Yesterday – four days after the DFL’s vaunted “Red Flag” swatting-enablement and gun confiscation bill came out – the form to file to appeal a Red Flag order is out.
And it’s worse than you might have expected:
It should go without saying that your metro county attorneys – the ones that can’t be bothered to charge actual violent criminals – will turn up at court to oppose your appeal, and that the legal bills to litigate the issue against the bottomless resources of a hostile county attorney will be on you.
By the way – as bad as you think the new ERPO law is, it’s actually worse. The MN Gun Owners Caucus explains it here
Breaking somewhat related news; Wayne LaPierre resigns from NRA post.
Scary thing is that it’s better in one way than what the federal Department of InJustice came up with. The DOIJ recommends preponderance of evidence, but at least the DFL was sane enough to recommend clear and convincing evidence.
Exactly what this means is up for debate. If a person has been accused of a domestic violence violation, does that mean a DVI score of “moderate” risk (which about 90% of people will have) is sufficient? What about when a counselor misinterprets a person’s behavior? What about just any interaction with mental health professionals?
On the flip side, the protections for police and prosecutors when guns are damaged, and when malicious use is made of this law, make MN’s law worse in many regards. “Oopsie, we left your gun collection out in the shed which leaks….and we’ll be scheduling your hearing three months from now.”
And really, I just see this as endless mischief for errant ex-partners, bitter family members, and rogue prosecutors and police who have been stifled by legitimate law but still want to “get even”, or simply think “we have to do something!”. And when it’s prosecutors and police, the damage they can do without being caught and punished can be immense–a prosecutor can rack up legal costs for a defendant by thousands of dollars in a hurry simply by not returning phone calls from the defense attorney in a timely manner. “Oopsie.”
Really, in a broader way, there needs to be a serious reining in of prosecutors and police, not a blanket permission for them do do this kind of thing.
Hey, sort of a threadjack except it has to do with forms from the state of MN. Just got my 1099-MISC making that $520 rebate federal taxable. Wally and the gang were having so much fun spending the other 1500-ish (remember the Walz promise?) that they didn’t issue the checks in a timely manner.
bikebubba, there are two ways the order can issue.
First is an Ordinary Extreme Risk Protection Order which can issue after notice and a hearing at which the gun grabber must prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that the gun owner is a danger. 624.7171.
The second is an Emergency Extreme Risk Protection Order which can issue without notice, where the gun owner is not present. In that procedure, the gun grabber only needs to show Probable Cause that the gun owner is a danger. 624.7174.
If the gun owner wants to get the Order lifted to get his guns back, the gun owner must prove by Clear and Convincing evidence that he is NOT a danger. That’s the objectionable part. How do you prove a negative? What evidence can you offer? Stable job, married, kids, no history of criminal behavior? Yes, but you own guns and read SITD and briefly considered voting for Trump. So is that Clear and Convincing evidence sufficient to get your guns back, or not?
Somebody claims you’re a danger, you say you’re not but naturally, that’s what you would say. And if the judge takes your word for it but you later shoot up the church, the judge looks like an idiot. What judge wants to take the chance?
That’s the problem. The court can hand out these Orders like Kleenex but getting it lifted is impossible and there’s no punishment for abusing the system.
Bingo. That’s why they need to have some criteria spelled out. And really, if you take a look at things like intimate partner murders, most of them are not clearly predictable from prior criminal arrests or convictions, about 90%. If you’re looking at mass shootings, you’re generally either looking at (a) cases where people knew a person was a hazard and did not take action on already existing law or (b) nobody had any idea that the person was a threat. So by and large, it would be taking guns out of the hands of the innocent and harmless.
So what we have, really, is a law in search for a purpose, and which enables all kinds of legal abuse by a variety of entities. Hopefully the courts slap it down so hard it makes DFL heads spin.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 01.05.24 : The Other McCain
“What judge wants to take the chance?”
In the Twin Cities metro? All of them.
Provided your risk to society is documented in a long series of arrests, convictions and incarcerations.
Law-abiding schmucks? Probably riskier.
Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove
Red Flag laws can be great fun. Red Flag your local activist. Insist that the police do a thorough search when they claim that they don’t have any guns.
Ooooo! Nice thought, Jay Dee! I’m thinking of several DemoCommie legislators and a certain narcissist that leads the Minnesota DemoCommie party to start; or, would that be too obvious? 😎
Jay Dee illustrates brilliantly why prosecutors, police, and others should NOT have immunity vis-a-vis actions regarding red flag laws, Power to search with immunity basically guts the 4th Amendment.
What judge wants to risk looking like an idiot? “Judging” by the number of violent offenders released on parole or on reduced sentences – who then go on to do violent things – I don’t think Judges give it a second thought.