66 - USAF 66-70 - NRA life since 1970

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Ghost on Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:57 pm

LarryFlew wrote:
The hard core anti-gun folks are a lost cause though.


Pretty much says it all

Yet we can't discontinue the fight
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8033 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby crbutler on Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:41 pm

Civil commitment is a pretty big step, and not as easy as some would like to portray. You need a preponderance of evidence in court for this to hold up.

A cop or a physician can place someone under a 72H hold- but both have a substantial liability if they do it without sufficient cause. Notably, some relative or neighbor saying he said X,Y,Z is not going to be enough (which is what they want for red flag) The LEO or doc has to examine the person and then say that they see evidence of this. If they do, they have to find a bed in a MH hospital for this person- and that can take quite a while in this state.

I have yet to see a LEO place someone on a hold- at best they haul them to the local ER where a ER doc looks at them for a bit and decides if they meet criteria for hospitalization (which is quite specific) and if so, suggests admission. If they agree, then its wholly voluntary (supposedly no consequences to their rights) but if they refuse, then the doc has to decide are they a danger to themselves or the community (having access to lethal weapons is a flag here, but the doc won't know unless the patient admits to it...) and if so, then can declare the 72H rule (AKA medical or police officer's hold) by medical emergency. Of course, given how these things operate, the person can say yes, wait until the examining doc is out, then say they want to leave AMA...)

The red flag law is much lower level of evidence or data. From what I have read, its essentially hearsay. It will certainly be prone to significant abuse. However, civil commitment is prone to having such a high standard its very difficult to use- and despite being trained at the U of MN, I never heard about it until I went to work for the government. I would not be surprised if a majority of non psychiatrists don't even know it exists, or how it functions even if they do know...

And if you think that someone's property will be returned as soon as the court finds no cause, you are dreaming. I would not be surprised if the plan is that the departments will be able to hold the guns (but dispose of ammo) and charge a "reasonable" storage fee.
crbutler
 
Posts: 1186 [View]
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:29 pm

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Chunkychuck on Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:16 pm

crbutler wrote:And if you think that someone's property will be returned as soon as the court finds no cause, you are dreaming. I would not be surprised if the plan is that the departments will be able to hold the guns (but dispose of ammo) and charge a "reasonable" storage fee.


This was my point in asking. Are there, in your experience, also property seizure warrants to confiscate firearms when law enforcement detains such an individual under the civil commitment process.
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 502 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Sorcerer on Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:30 pm

I don’t believe the red flag law is intended for JUST the mentally ill. You don’t have to be mentally ill for a spouse to claim “he has guns and I fear for my life”, just before she/he has you served devorce papers. Or your neighbor says I’m afraid of you because you yelled at them for letting there dog poop in your yard and you got all red faced. All it would take is an accusation, real, preceaved, vengeful.
Sorcerer
 
Posts: 439 [View]
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: Red Flag law and safety

Postby Ghost on Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:10 pm

Sorcerer wrote:I don’t believe the red flag law is intended for JUST the mentally ill. You don’t have to be mentally ill for a spouse to claim “he has guns and I fear for my life”, just before she/he has you served devorce papers. Or your neighbor says I’m afraid of you because you yelled at them for letting there dog poop in your yard and you got all red faced. All it would take is an accusation, real, preceaved, vengeful.

Yep, it’s just another swatting tool with no retribution for false accusations.

They’ll search your house and find the guns then they will run all the numbers and check them out fully.

Be much better if there were options such as sending them for storage at an FFL if it can’t be stopped.
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8033 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron