• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Passes Red Flag Gun Control Bill

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arizona senate has just passed a "red flag" bill that allows guns to be seized without due process. This is unconstitutional and illegal as it violates due process. I don't see why this isn't challenged and declared unconstitutional by the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eqMSRU2KM
 
SB 1519 is still being debated and worked on. So it is not law.


"Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 2-0)
Status: Engrossed on May 1 2018 - 50% progression
Action: 2018-05-01 - Assigned to House RULES Committee
Pending: House Rules Committee"

https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1519/2018
 
I'm not sure where the "without due process" part comes in. Here is the text of the bill - https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1519/2018

The peace officer must have probable cause (specifically defined in the law) to request the order. The respondent will have a hearing and an evaluation. The evaluation must happen within 72 hours (not counting weekends and holidays) of their being admitted to the evaluation agency. The respondent is guaranteed a hearing within 14 days of the completion of the evaluation.

There IS due process.

I have no qualms whatsoever with law enforcement taking action, including the temporary confiscation of firearms, from someone who presents a high probability of committing a violent act against themselves or others provided the subject also gets a fair hearing on the matter, a reasonable evaluation of their mental state and the opportunity to respond to the claims made against them. While I understand that such a law could be abused that is a different matter and should be addressed if or when such abuse occurs.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not sure where the "without due process" part comes in. Here is the text of the bill - https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1519/2018

The peace officer must have probable cause (specifically defined in the law) to request the order. The respondent will have a hearing and an evaluation. The evaluation must happen within 72 hours (not counting weekends and holidays) of their being admitted to the evaluation agency. The respondent is guaranteed a hearing within 14 days of the completion of the evaluation.

There IS due process.

I have no qualms whatsoever with law enforcement taking action, including the temporary confiscation of firearms, from someone who presents a high probability of committing a violent act against themselves or others provided the subject also gets a fair hearing on the matter, a reasonable evaluation of their mental state and the opportunity to respond to the claims made against them. While I understand that such a law could be abused that is a different matter and should be addressed if or when such abuse occurs.
Click to expand...

Tell me how they define "probable cause" and if it's reasonable, I might be okay with it. There's also the question of who does the eval/hearing.

I'm NOT okay with "peace officers" seizing property based on a stated suspicion, as AG Sessions supports. That stomps on the 4th amendment.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not sure where the "without due process" part comes in. Here is the text of the bill - https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1519/2018

The peace officer must have probable cause (specifically defined in the law) to request the order. The respondent will have a hearing and an evaluation. The evaluation must happen within 72 hours (not counting weekends and holidays) of their being admitted to the evaluation agency. The respondent is guaranteed a hearing within 14 days of the completion of the evaluation.

There IS due process.

I have no qualms whatsoever with law enforcement taking action, including the temporary confiscation of firearms, from someone who presents a high probability of committing a violent act against themselves or others provided the subject also gets a fair hearing on the matter, a reasonable evaluation of their mental state and the opportunity to respond to the claims made against them. While I understand that such a law could be abused that is a different matter and should be addressed if or when such abuse occurs.
Click to expand...

I agree, I saw nothing in there that is not law in many other States and nothing that goes around due process. One cannot use the "they will abuse it" unless it actually occurs and if that happens the courts will deal with it.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not sure where the "without due process" part comes in. Here is the text of the bill - https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1519/2018

The peace officer must have probable cause (specifically defined in the law) to request the order. The respondent will have a hearing and an evaluation. The evaluation must happen within 72 hours (not counting weekends and holidays) of their being admitted to the evaluation agency. The respondent is guaranteed a hearing within 14 days of the completion of the evaluation.

There IS due process.

I have no qualms whatsoever with law enforcement taking action, including the temporary confiscation of firearms, from someone who presents a high probability of committing a violent act against themselves or others provided the subject also gets a fair hearing on the matter, a reasonable evaluation of their mental state and the opportunity to respond to the claims made against them. While I understand that such a law could be abused that is a different matter and should be addressed if or when such abuse occurs.
Click to expand...

I saw nothing in the law about the state paying for any of the personal property taken. This seems like other civil asset forfeiture laws which place the burden of proof on the accused who may later at their own expense seek to challenge the state's action. Due process means that one may only be sentenced after a finding of guilt - not that one may at their own expense seek to either have their confiscated property or its fair market value returned to them.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Tell me how they define "probable cause" and if it's reasonable, I might be okay with it. There's also the question of who does the eval/hearing.

I'm NOT okay with "peace officers" seizing property based on a stated suspicion, as AG Sessions supports. That stomps on the 4th amendment.
Click to expand...

C. The grounds for issuing an emergency severe threat order of protection include either of the following:

1. Making a credible threat of death or serious physical injury or committing an act or attempted act of violence that results in or is intended to result in death or serious physical injury to self or others within the preceding fourteen days.

2. A pattern of making credible threats of death or serious physical injury or committing acts or attempted acts of violence that result in death or serious physical injury to self or others within the preceding six months.
Click to expand...

Basically, If a kid posts on Facebook that they will shoot up their school that's a credible threat. If a guy beats his wife or girlfriend to a pulp that's a credible threat. If a guy gets pissed off and punches a wall that MIGHT be a credible threat of death or serious physical injury. "Serious physical injury" is described elsewhere in the statutes as "39. "Serious physical injury" includes physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I saw nothing in the law about the state paying for any of the personal property taken. This seems like other civil asset forfeiture laws which place the burden of proof on the accused who may later at their own expense seek to challenge the state's action. Due process means that one may only be sentenced after a finding of guilt - not that one may at their own expense seek to either have their confiscated property or its fair market value returned to them.
Click to expand...

A temporarily held firearm, under this order, will either be returned to the respondent if they are not found to be a threat, returned to another party lawfully able to possess firearms or disposed of in accordance with other statutes.

F. If a firearm is seized and removed by a peace officer pursuant to this section, the peace officer shall provide the owner or possessor of the firearm with a receipt for each seized firearm. The receipt must include the identification or serial number or another identifying characteristic of each seized firearm.� Each seized firearm shall be held safely and without being damaged for the duration of the emergency severe threat order of protection or until the owner provides for other means of storage by a person who may lawfully possess the firearm. If a seized firearm is unable to be returned to the owner, the firearm may be disposed of only in accordance with chapter 7, article 8 of this title.
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
A temporarily held firearm, under this order, will either be returned to the respondent if they are not found to be a threat, returned to another party lawfully able to possess firearms or disposed of in accordance with other statutes.
Click to expand...

It is not at all clear when or even if payment must be made. It should be up to the owner of the property taken whether it is "given" to another person or they are paid for the value of the property taken. Disposed of generally means that the state auctions off the property and keeps the proceeds from that sale.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not at all clear when or even if payment must be made. It should be up to the owner of the property taken whether it is "given" to another person or they are paid for the value of the property taken. Disposed of generally means that the state auctions off the property and keeps the proceeds from that sale.
Click to expand...

Understood. That may be something to change in the law but it isn’t enough, in my opinion, to oppose the law. From what I’m reading I am not opposed to the legislation. I have taken firearms from people I had reason to believe were a danger myself and believe that doing so was prudent.
 
Lutherf said:
Understood. That may be something to change in the law but it isn’t enough, in my opinion, to oppose the law. From what I’m reading I am not opposed to the legislation. I have taken firearms from people I had reason to believe were a danger myself and believe that doing so was prudent.
Click to expand...

I have no objection so long as the property owner gets the fair market value of any property taken from them very soon after it is taken. So long as the property or its value is returned to the owner (or their assigns) on the initial hearing date I'm OK with the law. The problem with this (or any) civil asset forfeiture law is that there is no guarantee that the state does not simply use (abuse?) it to give themselves a new source of revenue.
 
Lutherf said:
Basically, If a kid posts on Facebook that they will shoot up their school that's a credible threat. If a guy beats his wife or girlfriend to a pulp that's a credible threat. If a guy gets pissed off and punches a wall that MIGHT be a credible threat of death or serious physical injury. "Serious physical injury" is described elsewhere in the statutes as "39. "Serious physical injury" includes physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb."
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that. There is a murky area in the domestic abuse arena, since an angry partner could potentially make false accusations, but if someone is "beaten to a pulp", yeah, that's enough. I just don't want a setup that can easily be abused by anyone, including LE.

You live in AZ, and knowing some others who do, I don't think you'll let anything get codified that would be objectionable to me. I just get nervous when legislators start adding hair triggers to the ability of the gov. to seize property (anything, especially arms). Once they have it, it's frequently hard to get back. All LE has to say in many cases is, "it's still under investigation".
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Tell me how they define "probable cause" and if it's reasonable
Click to expand...

Well, lets look at the Parkland shooter. He had the police involved with his life a ton and threatened others with firearms. Is that not a red flag, or probable cause?
 
TaterTots said:
Well, lets look at the Parkland shooter. He had the police involved with his life a ton and threatened others with firearms. Is that not a red flag, or probable cause?
Click to expand...

That clown had way too many. The problem in FL is that they have nowhere to put people like that. That would cost tax money.

Should his 2ndA right have been revoked? Should he have been on some "no buy" list that all firearms sellers needed to heed?
 
Lutherf said:
If a guy gets pissed off and punches a wall that MIGHT be a credible threat of death or serious physical injury.
Click to expand...

You see this is the problem. Somebody shouldn't have their guns taken for hitting a wall.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You see this is the problem. Somebody shouldn't have their guns taken for hitting a wall.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I agree and that's why I mentioned it. It's an area that police, courts and "evaluators" are going to need to look at carefully because it's an area that could be abused in domestic situations.
 
Praxas said:
Got anything other than a Youtube video?
Click to expand...

I still don't get the prejudice against youtube videos as a source, especially if it's from a news company or the such.
 
I am with ttwtt78640 on this one, for the most part.
While I am generally in agreement with the idea that law enforcement, upon discovery of probable cause and after due process, may have the right to seize weapons if they believe an individual poses a threat, I say due process also demands some kind of compensation.

If the user was allowed to purchase these firearms at one time, it meant that they were not a threat, and it also means that they paid hard earned money for them, and as such, any taking by law enforcement without compensation is unjust, unless it is a case where such weapons were used in the commission of a crime or in cases where the individual is convicted of a gun crime.
In other words, while we aren't required to compensate an armed criminal for his guns, we might be required to compensate an otherwise law abiding person who is simply a little too crazy to keep guns in his possession.

If that places a burden upon the city, county or state, so be it. Perhaps the confiscation will only be done in earnest and not abused in a frivolous manner. The Second Amendment is important to Americans and must be respected, even as such respect might extend to those individuals whose conduct may result in forfeiture of those rights, temporarily or permanently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom