Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Tronster on Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:12 pm

Does anyone actually know what kind of evidence is needed for a judge to sign an order? Audio or video proof of violent intent? A social media post? Or is it just the accuser's statement that they "think" the gun owner might be a danger with no other physical proof?

What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?
Tronster
 
Posts: 552 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:07 pm
Location: Rochester

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Ghost on Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:52 pm

Tronster wrote:Does anyone actually know what kind of evidence is needed for a judge to sign an order? Audio or video proof of violent intent? A social media post? Or is it just the accuser's statement that they "think" the gun owner might be a danger with no other physical proof?

What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?

I do not. It’d be good info though.
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8246 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Citiot on Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:23 pm

Tronster wrote:
What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


Misdemeanor. Basically the same as a serious speeding ticket.

So, someone hates you, lies, and it is a proven lie. A fine.

MNGOC please make sure I am right on this....
Citiot
 
Posts: 184 [View]
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:33 pm

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby xd ED on Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:44 pm

Citiot wrote:
Tronster wrote:
What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


Misdemeanor. Basically the same as a serious speeding ticket.

So, someone hates you, lies, and it is a proven lie. A fine.

MNGOC please make sure I am right on this....


Proving someone intentionally lied might be difficult..who is to say what I did, or didn't hear you say..."I was sure they said they were going home and blow their brains out when he left the bar". I couldn't, not do anything.

This could serve to be gov't sponsored pranking on anyone; gun owner, or not....
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9014 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Ghost on Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:16 pm

xd ED wrote:
Citiot wrote:
Tronster wrote:
What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


Misdemeanor. Basically the same as a serious speeding ticket.

So, someone hates you, lies, and it is a proven lie. A fine.

MNGOC please make sure I am right on this....


Proving someone intentionally lied might be difficult..who is to say what I did, or didn't hear you say..."I was sure they said they were going home and blow their brains out when he left the bar". I couldn't, not do anything.

This could serve to be gov't sponsored pranking on anyone; gun owner, or not....

They already swat people so it would definitely be abused.
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8246 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby bstrawse on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:05 pm

Tronster wrote:Does anyone actually know what kind of evidence is needed for a judge to sign an order? Audio or video proof of violent intent? A social media post? Or is it just the accuser's statement that they "think" the gun owner might be a danger with no other physical proof?

What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


The proposals in Minnesota require a preponderance of the evidence (50%+1 in thought) - the penalty for false reporting is only a misdemeanor.

You can view the actual proposals at http://gunowners.mn/tracker

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: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby bstrawse on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:05 pm

Citiot wrote:
Tronster wrote:
What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


Misdemeanor. Basically the same as a serious speeding ticket.

So, someone hates you, lies, and it is a proven lie. A fine.

MNGOC please make sure I am right on this....


You are correct.
b
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: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby bstrawse on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:08 pm

xd ED wrote:
Ghost wrote:I also think anyone who makes a false claim should get a 144 hour hold in return.

You've gotten close to one of the most insidious aspects of the proposed MN Red Flag law; once adjudicated, one must somehow prove he is not a threat.
As I understand the intended law,
It is apparently not enough that they cannot prove you are a threat. And the level of evidence (for lack of a more correct legal term) is somewhere above a preponderance of evidence; the requirement for a civil suit, but just short of beyond a reasonable doubt.


In the current House and Senate proposals -- it is the preponderance of the evidence to issue an order and seize someone's firearms - returning the firearms requires clear and convincing evidence that they are no longer a threat.

As we've said previously, we have no intention of trying to fix the flaws in this bill - we intend to kill them. That won't happen in the Minnesota House where the anti-gun crowd has a large majority... but it's going to be one hell of a floor fight -- and in the end there's going to be a roll call vote.

The Senate will not pass this crap - but we're going to have to put a lot of pressure on them. Take action at http://gunowners.mn/action

b
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: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby xd ED on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:13 pm

bstrawse wrote:
Tronster wrote:Does anyone actually know what kind of evidence is needed for a judge to sign an order? Audio or video proof of violent intent? A social media post? Or is it just the accuser's statement that they "think" the gun owner might be a danger with no other physical proof?

What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


The proposals in Minnesota require a preponderance of the evidence (50%+1 in thought) - the penalty for false reporting is only a misdemeanor.

You can view the actual proposals at http://gunowners.mn/tracker

Bryan


Bryan,
Given the process is one sided-against the individual under consideration, being done without the knowledge of the subject, how could there be anything but a preponderance of evidence? Does the subject have any stand in defense/ advocate? What other evidence could/ would be presented?

And thanks to you, and Robb for your work.

ED
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9014 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby bstrawse on Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:55 pm

xd ED wrote:
bstrawse wrote:
Tronster wrote:Does anyone actually know what kind of evidence is needed for a judge to sign an order? Audio or video proof of violent intent? A social media post? Or is it just the accuser's statement that they "think" the gun owner might be a danger with no other physical proof?

What are the repercussions for someone making false claims?


The proposals in Minnesota require a preponderance of the evidence (50%+1 in thought) - the penalty for false reporting is only a misdemeanor.

You can view the actual proposals at http://gunowners.mn/tracker

Bryan


Bryan,
Given the process is one sided-against the individual under consideration, being done without the knowledge of the subject, how could there be anything but a preponderance of evidence? Does the subject have any stand in defense/ advocate? What other evidence could/ would be presented?

And thanks to you, and Robb for your work.

ED


Depends. If there is an "imminent danger" then the judge can have an ex-parte hearing and there's no notice given to the gun owner - so no advocate present. Then gun owner then loses their firearms for 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, or 24 months -- the gun owner has to file for a hearing, then a hearing will be held - and they can contest the order.

In a normal situation, whatever that is, there would be notice of a hearing, and then you'd have your chance to have your day in court before the judge make their decision.

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: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Tronster on Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:22 pm

Looking through the details of the bill there appears to be no specific type of proof required, so it looks like just a convincing verbal account under oath is sufficient. May or may not give advanced notice of seizure (depending on severity of 'evidence' given). Must relinquish guns to LE or FFL, either of which can charge you a "reasonable" fee for storage. If given to an FFL, they must perform a background check (and fee's I'm sure) before giving guns back. Burden of evidence to seize firearms is lower than burden of evidence to get them back.

Yea this whole thing stinks to high heaven and ripe for abuse. You're right to just defeat it than try to fix all the issues in this dumpster fire of a bill.
Tronster
 
Posts: 552 [View]
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:07 pm
Location: Rochester

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Holland&Holland on Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:04 pm

Tronster wrote:Looking through the details of the bill there appears to be no specific type of proof required, so it looks like just a convincing verbal account under oath is sufficient. May or may not give advanced notice of seizure (depending on severity of 'evidence' given). Must relinquish guns to LE or FFL, either of which can charge you a "reasonable" fee for storage. If given to an FFL, they must perform a background check (and fee's I'm sure) before giving guns back. Burden of evidence to seize firearms is lower than burden of evidence to get them back.

Yea this whole thing stinks to high heaven and ripe for abuse. You're right to just defeat it than try to fix all the issues in this dumpster fire of a bill.


I think that is the proponents of the bill's point.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby bstrawse on Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:51 pm

Tronster wrote:Looking through the details of the bill there appears to be no specific type of proof required, so it looks like just a convincing verbal account under oath is sufficient. May or may not give advanced notice of seizure (depending on severity of 'evidence' given). Must relinquish guns to LE or FFL, either of which can charge you a "reasonable" fee for storage. If given to an FFL, they must perform a background check (and fee's I'm sure) before giving guns back. Burden of evidence to seize firearms is lower than burden of evidence to get them back.

Yea this whole thing stinks to high heaven and ripe for abuse. You're right to just defeat it than try to fix all the issues in this dumpster fire of a bill.


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.p ... n_number=0

Line 5.9 requires an affadavit under oath with "specific facts and circumstances
forming a basis to allege that an extreme risk protection order should be granted"

Line 8.1 requires a preponderance of the evidence "At the hearing, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of bodily injury to self or
other persons by possessing a firearm."

Starting at line 8.4: " In determining whether to grant the order after a hearing, the court shall consider
evidence of the following, whether or not the petitioner has provided evidence of the same:
new text end
new text begin (1) a history of threats or acts of violence by the respondent directed toward the
respondent's self or another person;
new text end
new text begin (2) the history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent
against another person;
new text end
new text begin (3) a violation of any court order including, but not limited to, orders issued under
sections 624.7161 to 624.7168, or chapter 260C or 518B;
new text end
new text begin (4) a prior arrest for a felony offense;
new text end
new text begin (5) a conviction or prior arrest for a violent misdemeanor offense, for a stalking offense
under section 609.749, or for domestic assault under section 609.2242;
new text end
new text begin (6) a conviction for an offense of cruelty to animals under chapter 343;
new text end
new text begin (7) the unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
and
new text end
new text begin (8) evidence of controlled substances or alcohol abuse factored against countervailing
evidence of recovery from abuse of controlled substances or alcohol.
new text end
new text begin (c) In determining whether to grant the order after a hearing, the court may consider any
other evidence that bears on whether the respondent poses a danger to the respondent's self
or others."

The burdens of proof and type of evidence the court can use is specified in the bill.

Again, the bill is crap, we are opposed, and we're going to try and kill it.
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: 4136 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Ghost on Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:03 pm

bstrawse wrote:Again, the bill is crap, we are opposed, and we're going to try and kill it.

Most important part
User avatar
Ghost
 
Posts: 8246 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity

Postby Holland&Holland on Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:42 pm

Ghost wrote:
bstrawse wrote:Again, the bill is crap, we are opposed, and we're going to try and kill it.

Most important part

+1000
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12478 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron