red flag laws: if the law is not intended for gun confiscation:

[BlackSand]

Matters quite a lot given my ability to, you know, move.

.

Uh yeah ... That's why in close combat, it's fine to grab their shoulder with your free hand ...
To help ensure you put the three rounds in their heart with the other hand ...

.​

 

[justinacolmena]

Uh yeah ... That's why in close combat

You get that close to people who aren't friendly?

 

[BlackSand]

You get that close to people who aren't friendly?

.

You don't get to choose where an unknown threat comes from ...
But you damn sure get to choose how you are going to handle it when it arrives.

Doing what is best to ensure success, and reduce the dangers to others, is not a bad idea.

It is your responsibility to make it home to your loved ones alive, escape if you can.
If that option is not available, make it count when you pull the trigger ...

.​

 

[whitehall]

Even though I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and a former NRA expert combat shooter I am inclined to go along with the "Red Flag" sanctions if they are used fairly. Sometimes you need to get a firearm away from someone who is clearly deranged without locking up the poor bastard. Fairly and justly is the key and there are no guarantees.

 

[Rigby5]

Why is there no provision in those laws for observation of the accused?

Impractical.

Impractical? how so? when depriving a person of their rights there should be a good reason and if that reason is they are a threat they should be confined and watched for observation.
Therefore your response proves it's all about taking guns

Another lie – no one’s rights are being ‘deprived.’

Taking property without any proof or recourse clearly is illegal.
Any cop trying to do that should be shot in self defense.
It is a criminal act to take anything from someone when they have had no opportunity to defend themselves in court.
If the person is considered a risk to himself or others, there are plenty of legal avenues to get the person evaluated or institutionalized.
Taking their property does nothing to prevent violence, and likely will precipitate violence instead.

 

[Rigby5]

Even though I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and a former NRA expert combat shooter I am inclined to go along with the "Red Flag" sanctions if they are used fairly. Sometimes you need to get a firearm away from someone who is clearly deranged without locking up the poor bastard. Fairly and justly is the key and there are no guarantees.

How are you going to do that?
Sending police to pound on the door and demand they give over their guns is ensured to end up with someone dead.
There is likely no higher probability of death than to send police to attack someone who some one else claims is "clearly deranged".

There is no way to use "Red Flag" sanctions fairly because the person never gets to defend themselves in court.
So it is totally one sided, possibly lies, and totally illegal.

If someone thinks someone else is a danger, you most certainly DO want to lock them up, do a full mental evaluation, and find out if they need treatment or to be locked up permanently. For anyone too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be allowed to drive, have gasoline, buy toxins like pesticides, etc. And taking the person's legal guns is not going to stop them from just going out any buying illegal guns from some drug dealer. Every drug dealer has to be armed, so they always also have arms for sale without any trail.

 

[Rigby5]

That’s obvious. Yet you think think you should be the authority on the second amendment. Go figure.

The idea that the lethality of a firearm is no different than a bat is demonstrably stupid.

Wrong.
Many more people are killed with blunt instruments like baseball bats, then with firearms.
You forget that firearms are very loud, so almost ensure getting caught.
Quieter weapons like a knife are much more successful.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But that murderous intent is still there even if the murderer doesn't have lawfully permitted "access" to a particular weapon of choice.

Hmm, seems like murderous intent isn’t quite as lethal as a firearm combined with murderous intent.

let's see how that holds up
death by vehicle, baseball bat, Knife, a gas can of gas and a match

What’s the lethal range of a baseball bat, or a can of gas and a match?

So why don’t lock up people who aren’t safe enough to drive?

it's just as deadly what's your point?

Is it? Last I checked a baseball bat had a pretty hard time killing someone at 100 yards.

How about a AR15? I’m not an expert at this gun stuff.

when you are supposdly mentally off the distance doesn't matter

It doesn’t? If someone mentally ill was trying to kill you, would you rather they have a rifle or a baseball bat?

dead is dead regardless of the device used, if a person is a danger they should be confined for observation. But these red flag laws don't do that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn’t? If someone mentally ill was trying to kill you, would you rather they have a rifle or a baseball bat?

What if someone suggested you were mentally ill or criminally insane or crazy or nuts, and went to court to have you committed to the state mental hospital for involuntary treatment to be drugged against your will, beaten senseless, and lobotomized to revoke you gun rights?

thing is red flag laws don't have any such stipulations for confinement and observation

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even though I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and a former NRA expert combat shooter I am inclined to go along with the "Red Flag" sanctions if they are used fairly. Sometimes you need to get a firearm away from someone who is clearly deranged without locking up the poor bastard. Fairly and justly is the key and there are no guarantees.

as long as due process is followed but these red flag laws don't allow you due process
You don't even have your day in court to face your accuser

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme court just killed red flag laws
What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much, and this Court has repeatedly “declined to expand the scope of . . . exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home.” Collins, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8). We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-157_8mjp.pdf

 

[BlackSand]

Even though I'm a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and a former NRA expert combat shooter I am inclined to go along with the "Red Flag" sanctions if they are used fairly. Sometimes you need to get a firearm away from someone who is clearly deranged without locking up the poor bastard. Fairly and justly is the key and there are no guarantees.

.

I am not interested in giving the Government a blank check towards calling me crazy and taking my stuff, because they listened to my sister instead of me.

She's ******* nuts, but smart, and if she didn't want you to have firearms, she could think of something that wasn't true,
She would go as far as logging on your computer and signing you up at Jihadist websites., purchase a ticket to Yemen and put it in your pocket.

**** the cops, and the loony bin ... When she got through with you, they would bring the National Guard.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

How are you going to do that?
Sending police to pound on the door and demand they give over their guns is ensured to end up with someone dead.
There is likely no higher probability of death than to send police to attack someone who some one else claims is "clearly deranged".

There is no way to use "Red Flag" sanctions fairly because the person never gets to defend themselves in court.
So it is totally one sided, possibly lies, and totally illegal.

If someone thinks someone else is a danger, you most certainly DO want to lock them up, do a full mental evaluation, and find out if they need treatment or to be locked up permanently. For anyone too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be allowed to drive, have gasoline, buy toxins like pesticides, etc. And taking the person's legal guns is not going to stop them from just going out any buying illegal guns from some drug dealer. Every drug dealer has to be armed, so they always also have arms for sale without any trail.

.

Technically ... Your neighbor calling you a crazy person with guns, doesn't justify a warrant for the cops to search your shit.

Red Flag Laws are an attempt to remove that obstacle, and if people don't recognize the opportunity for abuse in that,
They simply have an agenda, and don't care if it is abused.

They are going after more than your Second Amendment Rights, they are just using guns to do it ...

.​

 

[Jets]

Are we arguing that there should be laws calling for observation of the accused under “red flag”?


Just asking the question here.

 

[BlackSand]

Are we arguing that there should be laws calling for observation of the accused under “red flag”?


Just asking the question here.

.

The topic is regarding Red Flag Laws, and if they choose to confiscate your firearms because you are a danger to yourself and others,
why they don't hold you for observation.

We are discussing the possible reasons why they actually don't want to do that, or why we don't think it is a good idea.

.​

 

[Circe]

if they are unable to be trusted with a gun they should not be trusted to walk about freely around the public

That makes no sense.

if you're not to be trusted with a gun you should not be trusted to live without a caregiver by your side what's your IQ less than 70?

It is the caregivers who want this law. Some of these old guys with age rage and a WHOLE lot of guns and anger, they aren't getting any younger. The wives want a way to get rid of the guns. This is a woman's issue, guys --------- it's not about gun confiscation generally. I'm all for guns: because I want to be able to defend myself against outside criminals. But, you know, sometimes people get old and less able. It happens.

 

[Circe]

Warning: I just told you the other point of view, from a gun-rights advocate who nevertheless sees a need for dealing with the senility and mental illness issue. As I said, I feel this is a woman's issue.

Now, if you can discuss this with me like decent people, go ahead. If all you can do is screech obscenity insults like so many men on this list do, I'm deleting every man jack of you with the potty mouths from my feed doot squat, as the French don't say.

 

[Circe]

Naaaaah, it's about senility. Or obvious mental illness. When a wife or mother realizes a family member has gone over the edge, there may be an issue about all those guns he's playing with so often. I think it's reasonable to have some recourse to law to deal with such a problem.

An extreme risk protection order can be issued only by a judge based on compelling evidence that such an order is warranted.

Firearms are not ‘confiscated’ pursuant to an extreme risk protection order; the orders are often limited to only a few weeks and the gun owner is at liberty to contest the order during a hearing and present evidence in support of returning the gun to the owner.

Right; I think the idea is that we're talking here about an older man who has lost a lot of mental function and after the guns are gone, really wouldn't be able to contest the order, and hopefully, would forget all about the issue.

 

[BlackSand]

It is the caregivers who want this law. Some of these old guys with age rage and a WHOLE lot of guns and anger, they aren't getting any younger. The wives want a way to get rid of the guns. This is a woman's issue, guys --------- it's not about gun confiscation generally. I'm all for guns: because I want to be able to defend myself against outside criminals. But, you know, sometimes people get old and less able. It happens.

.

The last I heard of a woman calling the cops on her husband for not doing what she thought was best ...
The deputy started laughing so hard he spilt his coffee.

.​

 

[Circe]

.

The last I heard of a woman calling the cops on her husband for not doing what she thought was best ...
The deputy started laughing so hard he spilt his coffee.

.​

Sounds like it could be a good story ----- but you forgot the punch line. So what did she want him to do?