Red Flag Law

[DocSkunk]

http://wane.com/2018/02/21/indiana-attorney-general-issues-advisory-on-states-gun-law/

Apparently its been around since 2005 and I didn't know about it. I've been opening carrying for a 10+ years no issues. Anybody else think that since they are pushing to make this known they could use it against a lawful OC? Im sure they can, I just thing it will be more prevalent till things cool down. Im still going to OC, I know they can Red Flag me till its cleared up. I know few LEOs don't like OC can use this if your out with your kids thinking your a danger to them under this law they can pull your sidearm from you, of is someone calls about a MWAG I think this can still be triggered. Anybody else have a thought or am I being to worrisome. I know it says "no way inhibits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens" but it can be twisted to target legal carry both CC or OC.

 

[gutshot II]

http://wane.com/2018/02/21/indiana-attorney-general-issues-advisory-on-states-gun-law/

Apparently its been around since 2005 and I didn't know about it. I've been opening carrying for a 10+ years no issues. Anybody else think that since they are pushing to make this known they could use it against a lawful OC? Im sure they can, I just thing it will be more prevalent till things cool down. Im still going to OC, I know they can Red Flag me till its cleared up. I know few LEOs don't like OC can use this if your out with your kids thinking your a danger to them under this law they can pull your sidearm from you, of is someone calls about a MWAG I think this can still be triggered. Anybody else have a thought or am I being to worrisome. I know it says "no way inhibits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens" but it can be twisted to target legal carry both CC or OC.

You are being way too "worrisome" and bordering on paranoid.

From your article:

"Under Indiana’s law, a person is considered “dangerous” if the person presents an imminent risk of physical injury to himself or others. A person can also be considered dangerous if the person presents a potential risk of physical injury and has either been diagnosed with a mental illness and failed to take prescribed medication, or if there is documented evidence that the person has “a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.”

What part of that do you think is pertinent to a licensed, mentally healthy, law abiding citizen peacefully carrying a firearm in a holster and acting in accordance with all Indiana laws?

 

[solus]

noted w/interest..the Hoosier AG didn’t reference any legal cite for his red flag stance, no did he?

added:
uh, gutshot, et al, there is no MH professional involvement in this activity as the statute says a LE must affirm by affidavit they discern the individual is ‘dangerous’ and the courts issue a warrant for seizure.
35-47-14-2
https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/indiana/in-code/indiana_code_35-47-14-2

or the nice LE seizes the firearm then justifies it to the court.
https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/indiana/in-code/indiana_code_35-47-14-3

 

[OC for ME]

I remain perplexed as to how a cop can determine, from mere observation, whether or not a visibly armed citizen is licensed (to carry a pistol), mentally healthy, and law abiding.

 

[solus]

I remain perplexed as to how a cop can determine, from mere observation, whether or not a visibly armed citizen is licensed (to carry a pistol), mentally healthy, and law abiding.

remember the nice LE is there to help the community and BLET’s 16 week, 40-hour per provide more than adequate and appropriate MH training to recognize & adjudicate, quickly, those individuals who....(BS off)

just look at the commentary about the FBI, local sheriff’s deputies, and local police who interacted with young Mr Cruz in determining his mental health’s stability.

Darn, look at RO peterson’s mental health while under extreme stress while on the job protecting the students of the school where he worked, oh wait he got to retire under the auspices of the Sheriff who after those FL legislatures requested the state’s governor to fire him, refuses to resign, stating he has amazing leadership and he was unaware what transpired.

ya, OC for ME, these kind folk are going to quickly adjudicate a citizen’s right to have a firearm.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Laws such as these are the very reason not to keep all your eggs in one basket.

 

[OC for ME]

remember the nice LE is there to help the community and BLET’s 16 week, 40-hour per provide more than adequate and appropriate MH training to recognize & adjudicate, quickly, those individuals who....(BS off)

just look at the commentary about the FBI, local sheriff’s deputies, and local police who interacted with young Mr Cruz in determining his mental health’s stability.

Darn, look at RO peterson’s mental health while under extreme stress while on the job protecting the students of the school where he worked, oh wait he got to retire under the auspices of the Sheriff who after those FL legislatures requested the state’s governor to fire him, refuses to resign, stating he has amazing leadership and he was unaware what transpired.

ya, OC for ME, these kind folk are going to quickly adjudicate a citizen’s right to have a firearm.

There in lies the crux of the problem...relying upon hearsay evidence and unsubstantiated opinions from third parties that will/do lead to cops relieving citizens of their individual-liberty (freedom of movement/gun rights/property rights/4A right/1A right/5A/6A guarantee) until some other third party, a shrink who uses bush-league-psychout-stuff-voodoo-black-magic to determine if the presently individual-liberty-less citizen deserves to have his individual liberty reinstated by yet another third party, a judge. Not talking to a judge appointed shrink is just as deadly as talking to a judge appointed shrink.

"Red flag" laws are nothing but another route to disarming not only the nuts of this world, but any of their non-nuts kinfolk.

Red flag = guilty until proven innocent...we'll confiscate you and your stuff w/o warrant if allowed and let a judge work it all out later...much later. http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/government-is-gutting-the-right-to-trial

And when the shrink is your "judge" of socially acceptable mental capacity your are doubly doomed as is your kinfolk. Recall the shrink from Colorado, that I challenged, who defended his profession policing themselves. Just as a judge (with absolute immunity) can only be policed by another higher up judge. Civil remedies are far after the fact and do not in any way clean up the mess third parties do to law abiding citizens who do not meet "societal norms."