What are “red flag” laws?

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2017
36,082
46,096
2,915

The White House has announced a new national office to support states implementing “red flag” laws to combat gun violence, an initiative funded by the justice department.
The launch of the federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center (Erpo) follows Joe Biden’s establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September, which the president tapped Harris to lead.
Harris called on the other 29 states to enact red flag laws and urged those that already have them to tap into the BSCA funds to support them.

Comment:
Can the Democrats be trusted with “red flag” laws.
Will they use it as a political tool against dissenters?
History has shown us that at first the Totalitarians censor their opposition, then they disarm their opposition, then they round-up their opposition.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Start with all those street thugs, robbers, carjackers, drug dealers, and users of illicit substances who illegally-possess weapons, then get back to me.
 

The White House has announced a new national office to support states implementing “red flag” laws to combat gun violence, an initiative funded by the justice department.
The launch of the federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center (Erpo) follows Joe Biden’s establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September, which the president tapped Harris to lead.
Harris called on the other 29 states to enact red flag laws and urged those that already have them to tap into the BSCA funds to support them.

Comment:
Can the Democrats be trusted with “red flag” laws.
Will they use it as a political tool against dissenters?
History has shown us that at first the Totalitarians censor their opposition, then they disarm their opposition, then they round-up their opposition.
Ask DeSantis. He incorporated it in his state.
 
I trust Democrats about as much as I do Trump who has said take the guns first and due process later. Restricting rights is one thing the parties agree on
 
We already have "Red Flag " laws. If someone goes batshit crazy, the authorities can involuntarily commit the individual for good cause for a limited period of time in which they are observed by shrinks. If needed to return the individual to sanity, the time frame can be extended.

While the individual is sitting in the rubber room in their straight jacket, they are denied use of their firearms.

Special "red flag" laws where we deprive a person of self defense for extended periods of time is both cruel and unusual.
 
Ask DeSantis. He incorporated it in his state.
Not all states will use it to ruin political opponents but enough will take the money and then be pressured to continually become more and more intrusive. People will eventually have the choice of joining together to defend their rights or waiting for the Feds to come door kicking and defend themselves alone.
 
What are "red flag" laws?

They give the government the ability to deprive a citizen of his or her constitutional right without due process.
Yep, and not just 2A. They basically allow an anonymous tip to take away 2A, 4A and a couple of others without any due process or redress unless the individual has enough resources to fight the government for years.
 

The White House has announced a new national office to support states implementing “red flag” laws to combat gun violence, an initiative funded by the justice department.
The launch of the federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center (Erpo) follows Joe Biden’s establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September, which the president tapped Harris to lead.
Harris called on the other 29 states to enact red flag laws and urged those that already have them to tap into the BSCA funds to support them.

Comment:
Can the Democrats be trusted with “red flag” laws.
Will they use it as a political tool against dissenters?
History has shown us that at first the Totalitarians censor their opposition, then they disarm their opposition, then they round-up their opposition.
Here's the problem with "red flag laws." Let's take a couple of hypothetic situations:
#1: A man/woman/it, it threatened by a neighbor who is unstable and pointing a pistol/rifle at the neighbor, for loud music, or some other innocuous issue. The other neighbors see and video this and call the police. The police, see the video and arrest the unstable neighbor and confiscate all his firearms. That's a justified action. He/she/it, is unstable and threatening. The red flag laws allow for an appeal after a specified period of time, along with any additional evidence that may justify giving the firearms back.
#2: You own one, two, or several firearms. You are a responsible owner living in an urban setting. You make trips with your firearm(s) to the gun range for practice and it's an open carry state and one is in your holster. A new neighbor has moved into the nearby house. He/she/it sees you leave your home with your firearm(s) and confronts you about his/her/its fear of the weapon(s) and says you should get rid of them for the neighborhood's safety. You ignore him/her/it or state your support of the Bill of Rights and thus the reason for owning firearms. There were no witnesses to your conversation, and you go to the gun range. The new neighbor is inflamed at your disagreeing with him/her/it and is aware of the state's "red flag law" in your state. He/she/it calls the police and "falsely" claims that you threatened him/her/it with a firearm and that you have it with you. Per the "red flag laws," if a complaint is made, the firearms must be confiscated. With no witnesses to back you up, the confiscation is acted upon. Per "red flag laws." You can get your firearm(s) back after one year, IF you can bring in some form of evidence that exonerates you. With no video and no witnesses to exonerate you, that's it, you aren't getting them back. Ever.
Because of the high possibility of abuse of red flag laws, I am not in support of them, unless there is a caveat that video evidence must support the claim of threats with a firearm, or a psychiatrist has demonstrated that the person is indeed a threat to others. For those that would ask, "what about those that might harm themselves. If they wouldn't harm others, a person that would harm themself, it wouldn't matter if the person had a firearm. They can just as easily, slit their wrists, hang themselves, electrocute themselves, take pills, step in front of fast moving traffic, jump off a bridge, cliff, or building, et cetera. If they're determined to kill themselves, they'll get it done, one way or another.
 

The White House has announced a new national office to support states implementing “red flag” laws to combat gun violence, an initiative funded by the justice department.
The launch of the federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center (Erpo) follows Joe Biden’s establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in September, which the president tapped Harris to lead.
Harris called on the other 29 states to enact red flag laws and urged those that already have them to tap into the BSCA funds to support them.

Comment:
Can the Democrats be trusted with “red flag” laws.
Will they use it as a political tool against dissenters?
History has shown us that at first the Totalitarians censor their opposition, then they disarm their opposition, then they round-up their opposition.

If you want proper opposition, change the electoral system so people actually have a proper vote and proper oversight.
 

Forum List

Back
Top