I Don't Understand Reg Flag Laws

[Independent thinker]

Wrong.

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

Ummmmmmmmmm, if you have enough evidence to take their guns away then you have enough evidence to take them away or get them help. Red flag laws take people's guns away and then let that person have total and complete freedom.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

I would like to disagree with you but, sadly, I can't.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

"Red Flag laws" are the antithesis of due process.

BINGO !!

And Guns are just the beginning. It's a step in the process of removing rights.
Next, you'll be "Red Flagged" for posting against the agenda on forums, social media etc (oops, we're already there)

When no one is willing to defend their freedoms, the bad guys gladly take them away.

"All that was required for evil men to prevail was for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

 

[Independent thinker]

In your example he already had restraining orders out on him.

Red Flag laws can be used to deny rights to people even if they don;t have a TRO issued.

In fact the accused may not even be notified that there will be a hearing and the order to deny his rights can be issued in absentia. The accused is not given the opportunity to retain counsel or even to face his accusers

There is no requirement for expert testimony when the accused is said to be mentally unstable

That is a denial of due process

I'll say two things:

1. I don't believe there is a universal red flag law. So, your post may not be accurate in every state already having a red flag law.

2. My main point here is that red flag laws do nothing about this already deemed mentally unstable person you talk about. We wouldn't have to take their guns away at all if this already deemed mentally unstable person were under lock and key while getting the help they need. But, we take their guns away and let them roam around free being a danger to society. It allows them to either get guns using a different method or to use another weapon of choice. I'm saying that red flag laws don't actually stop anything if we let this already deemed mentally unstable person just run around loose.

I'm not trying to frame this thread as anything to do with the second amendment. I'm asking the left why we find someone to be a danger to society, take their guns away, and then just let this person who is such a danger to society just run around loose. It seems to me that if you have enough evidence already to deem this person a danger to society that you can take their guns away then you should have enough evidence to take this person out of commission for a while until they are no longer a danger to society.

 

[Blues Man]

I still don't understand. You're saying that there is enough due process to take this person's guns away but even though you have enough evidence that this person is clearly a danger to themselves or others, you turn around and let them roam around freely. That's what I don't understand. If you have enough evidence to take their guns away then you have enough evidence to take them away and either lock them up or get them help.

It's the quality of the evidence.

All it takes is a person saying that the accused is dangerous. There needs to be no real proof.

And the accused may not be informed that there is going to be a hearing regarding his alleged incompetence to own a firearm.

 

[Blues Man]

I'll say two things:

1. I don't believe there is a universal red flag law. So, your post may not be accurate in every state already having a red flag law.

2. My main point here is that red flag laws do nothing about this already deemed mentally unstable person you talk about. We wouldn't have to take their guns away at all if this already deemed mentally unstable person were under lock and key while getting the help they need. But, we take their guns away and let them roam around free being a danger to society. It allows them to either get guns using a different method or to use another weapon of choice. I'm saying that red flag laws don't actually stop anything if we let this already deemed mentally unstable person just run around loose. I'm not trying to frame this thread as anything to do with the second amendment. I'm asking the left why we find someone to be a danger to society, take their guns away, and then just let this person who is a danger to society just run around loose.

They are all pretty similar from state top state.

The point is that a person does not have to be proven mentally unstable for a red flag law to be put in effect against him.

 

[maybelooking]

In a perfect world, it would be written as a temporary stopgap measure

In a perfect world the govt. would understand the word "temporary"

They do NOT.

 

[Independent thinker]

They are all pretty similar from state top state.

The point is that a person does not have to be proven mentally unstable for a red flag law to be put in effect against him.

Which is one reason I don't understand the left or red flag laws. You can take guns away from those deemed to be a danger to themselves or to society while not having to prove that the person is a danger to themselves or to society. Then, if we can prove that a person is indeed a danger to themselves or to society, we take their guns away and leave them free to continue being a danger to themselves or to society, as if merely taking their guns away they are no longer a danger to themselves or to society. None of it makes any sense to me.

 

[Donald H]

Trump didn't break any laws. Democrats did, and haven't been punished for it. Democrats made people lose faith in the system.

Yeah maybe Dave but you'll probably need your guns to sort that argument out.

 

[daveman]

I still don't understand. You're saying that there is enough due process to take this person's guns away but even though you have enough evidence that this person is clearly a danger to themselves or others, you turn around and let them roam around freely. That's what I don't understand. If you have enough evidence to take their guns away then you have enough evidence to take them away and either lock them up or get them help.

Red Flag Law supporters don't give a shit about the person.

They just want to take the guns.

 

[daveman]

Yeah maybe Dave but you'll probably need your guns to sort that argument out.

I pray to God it doesn't come to that -- but I fear it may.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I need to report an old senile man with access to nuclear weapons…shouldnt a red flag law kick in?