I Don't Understand Reg Flag Laws

[hadit]

As a Canadian, I don't understand them either.

I can only guess that they're a desperate, last ditch attempt to reduce the slaughter with guns in America.

And fwiw, the root cause of a 'culture' of wars and violence is what needs to be addressed.

Maybe the most obvious red flag would be the guy walking down the street all dressed up in his camo costume, with knives and dud hand grenades hanging off of his body and clothing, and him carrying a black AR-15?

That's the good guy with a gun who is most likely to soon become the bad guy with ....................!

Except that those guys rarely, if ever, randomly shoot up a school. It's the ones who look normal when walking down the street but harbor deep, dark fantasies of revenge and mayhem that you need to worry about. The guy who advertises that he's armed is not the mass murderer. I mean, I understand that the big black gun scares you, but that's not the guy you need to worry about.

 

[hadit]

OK…This guy sits next to you in a movie theater carrying an AR 15
You going to change seats?

View attachment 660133

Profiler.

 

[eagle7-31]

Now, let me get this straight. There is enough evidence on someone that they are such a danger to society and to themselves that we can take their guns away through red flag laws. But, even though this person is such a danger to society, we just take their guns away and totally ignore them after that? We don't watch them or try to help them and we just let them run around loose? Without their guns they are no longer a danger to society? They can't use other weapons or they can't steal a gun from somewhere to use anyway? Americans are safe with these people who are a danger to society and to themselves when we just let them run around loose? If we have enough evidence that these people are such a danger to society that we can take their guns away but we don't have enough evidence to even get them the help they need and take them off the streets while we're doing that? We just let them continue being a danger to society but they have to be an unarmed danger (assuming they don't go out and steal a gun anyway)? Am I missing something?

Its political not judicial. And this won't do anything about the gun violence in places like Chicago.

 

[The Original Tree]

Now, let me get this straight. There is enough evidence on someone that they are such a danger to society and to themselves that we can take their guns away through red flag laws. But, even though this person is such a danger to society, we just take their guns away and totally ignore them after that? We don't watch them or try to help them and we just let them run around loose? Without their guns they are no longer a danger to society? They can't use other weapons or they can't steal a gun from somewhere to use anyway? Americans are safe with these people who are a danger to society and to themselves when we just let them run around loose? If we have enough evidence that these people are such a danger to society that we can take their guns away but we don't have enough evidence to even get them the help they need and take them off the streets while we're doing that? We just let them continue being a danger to society but they have to be an unarmed danger (assuming they don't go out and steal a gun anyway)? Am I missing something?

Neither did the Jews understand them when The Nazis took away their guns for any reason they could come up with.

 

[Resnic]

Now, let me get this straight. There is enough evidence on someone that they are such a danger to society and to themselves that we can take their guns away through red flag laws. But, even though this person is such a danger to society, we just take their guns away and totally ignore them after that? We don't watch them or try to help them and we just let them run around loose? Without their guns they are no longer a danger to society? They can't use other weapons or they can't steal a gun from somewhere to use anyway? Americans are safe with these people who are a danger to society and to themselves when we just let them run around loose? If we have enough evidence that these people are such a danger to society that we can take their guns away but we don't have enough evidence to even get them the help they need and take them off the streets while we're doing that? We just let them continue being a danger to society but they have to be an unarmed danger (assuming they don't go out and steal a gun anyway)? Am I missing something?

As I pointed out many times, you can ban and restrict guns all you want to the point there are no guns but you haven't fixed the problem at all.

The problem is criminals and nutballs. Taking away or restricting guns doesn't address the killers, thugs and criminals at all because they will still be here.

We don't need anti gun laws, we need to treat criminals like criminals.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

OK…This guy sits next to you in a movie theater carrying an AR 15
You going to change seats?

The sad thing is you actually think this is an intelligent response.

 

[White 6]

Except that those guys rarely, if ever, randomly shoot up a school. It's the ones who look normal when walking down the street but harbor deep, dark fantasies of revenge and mayhem that you need to worry about. The guy who advertises that he's armed is not the mass murderer. I mean, I understand that the big black gun scares you, but that's not the guy you need to worry about.

It should not look normal for a guy to be walking down a city street, dressed for maneuvers and armed to carry them out. Sorry. Grew up is small towns. It just isn't normal.

 

[Independent thinker]

In a perfect world, it would be written as a temporary stopgap measure to have weapons secured immediate, triggering a hearing to give the weapon's owner a due process path to have weapons returned if it is a "crazy Karen vindictive BS maneuver initiated for ulterior motives. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world. Hopefully Karen would get the legal fees incurred if BS. Everybody understands red flag situations and in modern society where family not available, unable or unwilling to step in and take weapons out of immediate use reach, can be necessary and beneficial to the family, co-workers and society in general. Problem is how to write them guaranteeing the rights to legitimate redress of false accusation, that scare the crap out of even normal gun owners, their property rights and good name, without being overburdened by legal expense to secure what is theirs, to have and to hold, sell or keep or pass down, etc.
It would be nice if it triggered follow up, but that is in the writing at state level and the enforcement at local level. Mind you, to your concern they might just steal a weapon to go on a killing spree, that is a special case and not all nut balls simultaneously go off their rocker and become thriving felons at the same time. I can only guarantee they won't be stealing mine, as they are locked up (except for the one in my shoulder holster, locked and loaded) as all weapons belonging to responsible gun owners should be.

Maybe I read your post incorrectly but it sounded like you were saying the exact same thing I was questioning. People are deemed to be a danger to society or to themselves and yet all we do is take their guns away and then let them run around loose?

 

[hadit]

It should not look normal for a guy to be walking down a city street, dressed for maneuvers and armed to carry them out. Sorry. Grew up is small towns. It just isn't normal.

It isn't normal, BUT, the important point is whether or not that guy turns around and shoots up a school, theater, mall, or some other place with a lot of unarmed people. I do not, at this time, believe that those guys become mass murderers. Think about it, why would a mass murderer draw attention to the fact that he has an arsenal in today's hypersensitive environment?

 

[White 6]

The sad thing is you actually think this is an intelligent response.

It actually is an intelligent response. It would indeed throw up a red flag to you in that extreme situation but somebody should have realized the guy was a nut ball long before that time and taken steps (either within the family or legally) but didn't.

 

[Independent thinker]

Neither did the Jews understand them when The Nazis took away their guns for any reason they could come up with.

To me I'm not framing this as a 2A issue. I'm wondering why we can find someone to be a danger to society and to themselves and yet we don't do anything to actually help them. We let dangerous people run around loose, naively thinking that if they don't have guns (which they can get anyway) then society will be safe.

 

[Independent thinker]

As I pointed out many times, you can ban and restrict guns all you want to the point there are no guns but you haven't fixed the problem at all.

The problem is criminals and nutballs. Taking away or restricting guns doesn't address the killers, thugs and criminals at all because they will still be here.

We don't need anti gun laws, we need to treat criminals like criminals.

It just seems crazy to me that you can find enough evidence on someone to deem them to be a danger to society or to themselves and yet we do nothing to actually help them or take them off the streets.

 

[The Original Tree]

To me I'm not framing this as a 2A issue. I'm wondering why we can find someone to be a danger to society and to themselves and yet we don't do anything to actually help them. We let dangerous people run around loose, naively thinking that if they don't have guns (which they can get anyway) then society will be safe.

The best way to do with an armed mental person is arm everyone else and dispatch the Evil Bastard straight to Hell with extreme prejudice.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Temporarily and based on valid evidence

Those who make false claims can be prosecuted

 

[The Irish Ram]

It just seems crazy to me that you can find enough evidence on someone to deem them to be a danger to society or to themselves and yet we do nothing to actually help them or take them off the streets.

The objective isn't mental health....

 

[White 6]

Maybe I read your post incorrectly but it sounded like you were saying the exact same thing I was questioning. People are deemed to be a danger to society or to themselves and yet all we do is take their guns away and then let them run around loose?

That depends on how the laws are written and enforced at local level. I can't see a federal red flag law, but how laws by states are written and carried out is a state and local gig. I do understand what you are saying, and indeed a poorly written one is a bane to gun owners throughout the jurisdiction of the state that passes it. This is indeed the rub in the red flag law thing, not that the feds may take your gun as a would be revolutionary asshole. So, conceptually good, but damned tricky to write effectively, ensuring rights and responsibilities in regard to its use. I can support conceptually, but would definitely want to read thoroughly so my concerns were at least known if not addressed entirely before our bicameral legislature and Governor put on into effect. It is a tricky, sticky wicket to be sure.

 

[Resnic]

It just seems crazy to me that you can find enough evidence on someone to deem them to be a danger to society or to themselves and yet we do nothing to actually help them or take them off the streets.

That requires time, effort, resources, money and a desire to actually try to fix the problem.

They have none of those. So it's easier to just try and take the guns because it makes it seem like they are actually doing something instantly about the problem and can publicly talk about what they are doing. They don't want long term solutions, they want fast perceived results.

And as a added benefit, they to be one step closer to taking whoever guns anytime they want. Because trust me, it will be abused at some point.

 

[kaz]

As a Canadian, I don't understand them either.

I can only guess that they're a desperate, last ditch attempt to reduce the slaughter with guns in America.

And fwiw, the root cause of a 'culture' of wars and violence is what needs to be addressed.

Maybe the most obvious red flag would be the guy walking down the street all dressed up in his camo costume, with knives and dud hand grenades hanging off of his body and clothing, and him carrying a black AR-15?

That's the good guy with a gun who is most likely to soon become the bad guy with ....................!

Far less than 1% of guns are used to commit crimes. And even fewer legal guns ...

 

[Auld Phart]

Would a 'red flag law' have stopped Adam Lanza from getting guns?

 

[White 6]

It isn't normal, BUT, the important point is whether or not that guy turns around and shoots up a school, theater, mall, or some other place with a lot of unarmed people. I do not, at this time, believe that those guys become mass murderers. Think about it, why would a mass murderer draw attention to the fact that he has an arsenal in today's hypersensitive environment?

Just by walking around with an AR within city limit should trigger attention and questioning of authorities and place normal permitted conceal carry people on alert. No matter how normal some people would like it to be (as claimed as their right), it ain't normal in city civil society.