I Don't Understand Reg Flag Laws

[Donald H]

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.

I get your points.

There were police officers killed and/or injured by Trump's mob.

The US military failed to respond to the call for help by the police. The order wasn't given.

Flynn's brother is guilty of treason.

The president of the US called for a violent overthrow of government.

And I appreciate the faith being held by the military mind. No, I can't too, but in any case, it's not my military. I'm visualizing a situation in which the CIC is empowered to order the military to do whatever pleases him.

Trump has caused the system to be fatally flawed and that's why nobody can have complete faith in the system.

Do you have faith that Milley could uphold your Constitution with lethal force? If so then I'll relent and admit that you can have faith.

Fwiw, you'll be aware that Milley has already demonstrated that, at the expense of making a mockery of the system.

 

[boedicca]

They had hearing, but were denied bail. What does that have to do with the topic? Sounds like nothing to me.

Kangaroo hearings and show trials are not fair due process, swampy.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You hold his guns till you are sure he is not a threat to himself or others.
Best case….You save lives
Worst case…..You inconvenience him for a few days

 

[Rigby5]

Can you point out a state, where you are simultaneously thrown in jail?

In any state, anyone at any time, can be taken into custody for evaluation, on the testimony of 1 person.
You can NOT jail them, but you can put them in a secure facility for 30 to 60 days of observation.

It is never legal to confiscate legal items like firearms, until AFTER the person has been ruled a danger, due to the results of the observation period.
It is illegal to do it simultaneously and there never any reason at all to do that.

 

[Rigby5]

OK

Go before a judge and swear to that
If you are found to be abusing the law, you can be prosecuted

No you can NOT, because the testimony for a red flag is NOT about objective fact of what anyone did, but subjective opinion about that they MIGHT do in the future.
You are totally wrong on this.
The only correct and legal way is to commit the person for observation, NOT illegally raid and confiscate.

 

[Rigby5]

Ah, the rogue tyrannical government fear. I have and keep several weapons, but am not a slave to that fear.

You should.
For example, the US government murdered over 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, etc.
If we were honest and honorable, then we should be overthrowing this obviously criminal and corrupt government.
If government does NOT fear us, it is because they know we are too corrupt and fearful.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You are lying.
The defendant is NOT informed of any red flag trial, so there is no one cross examining or protecting your rights in any way.
It is identical to a lynching.

 

[Anathema]

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

Only AFTER the fact… After the police have broken into your home. After they’ve ripped your home apart looking for things. After they’ve refused to give you a detailed receipt of what they’ve taken. After they have failed to store your firearms safely or properly. After they have damaged said firearms.

That’s not due process.

 

[White 6]

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.

Not like you could issue a summons for the hearing a few days off and expect to find all or maybe any weapons still there after the hearing. I don't claim to know how to write the law. To your point of making him mad. It would make anybody mad if the authorities came in took your weapons and served you with a paper to appear, whether of sound mental state or not. If not of sound mental state, early notification might just push them over the edge while weapons intact and on-site.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Its criminal because it violates your right of possession, privacy, and defense of your home.
It is not a legal proceeding because the accused is not represented or allowed to defend themselves in any way, from false allegations.

 

[Rigby5]

You hold his guns till you are sure he is not a threat to himself or others.
Best case….You save lives
Worst case…..You inconvenience him for a few days

Nonsense.
You paid no attention to a single thing I wrote.
The POINT is that the red flag law allows a totally biased ruling to ensure the person will be angry enough to commit murder, by ransacking their home.
It is NOT going to at all make them LESS dangerous, but vastly MORE dangerous.
They are going to be furious that their home was violated.
The odds of the police missing at least one weapon are extremely high, and they can easily get another weapon or means of murder if the police did not miss one.

The POINT is that if a person is at risk of being considered dangerously unstable, then the ONLY remotely legal thing you can do is to take THEM into custody.
You do NOT just make them even angrier by ransacking their home.
That is ensured to make them want to commit murder, even if they would otherwise not have harmed anyone.

 

[White 6]

In any state, anyone at any time, can be taken into custody for evaluation, on the testimony of 1 person.
You can NOT jail them, but you can put them in a secure facility for 30 to 60 days of observation.

It is never legal to confiscate legal items like firearms, until AFTER the person has been ruled a danger, due to the results of the observation period.
It is illegal to do it simultaneously and there never any reason at all to do that.

That sounds intelligent at first glance. Somebody has thought how it should work. But the problem with that 30 day time frame is, if it is indeed a Karen harassment complaint that triggers. 30 days, you could lose job over BS. I understand your immediate confinement thing, but a lot of damage can be done in 30 days, possibly unchangeable. Hearing ought to be within 36-72 HOURS based on when the subject can be ready to defend, not convenience of the state for long observation.
Like I've said, I could agree conceptually, but it boils down to how written and regulated effect, otherwise the innocent are shafted.

 

[Rigby5]

Not like you could issue a summons for the hearing a few days off and expect to find all or maybe any weapons still there after the hearing. I don't claim to know how to write the law. To your point of making him mad. It would make anybody mad if the authorities came in took your weapons and served you with a paper to appear, whether of sound mental state or not. If not of sound mental state, early notification might just push them over the edge while weapons intact and on-site.

God how can you be so dense?
Haven't you even watched "One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest"?
The LEGAL and APPROPRIATE way to deal with a suspected mentally deranged person is you take THEM into custody, immediately.
You do NOT issue a summons, serve a search warrant, bust into their home, violate their privacy, etc.
That is all totally and completely illegal and ineffective.
Taking them into custody for evaluation, is NOT illegal or ineffective.
Do you SEE the difference?
Taking them into custody is legal and effective.
These other foolish insanities not only are totally illegal, but ensured to end on massive violence, whether or not there was anything wrong with them before.

 

[White 6]

You should.
For example, the US government murdered over 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, etc.
If we were honest and honorable, then we should be overthrowing this obviously criminal and corrupt government.
If government does NOT fear us, it is because they know we are too corrupt and fearful.

Figures your one of those paranoids.

 

[Rigby5]

That sounds intelligent at first glance. Somebody has thought how it should work. But the problem with that 30 day time frame is, if it is indeed a Karen harassment complaint that triggers. 30 days, you could lose job over BS. I understand your immediate confinement thing, but a lot of damage can be done in 30 days, possibly unchangeable. Hearing ought to be within 36-72 HOURS based on when the subject can be ready to defend, not convenience of the state for long observation.
Like I've said, I could agree conceptually, but it boils down to how written and regulated effect, otherwise the innocent are shafted.

The legal way it has always worked is that the police immediately confine the suspect.
Then they appear in front of a judge who decides if they should be confined for 30, 60, or 90 day observation.
A 1 hour psych eval also is done immediately for the judge to use, but there is some variation by state on that.

Regardless of the details, the one thing you must never do, is to leave a suspect unsupervised.
There is absolutely no way you can prevent a dangerous suspect from killing the person they suspect as ratting on them.
The red flag laws as written, would ensure murder, not reduce them at all, in any way.

 

[White 6]

The legal way it has always worked is that the police immediately confine the suspect.
Then they appear in front of a judge who decides if they should be confined for 30, 60, or 90 day observation.
A 1 hour psych eval also is done immediately for the judge to use, but there is some variation by state on that.

Regardless of the details, the one thing you must never do, is to leave a suspect unsupervised.
There is absolutely no way you can prevent a dangerous suspect from killing the person they suspect as ratting on them.
The red flag laws as written, would ensure murder, not reduce them at all, in any way.

Is this a sample of a red flag law you guys have in New Mexico? If so, how long, and how is it working?

 

[Rigby5]

Figures your one of those paranoids.

Again you totally and completely missed the point.
What I said is that our government is guilty of mass murder.
It is criminal.
Morally, ethically, and legally, it should be totally destroyed, immediately, by force.
Obviously what I said is that I am way too chicken to be part of that destruction.
But we certainly should not make it easier for the government to prevent everyone from implementing justice.

 

[rightwinger]

Nonsense.
You paid no attention to a single thing I wrote.
The POINT is that the red flag law allows a totally biased ruling to ensure the person will be angry enough to commit murder, by ransacking their home.
It is NOT going to at all make them LESS dangerous, but vastly MORE dangerous.
They are going to be furious that their home was violated.
The odds of the police missing at least one weapon are extremely high, and they can easily get another weapon or means of murder if the police did not miss one.

The POINT is that if a person is at risk of being considered dangerously unstable, then the ONLY remotely legal thing you can do is to take THEM into custody.
You do NOT just make them even angrier by ransacking their home.
That is ensured to make them want to commit murder, even if they would otherwise not have harmed anyone.

No harm, no foul

Even if you are found to be a danger and your guns are permanently taken, they will be sold and you will get the money

 

[Rigby5]

Is this a sample of a red flag law you guys have in New Mexico? If so, how long, and how is it working?

No, I was describing the correct way it has always been done for thousands of years.
You do not just anger the suspect by violating their home, but you ensure there is no violence because you take them into custody immediately.

 

[easyt65]

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?

Are you a parent?

Are you against CRT?

If you answered 'yes' to these your government (WH, FBI, & DOJ) have already labeled you a 'Domestic Terrorist' and can raid your house and take all your weapons.


Are you a Consetvative?

Did you or have you ever supported Donald Trump?

If you answered 'yes' to either of these your government (WH, FBI, & DOJ) have already declared you are the biggedt threat to our Democracy and can raid your house and take all your weapons.