Red Flag Laws

[TemplarKormac]

I support the concept of red flag laws. And in a perfect world with a well-meaning and well-intentioned government, I would trust it to implement them. But here's the problem-- government is notoriously untrustworthy and overly heavy-handed in enforcement. The prospect of abuse is high. The Senate legislation essentially gives states the money to enforce their own, and that includes deep blue states like New York or California. States with activist governors and legislatures will easily craft red flag laws that will easily deny due process to those being subjugated to said laws

In an idyllic world with trustworthy people, I wouldn't mind this legislation so much. But I just can't get on board with this. Anyone supporting the 2A can't. Don't equate my lack of support of the Senate legislation as not supporting common-sense gun control. As I said, our government is untrustworthy, it hasn't shown it can't enforce these kinds of laws in good faith.

As some say, the road to hell is paved with good (I guess?) intentions.

 

[JGalt]

I hereby demand that every pot-smoking liberal who lives in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California who owns a firearm be immediately red-flagged

Hey Joe Biden: How is it your crackhead son Hunter lied on the ATF Form 4473 and bought that .38 caliber pistol? Rules for me and not for thee?

BTW: Whatever happened to Moonglow? I tried to warn him about owning guns and smoking that damned devil weed. But did he listen?

 

[skye]

I posted this before but this is how it works....sad but true

 

[Polishprince]

We already have "red flag" laws. If someone thinks someone is dangerously insane, they can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution. According to the law, the putative nut case has a right to contest that assessment in a hearing held in 72 hours.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We already have "red flag" laws. If someone thinks someone is dangerously insane, they can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution. According to the law, the putative nut case has a right to contest that assessment in a hearing held in 72 hours.

"Thinks"

And that is where these laws can be easily be abused. The accusation need not be credible.

 

[Polishprince]

Here is Pennsylvania's current "Red Flag " regulations.

Adding anything to this would just be pointless from the standpoint of public safety, unless you are just looking for a way to hassle gun owners.

Voluntary and Involuntary Commitment - Erie County, PA

 

[Polishprince]

"Thinks"

And that is where these laws can be easily be abused. The accusation need not be credible.

Fair enough observation. But if someone is locked in a rubber room in a straight jacket, the shrinks should be able to determine within a short period of time if they are truly insane or not.

 

[Esdraelon]

It will have a chilling effect on free speech online. Those who would never threaten to harm anyone but who may make observations that piss others off will be having to re-think everything they say to keep from getting into a 2 AM gunfight.

My guess is the reality in most states will be anonymous tips and calls that destroy a person's life with no recourse against the person who dropped the dime. The worst part is that it won't protect children in schools NEARLY as much as hardening security there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fair enough observation. But if someone is locked in a rubber room in a straight jacket, the shrinks should be able to determine within a short period of time if they are truly insane or not.

The issue here isn't the concept. The concept is sound. The element of trust is the issue. The glaring weakness (and the easiest to remedy) is the reporting mechanism. Anyone with a grudge or an ax to grind can simply report someone for no good reason. The remedy? Simple. Anyone making false reports to the red flag system should be punished with six-figure fines and 3-5 years in prison.

 

[Meister]

Fair enough observation. But if someone is locked in a rubber room in a straight jacket, the shrinks should be able to determine within a short period of time if they are truly insane or not.

Sad part is that there will be 'certain' doctors that are the 'go to' doctors to get the desired outcome. Bought and paid.
Fauci comes to mind.

 

[Esdraelon]

Fair enough observation. But if someone is locked in a rubber room in a straight jacket, the shrinks should be able to determine within a short period of time if they are truly insane or not.

Again, the "law" may specify certain rules and provisions on the return of the person's property but the reality will likely be that this person has to hire an attorney to get their property back. It won't just be firearms, either. Their computers, tablets, phones, and anything that could be used to incriminate them will be vacuumed up at the same time. This will negate 1A, 2A, 4A, and 5A with absolutely NO due process.

 

[Polishprince]

The entire idea of a "red flag" law where the net guys in white suits don't pick up the alleged dangerous individual for actual observation and all they do is take away their firearms and make the suspected lunatic fight them in court for an indefinite period of time, is just a way of hassling people.

If someone isn't sane enough to have a firearm, they belong in a rubber room and they should be observed to verify it.

 

[JGalt]

It will have a chilling effect on free speech online. Those who would never threaten to harm anyone but who may make observations that piss others off will be having to re-think everything they say to keep from getting into a 2 AM gunfight.

My guess is the reality in most states will be anonymous tips and calls that destroy a person's life with no recourse against the person who dropped the dime. The worst part is that it won't protect children in schools NEARLY as much as hardening security there.

That's the downside. People say a lot of shit online that doesn't really amount to much. The majority of stone-cold killers, terrorists, and other miscreants wouldn't advertise their intentions online anyway. More red flag laws would only stifle First Amendment speech and implicate harmless people. I seriously doubt that they would prevent all that much more violence.

 

[Meister]

And this will be just the beginning of the laws. drip, drip drip
mark my words

 

[JGalt]

The issue here isn't the concept. The concept is sound. The element of trust is the issue. The glaring weakness (and the easiest to remedy) is the reporting mechanism. Anyone with a grudge or an ax to grind can simply report someone for no good reason. The remedy? Simple. Anyone making false reports to the red flag system should be punished with six-figure fines and 3-5 years in prison.

It seems to me that in most every case where a mass shooter made his intentions known through social media, nobody really cared. Sure, after the shooter committed his crime, everybody and his brother came out of the woodwork saying "The signs were all there." Or the news will report that "The shooter has been on the FBI's radar for some time now." And yet, the crime still occurred. We already have enough laws on the books to deal with potential criminals. The fault doesn't lie as much in the lack of laws, as it does in the inability of law enforcement agencies to enforce the existing laws. This is more than evident from the rampant crime we're seeing, and from how the liberal prosecutors are refusing to do their jobs.

The hue and cry for more red flag laws is just a futile attempt to "do something." It's an empty, "feel good" BandAid over a bleeding wound which is ultimately intended to chip away at the rights of decent, law-abiding gun owners. In other words, "Someone else did something, so let's punish everyone."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It will have a chilling effect on free speech online. Those who would never threaten to harm anyone but who may make observations that piss others off will be having to re-think everything they say to keep from getting into a 2 AM gunfight.

My guess is the reality in most states will be anonymous tips and calls that destroy a person's life with no recourse against the person who dropped the dime. The worst part is that it won't protect children in schools NEARLY as much as hardening security there.

The point was never saving a life.......do we really still have people who don't know exactly what all these new gun laws are about?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Folks, why is this still being discussed?
Anyone with at least one brain cell KNOWS this is all about disarming the population pure and simple.
It always has been, and they are slowly winning.
No one is ever going to do anything about it.

It's so easy to tell what's next.....
Laws outlawing ownership of certain guns at first....and promises they won't go after others.
Then they go after the other ones.
Then they pass laws saying ownership is a felony of those already accepted outlawed guns (all of them)
Then they use their lists illegally taken from FFL's and state CCW lists, huinting licenses etc to verify if you've turned yours in.
Then if you haven't you get banned from using a National Food Purchasing card. (New requirement to buy food)
Then you get banned from owning a home or having a bank account / pension / Social Security etc unless all of them are turned in.

Constitution? What Constitution? They'll deem that invalid based on racist premises.
Welcome to tyranny.
We were supposed to do something about it.

 

[skye]

I think America will NOT allow to be disarmed.

Am I wrong? am I right?

we'll see what happens won't we.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

And this will be just the beginning of the laws. drip, drip drip
mark my words

Yep.
They've decided to disarm civilians globally...and the US 2A is a top priority.
What's so sad is there are only about 15 people that are the primary force pushing this all.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think America will NOT allow to be disarmed.

Am I wrong? am I right?

we'll see what happens won't we.

Poor thing.
You have no clue do you?