Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is a judge involved BEFORE the guns are removed and there is a judge involved, along with a full hearing, within two weeks AFTER the guns are removed. Where is there a lack of due process? Do you really think a judge is going to fall for a pissed off girlfriend with a grudge? They've been around the block a few more times than that. These red flag laws are not for the types of situations you are bringing up.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...
It's unconstitutional.....but if it gets the Dems to STFU....I'm all for it.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 firearms are ‘confiscated.’
No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.
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.
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.
You have a point. I know that, too. One factor you are forgetting is that before it ever reaches that point, a police officer has to be convinced that the person is dangerous--and I mean dangerous. It is one thing to tell someone to stay away from so and so, and another to take their property, especially Constitutionally protected property. You are acting as if all the people making decisions here are total morons. I don't find that is usually the case with cops or judges.No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.Kind of reverses the presumption of innocence.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.Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?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.
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.
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.
Correct.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.Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventalitingunjustly 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.
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.
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.
There is a judge involved BEFORE the guns are removed and there is a judge involved, along with a full hearing, within two weeks AFTER the guns are removed. Where is there a lack of due process? Do you really think a judge is going to fall for a pissed off girlfriend with a grudge? They've been around the block a few more times than that. These red flag laws are not for the types of situations you are bringing up.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...
You cannot be this stupid. Within a couple hours of Chicago are states with very lax gun laws. It is like a plane that has the left side seating no smoking and the right side seating smoking. You need both sides of the plane no smoking to be effective. You cannot have adjoining states with lax gun laws and have your state gun laws effective. I cannot believe I need to explain that to you.The US has done nothing and the number of mass murders have increased. They have increased exponentially over the past 3 years.The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.
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.
You cannot be this stupid. Within a couple hours of Chicago are states with very lax gun laws. It is like a plane that has the left side seating no smoking and the right side seating smoking. You need both sides of the plane no smoking to be effective. You cannot have adjoining states with lax gun laws and have your state gun laws effective. I cannot believe I need to explain that to you.The US has done nothing and the number of mass murders have increased. They have increased exponentially over the past 3 years.The current political environment is demanding that something has to be done even if its wrong.
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.
US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
/——/ You’ll forgive me if I don’t entrust my Constitutional rights to your “guess.”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?
Maybe you shouldn't have abused her. It's tough shit being you. For someone who can't get employment, house and home, food, shelter and clothing, you seem to be able to afford a smart phone, though. You're a fucking liar, is what you are.No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.
Except, well, they’re actually permanent & irrevocable.
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.
Bullshit bullshit. It's a total railroad. You're pushing your luck just to stay out of prison.
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.
Lol… except it’s too grave and serious to be laughing about in real life.
TRO’s are based on emotions, not facts. And when they bring up mental health in court, it’s all about emotion; the facts are no longer relevant. That’s the way the ladies want it, and the judge has to be a gentleman to please them, you bet your boots.
The ones on this site that are against red flag laws are people who know they are crazy and violent and the government may take their guns away. Sane people do not oppose red flag laws. It is the biggest no brainer of gun legislation.no firearms are ‘confiscated.’
What are red flag laws?
They are state laws that authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order, allowing the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person who is deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others...
California’s law is among the most elaborate. It was the first to permit family members to petition the courts directly for orders to confiscate weapons from relatives. Earlier laws in Connecticut and other states generally required the public to make reports to prosecutors or the police, who would decide whether to petition the courts...
What Are ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws, and How Do They Work?
You were saying?
If no one is convicted how do you take away their rights? How temporary is temporary? We’re talking about people who’ve neither committed nor are even suspected of a crime. It’s a third party saying they think you might. And a government siding with them until you prove your innocence.No one is convicted of a crime. And we do have similar processes for temporary restraining orders. Esp in domestic situations.Kind of reverses the presumption of innocence.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.Bendog, can you tell me what law you guys are talking about? It is obviously not a ERPO law. What is it?Any red flag law must to be constitutional give a person a hearing within days to challenge any allegation he is dangerous. Stop hyperventalitingNo 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.
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.
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.
Maybe you shouldn't have abused her.
It's tough shit being you. For someone who can't get employment, house and home, food, shelter and clothing, you seem to be able to afford a smart phone, though. You're a fucking liar, is what you are.
Woulda been good if the creeps who just killed 60 people would have been flagged huh?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
Maybe it would keep people from fantasizing about murder in public...ya think?
Those orders are to stay away from someone. It doesn’t involve the government confiscating your property until you can prove you deserve it back.bullshit. Temporary restraining orders are constitutional in all states, and have been for decades.What does it take to get that court order? Do you get to be there for it?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 word you’re looking for is due process. There’s none of that in these red flag laws.
Due process is provided by a timely hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard by an impartial fact finder.
The ones on this site that are against red flag laws are people who know they are crazy and violent and the government may take their guns away. Sane people do not oppose red flag laws. It is the biggest no brainer of gun legislation.no firearms are ‘confiscated.’
What are red flag laws?
They are state laws that authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order, allowing the police to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person who is deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others...
California’s law is among the most elaborate. It was the first to permit family members to petition the courts directly for orders to confiscate weapons from relatives. Earlier laws in Connecticut and other states generally required the public to make reports to prosecutors or the police, who would decide whether to petition the courts...
What Are ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws, and How Do They Work?
You were saying?
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.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
Those orders are to stay away from someone. It doesn’t involve the government confiscating your property until you can prove you deserve it back.bullshit. Temporary restraining orders are constitutional in all states, and have been for decades.What does it take to get that court order? Do you get to be there for it?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 word you’re looking for is due process. There’s none of that in these red flag laws.
Due process is provided by a timely hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard by an impartial fact finder.
Red flag laws are a way for one person to fuck with another for any reason. It has nothing to do with law enforcement.
Let me ask you this. If you have a swat team sent to my house because you’re an unstable emotion filled snowflake do you pay my attorney fees, lost time at work and harassment money if I win?
