I Don't Understand Reg Flag Laws

[progressive hunter]

To me, the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are done by people everyone who knows them says is a threat.
”The guy always creeped me out”
Keeping guns out of their hands should not be an issue

you always creep me out,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

They might be difficult to understand if one is ignorant of the law.

Like other laws, protective orders follow the rule of law and the right to due process of the law as codified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Government may act pursuant only to a court order based on facts and evidence presented to a judge or magistrate.

A gunowner is afforded a fair hearing to present evidence as to why his firearms should be returned.

Protective orders authorize neither the ‘taking’ nor ‘confiscation’ of firearms.

Firearms are returned to the gunowner once the risk is determined to be no longer present.

once again your premise is a lie,,
you arent afforded due process,, they come and take your guns and then you go to court to get them back,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a lie.

you saying its a lie is a lie,,

 

[White 6]

I misunderstand nothing and neither should you. Coups happen and the US isn't immune.
And successful coups invent excuses for why their country's Constitution was ignored.

You just have faith in your military, even when the CiC has betrayed that faith.

That is it, exactly and you can too. This attempt to overturn an election lost, developed into a coup attempt by the sitting President at that time. It was not successful, any more than the court cases, the endless recounts, the strong arming of the Attorney General in Georgia. The military did not support it then and won't next time. It was a wake up call though, that some president might think and attempt the unthinkable. Be certain in upper military circles there have been many after action "Lessons Learned" studies, meetings, briefings and changes to S.O.P. to decrease response time next time there is an attempt. That does not mean it isn't dangerous to have him or a supporter of his in there, though. It is. They have studied what went wrong from their point of view, also, and we know the thought of it once, increasing the odds, they might think of it again. It can't work without the military, so it won't work. Fk all the insurrectionist hillbillies and their easily led cannon fodder stooges. Works for me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Wrong.

There are laws which require individuals to have a mental health evaluation if warranted, in conjunction with protective order measures.

 

[daveman]

Gun owners always whine about……Why should I be punished because others abuse their guns?

Yet when you try to pass laws restricting access to guns for those likely to harm themselves or others…..they throw a fit

Because those laws don't actually impede those intent on breaking the law.

 

[daveman]

The 'culture' of wars and killing with guns is what motivates the young men to resort to killing with their guns.
This meshs with the mental health issue and the frustration of the working class being cheated out of a piece of the American pie.

The issues have been impossible to address due to self incrimination.

Only Michael Moore has had the courage to suggest the issue of the warring culture.

All countries have young men and so have the potential, but only some countries have allowed it to escalate to an extreme. America's wars never stop!

Michael Moore thinks the proles should be disarmed, but he's going to keep his armed security.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you saying its a lie is a lie,,

No, red-flag gun laws don’t violate due process rights

“Politicians considering red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees “due process of law” whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” But the basic design of extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review article.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/07/red-flag-gun-laws-constitution-due-process/

To claim otherwise is a lie.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, red-flag gun laws don’t violate due process rights

“Politicians considering red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees “due process of law” whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” But the basic design of extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review article.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/07/red-flag-gun-laws-constitution-due-process/

To claim otherwise is a lie.

dude youre nuts,,,
that doesnt say anything about red flag laws and how they work,,,

so once again your premise is a lie,,, or youre dumber than a box of rocks,,

which is it??

 

[daveman]

I'm not sure that is an accurate description. I believe they really think that if they let criminals run around loose that they can keep guns out of the criminal's hands, even as tons of felons who shouldn't be carrying guns are later arrested for having guns, and then mindbogglingly letting them right back out after being arrested for being a felon carrying a gun. I have scratched my head bald trying to figure that one out.

My statement explains that. They really don't care about protecting anyone from criminals. The catch-and-release programs slows criminals down not at all.

Democrats want more people victimized by criminals -- so the people will then demand government "do something" -- and that something will be disarming law-abiding citizens.

 

[daveman]

That's what TROs are for.

Why don't you blame the cops for not enforcing those?

TROs work just as well as "gun-free zone" signs.

 

[daveman]

As I said, Kyle set the bar on legalized murder.

It wasn't murder. Stop trying to redefine words to fit your emotion-based agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except the theft of your personal property occurred without enough probable cause to use the already existing system that protects from illegal search and seizure. Red flag laws are based on hearsay, not evidence.

This is a lie.

Protective orders are perfectly Constitutional, gunowners are afforded comprehensive due process, where there is no ‘theft’ of property.

Yet another thread filled with rightwing ignorance, demagoguery, and lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The accused isn't given notice of any court hearings.

This is a lie – both ignorant and wrong.

Someone subject to a protective order is not ‘accused’ of anything; it’s a civil proceeding, not criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

To me, the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are done by people everyone who knows them says is a threat.
”The guy always creeped me out”
Keeping guns out of their hands should not be an issue

I totally disagree.

If a person is a risk due to others noticing unusual behavior, then the LAST thing you should want to do is put them over the edge by banging on their door and demanding they hand over their very personal firearms.
A whacko is going to immediately start shooting, even if they would not have otherwise.

The red flag laws are not legal because they do not protect property or privacy rights, and instead deny the right of protection by trial, and allow people to have their rights violated over innuendo, gossip, rumors, malicious intent, etc.

If a person shows signs of mental irregularity, you need to temporarily incarcerate them, not a few of their possessions.
That is because you need them in order quantify what risk there may be, an you need to keep them from flammables, toxins, explosives, etc., as the evaluation is being made.

 

[Rigby5]

Not really, you can appear in court and contest the forfeiture

There was no due process at Uvalde or Buffalo

Wrong.
You are not there when the red flag process is run.
You can not appear in court to contest the illegal forfeiture ahead of time.
And contesting after the fact can take months.
Since you nor any representative is there, no one cross examines any claim for veracity.
Its a rumor mill gone wild.

When the police show up to confiscate, if the person really was a whacko, trying to force them to surrender their weapons is bound to push them over the edge, even if they were actually harmless before that.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Repubs closed the asylums, medicated the inmates & turned them out into the streets. Big Pharma paid them well for that.

No, the ACLU did that. That's on you

 

[Rigby5]

Temporarily and based on valid evidence

Those who make false claims can be prosecuted

Wrong.
There is no valid evidence involved because there is no opportunity for cross examination.
The false claims can not be prosecuted because they are based on opinion and not factual acts, since they have not happened yet.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

No, that would be the most imperfect world one could imagine.
If a person really is troubled, the last thing any rational person should want to do is bust into their home and steal some of their belongings.
That violation of privacy would so anger anyone that they would ignore the smashed in door, and immediately go out for a new weapon in order to pursue revenge on whomever they believe ratted them out.
As always, the police would greatly amplify any situation that could have been de-escalated instead.

 

[Rigby5]

To me, the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are done by people everyone who knows them says is a threat.
”The guy always creeped me out”
Keeping guns out of their hands should not be an issue

You have it totally backwards.
What you describe is someone who everyone decides is dangerous, so then instead of picking them up for a mental evaluation, you go to their home, ramsack it, and steal just a few things you decide to take.
That is totally illegal because it never involves any sort of legal evaluation of the suspect, it is not using objective evidence but instead only subjective opinion, and is guaranteed to fail to actually make the person less dangerous in any way.
They will instead be more dangerous because they will be more angry, and they could just have more weapons hidden, obtained after the home invasion, or by using other dangerous technologies instead.