I’ve said before that I am not fully against red flag laws as long as they protect Constitutional rights, such as due process, are not abused, and offer penalties for those who frivolously attempt to take people’s 2nd Amendment rights away. But, that’s not the way most Red Flag laws are structured
Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law
Nearly 200 people in New Jersey have had their guns seized under a “red flag†law that went effect last year, according to data obtained by NJ Advance Media.
The Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, which went into effect Sept. 1, allows a law enforcement officer, family or household member to submit a petition to state Superior Court showing why a judge should issue an order to keep guns away from someone who potentially poses a danger of causing bodily injury to themselves or to others.
So far, 186 temporary extreme risk protective orders have been granted as of Jan. 22, according to the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning more than one person a day has had their guns taken away — at least temporarily — in New Jersey since the law went into effect. In 25 cases, a petition was made but the temporary order was denied by a judge, according to court data.
There have been a total of 88 final orders granted since the law went into effect, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts. Judges have denied 29 final orders, according to the courts.
Should some people have their weapons taken away?
The law is at the center of a proposed class action federal lawsuit filed by a South Jersey man who had his firearm seized by authorities after he had “threatened, advocated and celebrated the killing of Jewish people†on an online forum.
David Greco filed the lawsuit in October, alleging his due process rights, along with other gun owners in New Jersey, had been violated, as they are not given a chance to be heard in court before a temporary order is issued and police confiscate the firearms.
Should Greco have his weapons taken away? Sure seems like it. But, he was not afforded Due Process.
But the lawsuit alleges that because the order is contingent on “good cause†and not the legal standard of “probable cause,” executing a search warrant is unconstitutional.
So, they’ve changed the legal standard to a much, much, much lower one in order to take people’s legally acquired and Constitutional property.
But, let’s go back: 50% of the final orders have been denied. So, does that mean the other 50% were frivolously filed? That there was no real preponderance of evidence to take away people’s property without due process and any real threat? How many Citizens had to spend lots and lots of money on lawyers, and how many couldn’t afford a good attorney to defend themselves in a “guilty till proven innocent” court preceding? This is all an end run around the Constitution.
