A patient named Alfred Conti is having issues with pain. The product of a failed surgery according to the reporting. Unhappy with the service provided his outbursts get him kicked out of the clinic, after which he writes a critical online review. His doctor sues him. Then files a red flag complaint.
A month later, Conti called Kaufman’s lawyer several times, asking for the doctor to see him again in an attempt to end his pain. In one call played to the court, the injured man used vulgar language and threatened to bring the authorities into the matter.
Conti’s error appears to be in mentioning he knew where both Kaufman and the doctor’s lawyer lived in one of the calls.
However, both sides agreed that it doesn’t appear any threat was made.
Those aren’t even fighting words. But the police acted upon the red flag order and paid a visit to Mr. Conti, who allowed them to seize his pistols, rifle, and ammunition.
With a Wave of a Legislative Wand…
Red Flag proponents sell their voodoo on the understanding that the goal is to prevent mass shootings. TO disarm belligerent individuals making actionable threats. But nothing Mr. Conti said rises to the level of denying him his second amendment rights.
And in this context, we have to remember that the people suing him are the ones filing the complaint upon which the police acted.
Is that how this works now?
A whole new approach to lawfare?
Someone complains online, so you sue them and then order they be disarmed, and the criminal justice system plays along?
That’s the slippery slope created by Red Flag laws. Where people who are upset with you can, on a moment’s notice, demand you be denied a constitutional right.
New Jersey is a train wreck when it comes to rights, especially the second amendment. Democrats in New Hampshire would love to emulate that.
Please don’t give them the opportunity.
