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.