Image 01 Image 03

Michigan enacts red flag gun law, sheriffs vow resistance

Michigan enacts red flag gun law, sheriffs vow resistance

The law would allow an ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to seek an “extreme risk protective order” depriving the subject of firearms.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a red flag gun law on May 22, 2203 “to provide for the issuance of restraining orders prohibiting certain individuals from possessing or purchasing firearms and ordering the surrender and seizure of a restrained individual’s firearms.” Some local law enforcement have indicated they will not enforce the law.

The red flag gun law allows any individuals specified in the bill to “file an action in the family division of the circuit court requesting the court to enter an extreme risk protection order.”

An extreme risk protection order bars the affected individual (respondent) from purchasing or possessing a firearm and from applying for a concealed carry permit. If the respondent holds a concealed carry permit, the order will suspend or revoke the permit. Any firearms the respondent possesses are seized under the order, either within 24 hours or, at the discretion of the court, immediately.

Individuals who can seek an order include the spouse or former spouse of the respondent, an individual who has a child with the respondent is dating or has dated the respondent, is a family member or guardian of the respondent, or cohabits with the respondent. The law defines a family member as a parent, son or daughter, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, uncle or aunt, or first cousin. A law enforcement officer or healthcare provider can also seek an order.

According to the Associated Press, local sheriffs have questioned the constitutionality of the law and signaled their refusal to enforce it, and “over than half of the state’s counties have adopted resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

Replying to the recalcitrant sheriffs, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) promised to “find someone with jurisdiction who will enforce these orders.”

According to Brady, which works to address “America’s gun violence epidemic,” Michigan is one of 42 states with counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in “a coordinated effort supported by politically motivated, national groups.” Brady states Second Amendment sanctuaries have declared “they will refuse to enforce and dedicate tax-funded resources to the implementation of state gun safety measures.”

Any respondent violating an order is subject to arrest, contempt of court, “an automatic extension of the order, and criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to 1 year for an initial violation and up to 5 years for a subsequent violation.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s interesting how they keep poking at the 2A, but they don’t actually move towards trying to repeal it.

In my opinion, there is a bit more than just being able to take our guns. Dictators and tyrants find it very appealing to be able to have laws in the books, but to be able to selectively enforce or ignore such laws. Sadly, it is already happening all over the place, not only regarding the 2A.

    No, they really want to disarm us, but they can’t without repealing the Second Amendment. And that is not going to happen unless or until they can persuade enough people that we must repeal, so they are hammering away, chip (“common sense” gun control) chip (red flag laws) chip (nonexistent “gunshow loopholes”), until they get the majority they need to go along with it. Some Dems have already called for a repeal, but the smart ones know it’s too early.

    As to laws on the books, they are already there. Not enforced (yet), but there.

      henrybowman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2023 at 7:30 pm

      They play the game of death of a thousand cuts. You have a right, but “all rights have limits.” They don’t — except the limit of infringing on the RIGHT of someone else, and no one has a “right to FEEL safe” — but if they say it often enough, people will believe it.

      You can have a gun, but you can’t have one of this type, or that type, one that is too small, or too large, too accurate, or too inaccurate, or have one here, or there, or if these people are in attendance, or if this event is going on, or unless you have a piece of paper, or a diploma, or a testimonial from a person of good character known to the chief or judge…

      The object is to make gun availability like the entrance exam in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers — once you read and fully understand all the instructions, you realize there is no way to start the exam without immediately failing it.

        I thought you were going to go full Dr Seuss for a moment there…
        Can you carry on a train, can you carry on a plane? Can you carry anywhere? Sam, I am, I do not want them anywhere!

      Idonttweet in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 29, 2023 at 10:22 am

      A reading of this bill suggests that neither petitioner nor respondent are required to be residents of the State of Michigan. See Section 5.(2) of the bill describing who can file an action under this bill, and Sec. 5.(8)(c) clearly indicates that respondent need not be a state resident.

      Can anyone else envision a Massachusetts psychiatry professor filing a petition against someone, say a congresswoman from Colorado, claiming that they represent a danger to others for the sole reason that they own a firearm? (Think back to the nutty professor who declared Trump mentally incompetent despite having never been in the same room, much less performing an actual examination, if you think it couldn’t happen.) Activist judges are not likely to reign in this type of abuse.

      As for claims due process is reserved, Section 7 has provisions allowing the court to take action without notice to respondent (Sec. 7.(2)), limiting respondent’s ability and opportunity to seek modification or rescission of the order (Sec. 7.(5)), and places the burden on respondent to “prove” he no longer poses a risk by possessing a firearm (Sec 7.(6)), which presupposes he did in the first place.

      There are also numerous opportunities for abuse/misuse of this law by courts and law enforcement as pretexts for warrant-less searches, seizures, and arrests. See Section 15. (“Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.” – Thomas Jefferson)

      These are just a few reasons to oppose these “red flag laws.”

        Can anyone else envision a Massachusetts psychiatry professor filing a petition against someone, say a congresswoman from Colorado
        I get your point, but you’d have to get the congresswoman into the state, with their firearms collection, for anyone who can enforce the order to do so.
        Now, that Masshole could be a problem for some rights-oriented politician IN Michigan.

        Everything else you say is spot on.

          Idonttweet in reply to GWB. | May 30, 2023 at 9:07 pm

          The point was that neither the person filing the petition nor the person against whom it is filed need be a resident of Michigan in order for a Michigan court to issue the order to confiscate her firearms. The order would then be entered into the law enforcement information network (NICS or NCIC) and be accessible by every local, state, and federal law enforcement agency in the country.

          I would be concerned that state police authorities, including a politically minded district attorney or attorney general, in Colorado might take it upon themselves to enforce that bogus Michigan court order on the congresswoman at her home in Colorado.

      I think you should re-read the comment, Fuzzy. It’s a re-wording of the old adage that you can’t control a law-abiding man. The laws are there to disarm us, but not to disarm the nation as a whole. In all those places where the populace has been disarmed at some point (even temporarily, in America) there are always exemptions for certain people, and always “prioritization of law enforcement resources” that prevent investigation or prosecution of certain people’s violations.

      Having more laws on the books only increases pressure on the nominally law-abiding, and produces fear and angst among that population. And fear and angst always leads to more bad legislation that provides more power to the gov’t.

      You’re not wrong with your statement. But look at all of the effects these things achieve.

How would this play out:

{State] Governor signed a red flag abortion law on [..} “to provide for the issuance of restraining orders prohibiting certain individuals from accessing abortion services […]

    GRAMBO in reply to George S. | May 29, 2023 at 3:29 pm

    This doesn’t seem much different from Domestic Violence Protection Orders where uttering the six magic words “ I am afraid of my spouse” will net you at a minimum an ex Parte temporary restraining order. Which, does its best to criminalize normal human behaviors. Not a good day for this country.

Dana Nessel is Michigan’s Attorney General. She is a Karen’s Karen, holding a constitutional office. She’s also a graduate of the Roland Freisler School of Law.

Grabbing guns one person at a time

in 1908 Freud described anankastic disorder; in some individuals this may border on psychotic behavior.
Until 50 years ago there were sanitoria for such individuals; today they’re not only lauded, but elected to public office.

    henrybowman in reply to paracelsus. | May 28, 2023 at 5:35 pm

    “anakastic disorder”

    And on this topic, witness the recent babblings of Gabby Gifford, one of the top three gun-grabber activists in the US:

    ‘No More Guns. Gone’: Why Gabby Giffords Isn’t Giving Up

    She responds with her trademark Giffords enthusiasm.

    “I love it. I love it. So exciting,” she says. “Servant, servant, servant. Grit. Grit.” …

    As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.

    “No more guns,” she says.

    Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

    An aide clarifies that she’s talking about Australia, where gun sales were outlawed after a mass shooting and existing weapons were purchased by the government. Giffords nods in the affirmative. It’s an idealistic goal, for sure, and one perhaps mismatched for the moment in this country. But Giffords has an answer for that: “Legislation, legislation, legislation.”

    The maniacal zealotry, the verbal tics. She’s another Fetterman. She hates your rights.

    Imagine how it feels to be a resident of Arizona, voted “most gun-friendly state” for eight consecutive years, and living under this shadow:

    “Her husband, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, holds the Senate seat that had once upon a time been assumed to be hers when the time came.”

      At least she and Fetterman have valid medical excuses. Not so much the rest of the Progs wanting to take away our freedoms.

Normally I’d say a disarmed populace is a compliant populace but the Chinese death kooties showed us that “The Man” really doesn’t have much to fear from this armed populace 🙄

This law basically invites every sullen, disaffected teenage child and every vengeful, vindictive ex-wife to team up with authorities to rob the object of their disaffection of his constitutional rights. Exactly how many ex-wives or rebellious teenagers have been the object of mass murderers?

    LibraryGryffon in reply to sfharding. | May 28, 2023 at 2:58 pm

    What they don’t seem to realize is that by making this sort of action on the part of psychotic exes possible, they are actually increasing the odds that folks likely to be the subject of their retaliatory “red flag” claims will just say “F— it” and will decide to shoot them anyway, since they probably won’t be treated any less leniently by the government. A sort of “might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb” situation.

    I used to think that folks who murdered their exes (or soon-to-be exes) were totally out of their minds. However, I’ve now met a few (usually men) whose exes seem determined to destroy them, mentally, financially, even physically, especially if there are children involved, for no better reason than that they can, and the current judicial system allows this. Women like those have a good reason to fear the men they are trying to destroy, but that doesn’t mean that society should just help them out.

      henrybowman in reply to LibraryGryffon. | May 28, 2023 at 5:20 pm

      “increasing the odds that folks … will decide to shoot them anyway,”

      Indeed. When it comes down to the short strokes, that will be our only recourse we can take as independent individuals to combat oppression.

      There are a lot more citizens than jailers. Even if we manage to trade casualties one-to-one (or even 10 of us to 1 of them) the futility of their oppression will soon become apparent. It sounds insanely sacrificial, but it is no more than we ask our servicemen and women to do for our liberties.

    henrybowman in reply to sfharding. | May 28, 2023 at 5:15 pm

    My favorite example is Polly Pryzybl. Her ex-husband cleverly took advantage of the local police department’s hoplophobia to have them disarm her, then returned with his own gun, killing her, her mother, and then himself.

“Individuals who can seek an order include the spouse or former spouse of the respondent” etc., etc.

What provisions are there in the law to verify the relationship?

    henrybowman in reply to Rusty Bill. | May 28, 2023 at 5:04 pm

    It’s a moot question.

    “A law enforcement officer or healthcare provider can also seek an order.”

    This, here, is the brass ring, the real objective.

    Once “red flag laws” are in place in a state, experience shows that the proportion sought by actual relatives and friends is inconsequential. Instead, they are overwhelmingly filed by police officers who have no personal knowledge of you whatsoever, and who now have a handy tool to violate your constitutional protections. It lets them make an end-run around the constitution to do whatever they want to whomever they want, while it saves them a ton of paperwork and a probable cause court hearing that they would almost certainly lose.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to henrybowman. | May 28, 2023 at 7:57 pm

      The few good cops around will see just how much worse this will make their jobs.

      Many of even the most staunch badge lickers will have a change in view.

      I’d like to ask our resident retired LEO, Subotai, his thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Rusty Bill. | May 28, 2023 at 5:36 pm

    Just a me too claim.

A forward-looking Whitmer-event in progress.

JohnSmith100 | May 28, 2023 at 6:12 pm

Even more people will be be leaving Michigan.

Richard Aubrey | May 28, 2023 at 8:03 pm

Suppose the accused doesn’t actually have a gun. What does his home look like after the search.

And here is the consequence to losing elections. We selected an appallingly bad candidate in 2022 and this is the result.

    4fun in reply to Danny. | May 28, 2023 at 8:52 pm

    Actually, michigan’s republican rinos have been pretty much useless doormats for a long while. I sometimes wonder if democrats just find some no name and run them under the r banner and won. Maybe useless is giving them too much credit.
    Another note, I thought I read somewhere the Supreme Court already nixed red flag laws due to the anonymous nature of the complainants. You do have a right to face your accuser.

Nasty vetch could readily pass herself off as a tranny

In the first two years of New Mexico’s red flag law, there were only 11 cases filed in the state. In the last year, I personally know of two cases in my county and both of them were triggered by divorce filings. I’m surprised there haven’t been more because one of the first actions taken here during a divorce is a petition for a restraining order. They used to be issued automatically and it was a common tactic used by women to get more money and a better deal from child custody proceedings. Some time in the last decade, the courts wised up and actually started demanding some level of proof.

    GWB in reply to Sanddog. | May 30, 2023 at 11:53 am

    According to Brady, which works to address “America’s gun violence epidemic,”
    C’mon, Terrance. Don’t use their press release to describe them. The truth is they work to ban private ownership of weapons, except by their chosen elite.

    My problem with this (aside from the regular issues with “red flag” laws) is “ex-girlfriend”, “former spouse”. How “ex” can they be and still be considered valid for this? Why should your ex-spouse be able to say anything about you 20 years down the road? Or even 5? At least in situations where the law doesn’t already cover stalking/harassment/child endangerment? Why should an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend be able to say anything past the first couple of weeks, unless (again) it concerns laws that already exist for stalking, etc.? Can the girl with whom I exchanged valentines in 4th grade make an accusation about me now that I’m… well past 29?

E Howard Hunt | May 29, 2023 at 7:23 am

This is very clever. Judges hand out restraining orders to vengeful chicks like candy. These scheming women know that whatever easily (and sometimes immediately) provable lies they swear to will never result in a perjury charge.

Isn’t this law similar to a prior restraint action?

BierceAmbrose | May 29, 2023 at 4:34 pm

Now do blogs…

Fraudulent allegations in divorce actions, almost always by women, are already a huge problem that the courts make no attempt to stop, this will just make it worse.