Red Flag Bill

[progressive hunter]

Membership in an organization that advocated the violent overthrow of the government would flag a name? Maybe so but it seems that there would be no law against hiring an armed guard so politicians and movie actors don't have much to worry about. It seems that the administration has to do something and the left's typical non thinking spontaneous emotional response would involve confiscation by jack booted thugs and to scrap an Amendment to the Constitution.

the democrat and republican partys fit that description,,,

 

[ElmerMudd]

The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.

The US has done nothing and the number of mass murders have increased. They have increased exponentially over the past 3 years.
TO DO NOTHING WOULD BE WRONG.
Those who claim it is because of mental illness and video game are wrong.

The US has the same % of mentally ill people and people who play violent video games as the rest of the world but no country comes close to the number of mass murders.
The US has 5% of the world population and own 50% of private guns.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.

The US has done nothing and the number of mass murders have increased. They have increased exponentially over the past 3 years.
TO DO NOTHING WOULD BE WRONG.
Those who claim it is because of mental illness and video game are wrong.

The US has the same % of mentally ill people and people who play violent video games as the rest of the world but no country comes close to the number of mass murders.
The US has 5% of the world population and own 50% of private guns.

Show us those figures- proof with a link.. Shitcago murders have increased and you have the strictest gun legislation in the nation.. Now what dummy?? Let's hear it.

 

[OldLady]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You fucking people will never disarm us.. I don;t give a damn if Donald Trump signed an executive order.. Patriots will go to war over the 2nd amendment.. Poll it and see..

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Initially I supported this until my husband I were talking about it. It depends on the parameters involved. Hubby brought up a good point, what about social media? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and spout off but what happens when spouting off leads to being denied a gun or ammo purchase?

It could be a slippery slope

How about attending a Trump rally? If you have one left wing nut in your family you could be red flagged. After all, the media tells us Trump supporters are white nationalist terrorists right? They’re also the people with all of the guns keeping democrat socialism from happening.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

/—-/ Trump said he would discuss it, not that he supported it.

 

[OldLady]

Don't let them confuse you about the important distinction between confiscation and prevention. You will still need a court order to confiscate a weapon from a citizen. The intent of the Red Flag bill is to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior.

The major intent is to quickly but temporarily take guns away from people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior. You seem to be talking about a different bill that somehow puts a person's name on the NICS database, but I'm not sure for what reason.

People do not trust you. If someone blew up your city we all would be safer. You are the harbinger of death. You use the facade of all this niceness and most everything you touch leaves an expensive aftertaste and more problems. Which adds more laws to affect what you enacted.

Can't answer my question?

 

[bendog]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Don't let them confuse you about the important distinction between confiscation and prevention. You will still need a court order to confiscate a weapon from a citizen. The intent of the Red Flag bill is to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior.

What does it take to get that court order? Do you get to be there for it?

The word you’re looking for is due process. There’s none of that in these red flag laws.

 

[JoeMoma]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

Kind of reverses the presumption of innocence.

 

[bendog]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

Kind of reverses the presumption of innocence.

No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.

 

[OldLady]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

I KNOW all that. From all the stuff on this thread, though, it sounds like something entirely different they are talking about.

 

[Lesh]

Initially I supported this until my husband I were talking about it. It depends on the parameters involved. Hubby brought up a good point, what about social media? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and spout off but what happens when spouting off leads to being denied a gun or ammo purchase?

It could be a slippery slope

Woulda been good if the creeps who just killed 60 people would have been flagged huh?

Maybe it would keep people from fantasizing about murder in public...ya think?

 

[bendog]

unjustly flagged as a dangerous person

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

I KNOW all that. From all the stuff on this thread, though, it sounds like something entirely different they are talking about.

Well from what I've read, there's no consensus to what the feds suggest they'd support. That's why I suspect it's all bullshit because the gop has absolutely no intention of doing anything

 

[bendog]

Don't let them confuse you about the important distinction between confiscation and prevention. You will still need a court order to confiscate a weapon from a citizen. The intent of the Red Flag bill is to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior.

What does it take to get that court order? Do you get to be there for it?

The word you’re looking for is due process. There’s none of that in these red flag laws.

bullshit. Temporary restraining orders are constitutional in all states, and have been for decades.

Due process is provided by a timely hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard by an impartial fact finder.

 

[hjmick]

It seems to have bipartisan support and the President supports it. People who exhibit "violent tendencies" would have their names flagged on an instant name check to purchase a firearm. It seems reasonable but how would you enforce it? My guess is that people who were (arrested for?) convicted of violent misdemeanors and spousal abuse would be flagged and so would every Veteran who admits to the violent tendencies associated with PTSD. Are we ready for that?

No no no... that's not all it does. Based solely on the word of others, it gives law enforcement the ability to deprive a citizen of a constitutional right without the benefit of due process. Your ex-wife or girlfriend, ex-husband or boyfriend, ex-friend with whom you had a falling out need only place a call, drop your name, tell them you threatened them or you scare them and <POOF!>... your guns are gone...

Seventeen states and D.C. have red flag laws...

So far, there is no evidence for whether red flag laws work to prevent gun violence, the best that can be said is that removal laws have had an effect on suicide deaths when they are used. Research in Connecticut and Indiana has found that the enforcement of the laws has saved lives, about one fewer suicide death for every 10 to 20 cases of gun removals.

Now, I get the reasoning behind red flag laws, and I don't necessarily disagree with them, but I have a huge problem with the lack of due process. Every one of us should...

 

[ElmerMudd]

Initially I supported this until my husband I were talking about it. It depends on the parameters involved. Hubby brought up a good point, what about social media? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and spout off but what happens when spouting off leads to being denied a gun or ammo purchase?

It could be a slippery slope

Is your husband as crazy as you.
It would be very entertaining to listen to two nuts discussion on politics.

Nosy pervert.. Mind your own fucking business..

I am guessing you are related to the crazies

 

[Defiant1]

No attorney can offer a defense to that in Federal court. The cops want you fucked over, so you're fucked over for life. No recourse, no rebuttal, and no redress. That's the way they want it.

“The girls” — “feminazis” (Remember Rush Limbaugh?) — demand an instant no-holds-barred absolute lifetime railroad on gun rights in Federal court.

Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventaliting

HOWEVER, YOU DO ILLUSTRATE THE GUTLLESS SPECIOUSNESS OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT THE FEDS JUST SUPPORT STATES WANTING SUCH LAWS.

Fla, Ohio and Tex would never have even contemplated a red flag law without a mass shooting and short term public outrage. The Gun Lobby that will tolerate no regulation, no matter how slight, will eventually fund political challenges to any supporting even a moderate red flag law that would remove guns from people suspected of planning to kill spouses or just go postal.

A profile in courage would be bipartisan federal law, with politicians pledging mutual support against a small minority of well funded voters motivated by a single issue.

Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?

Generally red flag laws allow for a person to come to the cops or a prosecutor and file papers stating they have a reasonable belief someone plans to hurt them or others. There's a hearing before a judge, that the person does not get to attend. The judge makes a finding as to whether the belief is reasonable or not. If it's reasonable, the judge issues some warrant or writ allowing cops to seize the guy's guns.

And there has to be a second hearing within a short time. Fourteen days was the max for any civil temporary order. The guy has right to have a lawyer, call witness, provide documentary evidence, and testify that he's not a danger.

If he's not, he get's the guns. If there's grounds to think he's not, then he doesn't and he might even find himself committed for mental health treatment.

Kind of reverses the presumption of innocence.

No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.

Because of my involvement in politics and elections I am in contact with several judges, active and retired.
TROs have been a topic of conversation many times.
Every judge has admitted they have never denied to sign a TRO because they didn't want to take the chance of being wrong.
They choose the lesser of two evils regardless of the facts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't let them confuse you about the important distinction between confiscation and prevention. You will still need a court order to confiscate a weapon from a citizen. The intent of the Red Flag bill is to prevent the purchase of firearms by people who exhibit mental derangement and violent behavior.

An individual subject to a protective order is not rendered a prohibited person – no firearms are ‘confiscated.’

And the law concerns those who already possess a firearm, not those seeking to purchase a gun.

‘Red flag’ laws are unrelated to the NICS database of prohibited persons and ATF form 4473.