Jump to content
Sniper

New Jersey's red-flag law takes effect Sunday, but will it help prevent gun violence?

Recommended Posts

I'm posting this as a separate thread, since it has important ramifications and goes into effect this Sunday, 9/1. This new law can really cause some issues, biggest one, there is no due process. Your firearms are removed, then you have to fight to get them back.

I think it will also be abused, BIG TIME. Have a fight with a girlfriend, she calls the authorities. Also, based on the emotion level today with guns, and this state's MAJOR Liberal lean, it won't take much arm twisting to get a Liberal judge to approve the seizure. My suggestion, all you guys keep your mouths closed when talking to people about what's in your safe!!!

I'm going to post the whole article, since some of you don't subscribe to the APP:

-----------------------------------

Starting Sunday, family members and authorities in New Jersey will be able to use a new law to seek a court order to strip firearms from those considered dangerous — legislation decried by gun rights groups as an end run around the Constitution. 

Even as New Jersey joins the growing list of states with a so-called red-flag law, questions remain about whether it will help prevent gun violence.

While some studies found that suicide rates dropped in states with red-flag laws, determining whether they can reduce homicides — and mass shootings in particular — is harder to do, experts said.

“Mass shootings are a rare event,” said Warren Eller, associate professor and chairman of the Department of Public Management at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan. “Because that’s the case, it makes it incredibly difficult to say what’s actually going to have an effect, and even to test what that effect would be with any certainty.”

Despite this, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow for some version of the law, which in New Jersey will let judges issue an “extreme risk protection order” that gives authorities the green light to take an individual’s weapons.

The public overwhelmingly supports the measures, according to a July survey by the American Public Media Research Lab. More than three-quarters of those polled favor allowing families to seek an order, and about 70 percent support allowing police the option. 

But it is not without detractors.

The National Rifle Association often decries the laws as confiscation schemes that violate the right to due process. Yet the survey found that most gun owners support them — 60 percent back police-initiated orders, and 67 percent support family-initiated orders. 

It remains unclear whether a federal red-flag law will gain traction. Though the survey showed bipartisan support from the public, politicians in Washington have been unable to come to terms.

Last year, courts across the nation issued more than 1,700 orders under red-flag laws allowing authorities to seize weapons for up to a year. The actual figure may be higher, as California was not included in the data.

In a statement earlier this month, state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal commended the law, which goes into effect Sept. 1.

"New Jersey is leading the way in taking commonsense action to protect our residents and law enforcement officers from the daily scourge of gun violence," Grewal said.

Previously, police could not file their own petition, Grewal’s office said. And families could do it only after an act of domestic violence. 

That's not the case under the new law: Family, household members or cops can now request an order before a crime occurs.

However, the petition must show that the respondent "poses an immediate and present danger of bodily injury to self or others by possessing, purchasing, owning or receiving a firearm," according to an attorney general directive. The judge will then consider the respondent's legal history, arrest record and previous convictions, among other things. 

Once the order is granted, the judge can issue a search warrant that lets authorities seize the respondent's firearms and ammunition, as well as the person's firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun and permit to carry a handgun, if there is one.

The state Superior Court then schedules a final hearing within 10 days, at which point a judge can permanently bar the respondent from owning, handling or buying firearms, according to the law. That order lasts until a judge cancels it, which would follow another hearing in which the respondent must prove not to be a threat. 

Authorities can charge those who break any provision with a fourth-degree crime.

The directive also details an appeal process and lays out how and when officers and prosecutors should file for an order. 

Despite the high legal bar, gun rights groups are crying foul. 

“This is classic Orwell — people are charged and convicted of something based on nothing more than an accusation,” said Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. "You don't have the right and the ability to defend yourself ... before your firearms are taken away from you."

An NRA spokesman echoed this, writing in an email that red-flag laws should, at a minimum, include criminal penalties for those who make frivolous claims, require mental health treatment for respondents and protect their right to due process.

The New Jersey law does not require treatment or explicitly mention penalties, a spokesman for the attorney general said. But the petitioner's affidavit will be sworn under oath, making the petitioner subject to punishment if statements are willfully false, according to a court directive. 

Due process is a concern, said Michael K. Gusmano, an associate professor and outreach director for the Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University. That's why it's important that the state train police, prosecutors and the courts appropriately. 

"You're talking about having the state come in and remove, in most instances, a legally purchased gun," Gusmano said. "But the claim that these laws do not involve due process because the person has not already been convicted of a crime does not make any sense ... the whole premise behind these are that you're trying to be preemptive."

Others worry about false accusations, which could strip weapons from innocent people. 

"It does happen," said Paramus Police Chief Ken Ehrenberg. "We must make sure that the seizures are for a legitimate reason and the law doesn't get abused."

Still, he said, the law will give his officers another way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. 

Bergen County Sheriff Anthony Cureton, a Democrat in his first term, added that he thinks the law is "more than appropriate." 

"If someone has a gun in their household and they're not stable, we need the opportunity to take the gun out of somebody's hand," Cureton said. "It's about safety first." 

https://www.app.com/story/news/new-jersey/2019/08/30/njs-red-flag-law-takes-effect-sunday-prevent-gun-violence/2085387001/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Once the order is granted, the judge can issue a search warrant that lets authorities seize the respondent's firearms and ammunition, as well as the person's firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun and permit to carry a handgun, if there is one.

Hahahahahaha! Maybe if someone drops a dime on Sweeney, Greenwald or Weinberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be a wake up call for any NJ gun owner to use extreme caution as to who knows your hobby, sport or what ever you call it.

You need to find a safe storage place for all your "safe queens" , family heirlooms, and other collectible guns.   start building hiding places .   leave your 1 home defense gun out but hide the rest.   You can be assured that if your collection of Colt SAA's or that Colt Walker you got buried in your safe  will be destroyed if seized by the stasi. 

an event can happen anytime, don't kid your self especially if you have kids in a school system.    

make plans with a trusted gun owning friend,   I have a plan with mine,  we have each others shed lock combinations and in the event I ever had to remove mine at any hour of the day I can just drive to his house , lock them in his shed and he will do the rest.  

The NJ NRA affiliate should devise and disseminate a legal plan of action for NJ gun owners immediately .

 

Now do we have to wait for a case to happen before a SCOTUS complaint.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that same piece in the Bergen Record.  They did say that while there are no specific criminal penalties for false accusations, the complaint would have to be filed under oath, so a false complaint could be subject to prosecution under that provision.  

I think Red Flag laws have the potential to be helpful, but they would need to be very clearly defined and closely regulated to prevent abuse.  What happens if a man alleges that his wife or girlfriend threatened him, and has her guns removed.  At that point, she would be helpless to defend herself against him.  I'm curious why the scenario always presented is the reverse of that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, revenger said:

  

make plans with a trusted gun owning friend,   I have a plan with mine,  we have each others shed lock combinations and in the event I ever had to remove mine at any hour of the day I can just drive to his house , lock them in his shed and he will do the rest.  

 

You might not want to make your plans to commit a felony public knowledge, just sayin. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greenday said:

I mean, you can't deny that reporting dangerous people hasn't saved lives.

This has ALWAYS been available, we don't need additional NEW laws to make it easier for a pissed off family member to rat another one out.

Ever hear the saying "See something, say something"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sniper said:

This has ALWAYS been available, we don't need additional NEW laws to make it easier for a pissed off family member to rat another one out.

Ever hear the saying "See something, say something"?

This. All the examples posted involved someone committing a crime or a credible threat to do so. No RFL’s were involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A positive post from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

Read it.

 

The text of NJ's Guidelines:

https://njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190813a.pdf

And isn't it strange that AG Directive 2019-2 is NOT available for public viewing???????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, njJoniGuy said:

A positive post from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

Read it.

They make VERY good points:

  • ...."It infringes on a host of rights:  weapons are confiscated after a hearing where the respondents are not  present, and therefore do not know the evidence against them, nor have the opportunity to confront their accusers;
  • These laws have been mischaracterized as having supporting evidence of reducing suicide and homicide, when in fact there is none that withstands any scrutiny;
  • Such bills do the opposite of what I’ve been trained to do as a forensic psychiatrist:  respect fellow citizens by using scientifically rigorous methods of risk assessment.

I testified that none of the Red Flag bills being considered provide for treating respondents “with even a modicum of respect, which is to have a risk assessment method that passes some form of rules of evidence.  Only a kangaroo court would accept the ‘I know it when I see it’ standard of dangerousness to confiscate weapons.”

Little did I know that New Jersey is in fact setting up such “kangaroo courts.”  Its Red Flag bill will take effect next month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red Flag laws are nothing more than an end run on due process.  That anyone supports this crap is not a good thing.

The politicians are destroying our liberty and we, the lowly citizens, apparently have no recourse. 

This somehow sounds familiar.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BobA said:

So could they possibly use material from this site as a “red flag” against one of us?  All our talk of our dreams of RBG or our ammo amounts?  

Yes, they are contacting @Maksim for the membership list as I type this! :nea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sniper said:

Yes, they are contacting @Maksim for the membership list as I type this! :nea:

Ah-ha!!  I knew it!!

 

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

Why not?

Why not indeed. 

Just now, Maksim said:

lol.

And this is why the server is out of state, registrations are overseas and holding in Florida.

We’re being laundered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 8:11 PM, njJoniGuy said:

A positive post from Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

Read it.

 

The text of NJ's Guidelines:

https://njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190813a.pdf

And isn't it strange that AG Directive 2019-2 is NOT available for public viewing???????

 

Episode 431 of the GunForHire podcast was devoted to this.  His guests were doctors representing DRGO.  I highly recommend listening to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a reminder of what's in this new law, then read my comment on the bottom on what's MISSING from it:

Gun bill

The legislation known as the Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 authorizes New Jersey courts to issue gun violence protective orders to individuals who pose a significant risk of personal injury to themselves or others by possessing or owning a firearm.

The protective orders prohibit the person who the order is filed against from securing or possessing any permit or license allowing firearm possession during a "protective-order period." Anyone who loses their gun has 45 days to file an appeal once an order is granted.

Here's what the bill also does:

  • The bill also makes it a fourth-degree crime for a person to purposely or knowingly violate any provision of an extreme risk protective order.
  • The bill also authorizes courts to issue a warrant authorizing a law enforcement officer to seize a firearm from a person who has been issued a gun violence restraining order.
  • Specifically, the bill authorizes any person, including family members or friends, to submit an application to the court setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating the issuance of a gun violence restraining order.
  • The court issues the restraining order if it finds, based upon the applicant's sworn and signed affidavit and other information received, that the person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm.
  • The bill defines a gun violence restraining order as a court order prohibiting a person from owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving any firearms for a period of up to one year.
  • The court also is authorized to seize a firearm if there is probable cause to believe that a person who has been issued a gun violence restraining order possesses or owns a firearm.
  • The bill also allows the court to hold an appeal hearing within 14 days of the execution of a gun violence restraining order and firearm seizure warrant.
  • If a law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that a person subject to a gun violence restraining order continues to pose a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm, the agency may initiate a request for a renewal of the order.

See anything missing????

There's no provision to prosecute a person that makes a FALSE accusation. So, anyone that tries to make a false report (like a pissed off ex-girlfriend), just gets to walk free when the the accusation turns out to be false, while the gun owner's life turns into living Hell.

Nice, right?

And we all know Anti-2A people would NEVER lie.... right????

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 11:38 AM, revenger said:

This should be a wake up call for any NJ gun owner to use extreme caution as to who knows your hobby, sport or what ever you call it.

This 100%.  In recent years,   I have endeavored to be open with family and friends regarding my firearms ownership and support for the 2nd Amendment.  This as a way to promote the shooting sports and 2A to people who have been conditioned to view firearms ownership only  in a negative light.( I.e. a tremendous amount of ignorance abounds, even within my extended family.)

However, given these new RFLs, coupled with those already in place, I will likely be much more selective in what I communicate and to whom.  The phrase “loose lips sink ships” certainly applies here.

Moreover, I cannot think of anything more egregious than the thought of police suddenly showing up at my door to confiscate my firearms based on some unknown person alleging unknown accusations regarding my character or mental state.  I have zero confidence a judge in NJ would not order seizure on scant evidence. I.e. seize first, figure it out later. 

Many of us have spouses and family members whose impressions of 2A are negatively influenced by the MSM and the left’s narrative, despite our attempts to inform them in a balanced way.   With that in mind,  these laws also serve to sow the seeds of mistrust between husband/wife, parent/child, in-laws,etc. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sniper said:

 

  • The court issues the restraining order if it finds, based upon the applicant's sworn and signed affidavit and other information received, that the person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm.

See anything missing????

There's no provision to prosecute a person that makes a FALSE accusation. So, anyone that tries to make a false report (like a pissed off ex-girlfriend), just gets to walk free when the the accusation turns out to be false, while the gun owner's life turns into living Hell.

Nice, right?

And we all know Anti-2A people would NEVER lie.... right????

 

While I agree with the intent of your comment, I believe it is technically incorrect.  Since the applicant submits a sworn statement they can be prosecuted for submitting a false claim. 

Whether that is enough of a deterrence?  I doubt it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

Episode 431 of the GunForHire podcast was devoted to this.  His guests were doctors representing DRGO.  I highly recommend listening to it.  

I just did.  It was informative. Thanks.  I liked the part where he mentioned the ACLU was up in arms over it.  They are a strong group as you know.  Even though they ran away from the bump stock thing like little girls they could be helpful here.  Any port in the storm, right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

While I agree with the intent of your comment, I believe it is technically incorrect.  Since the applicant submits a sworn statement they can be prosecuted for submitting a false claim. 

Whether that is enough of a deterrence?  I doubt it...

In reality, do you really think they will go after someone who makes a false claim in THIS state? People lie all the time to fit their agenda.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

For anyone hoping for the NJ legal system to behave as a filter on stupidity and abuse, this article is an interesting read on one more way NJ sucks. 

 

https://reason.com/2019/08/22/how-i-was-a-criminal-defendant-in-a-n-j-harassment-case/

Yes this true in NJ.  I'm bound by a gag order about details but a compliant on me (not gun or violence related) was filed based on "belief and rumors".  It is enough for the cops believe it or not.  Once it got to a hearing the Judge not only backed them up but allowed more because he won't take the chance of being wrong.  And that's what he said too. All over a civil issue.  Anyway, it went nowhere.  But the lawyers got that much richer.  If the cops or their supervisors find or feel the complainant or snitch credible get out your check book.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...