‘Red Flag’ laws too dangerous to support

[libertybele]

‘Red Flag’ laws too dangerous to support

Hard cases make bad law, as they say, and red flag laws are bad.

“Red Flag” laws, which have been a hot topic of discussion since last weekend, are designed to take guns away from mentally unstable people before they can harm themselves or anyone else.

This sounds good in theory, but in practice, such laws are a danger to mentally healthy people in our day and a threat to the Constitution to boot.

The main question is this: Who gets to decide who is too mentally unstable to own a firearm? And how is that decision made? Most newly adopted laws (six such laws have been signed this year) and newly proposed laws (two dozen have been introduced in various states) require some kind of certification from a mental health professional that a judge can then use to confiscate someone’s firearm(s).

To put it bluntly, this puts your right to own a firearm into the hands of the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, who will set the standards for the mental health community. No thanks.

These groups, for instance, once correctly viewed homosexuality as prima facie evidence of a profound mental disorder. But now they think that those who still believe that are the mentally disordered ones.........

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=74197?omhide=true

[roamer_1]

‘Red Flag’ laws too dangerous to support

Hard cases make bad law, as they say, and red flag laws are bad.

“Red Flag” laws, which have been a hot topic of discussion since last weekend, are designed to take guns away from mentally unstable people before they can harm themselves or anyone else.

This sounds good in theory, but in practice, such laws are a danger to mentally healthy people in our day and a threat to the Constitution to boot.

The main question is this: Who gets to decide who is too mentally unstable to own a firearm? And how is that decision made? Most newly adopted laws (six such laws have been signed this year) and newly proposed laws (two dozen have been introduced in various states) require some kind of certification from a mental health professional that a judge can then use to confiscate someone’s firearm(s).

To put it bluntly, this puts your right to own a firearm into the hands of the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, who will set the standards for the mental health community. No thanks.

These groups, for instance, once correctly viewed homosexuality as prima facie evidence of a profound mental disorder. But now they think that those who still believe that are the mentally disordered ones.........

http://www.gopusa.com/?p=74197?omhide=true

THAT"S DAMN WELL RIGHT.

Let's not forget the use of rubber-stamp doctors that gave abortions steam when the only accepted means was 'welfare of the mother'. That's what happened to Reagan with his well-meaning abortion bill as a governor of California.

One can expect the shrinks to rubber stamp their political agenda right into mass acceptance as mind police.

[libertybele]

THAT"S DAMN WELL RIGHT.

Let's not forget the use of rubber-stamp doctors that gave abortions steam when the only accepted means was 'welfare of the mother'. That's what happened to Reagan with his well-meaning abortion bill as a governor of California.

One can expect the shrinks to rubber stamp their political agenda right into mass acceptance as mind police.

The article also states; newly proposed laws (two dozen have been introduced in various states) require some kind of certification from a mental health professional that a judge can then use to confiscate someone’s firearm....

That in itself doesn't make sense ... so... let me get this straight ... a person who is suspected to be "mentally unstable" knows that they are going to go before a psych and then in turn wait to have a judge rule for confiscation.  IF that is truly going to be the procedure, then who has the gun in the interim and where does it go?  So, if the answer is the gun is taken from the suspected unstable person until a judge's ruling, then the gun has already been confiscated.  So truly, due process comes after the accusation and confiscation.  Who is trying to b.s. who here??

[roamer_1]

The article also states; newly proposed laws (two dozen have been introduced in various states) require some kind of certification from a mental health professional that a judge can then use to confiscate someone’s firearm....

That in itself doesn't make sense ... so... let me get this straight ... a person who is suspected to be "mentally unstable" knows that they are going to go before a psych and then in turn wait to have a judge rule for confiscation.  IF that is truly going to be the procedure, then who has the gun in the interim and where does it go?  So, if the answer is the gun is taken from the suspected unstable person until a judge's ruling, then the gun has already been confiscated.  So truly, due process comes after the accusation and confiscation.  Who is trying to b.s. who here??

NECESSARILY, it is NOT due process.
Due Process STARTS with indictment.
That means suspicion of having committed a crime.
That suspicion is presented to a judge or grand jury with evidence held as proof of the suspicion of having committed a crime.

There is no crime that has been committed.
End of story.

[Chosen Daughter]

To put it bluntly, this puts your right to own a firearm into the hands of the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, who will set the standards for the mental health community. No thanks.

Translated to the Communist Association that pushes every liberal lunacy on the citizens of the United States.  Just look what they have done to us concerning gay, trans, LGBTQRSHorse shit.

[Chosen Daughter]

WARNING: How the VA “red-flags” patriots
 
 
By Michelle Malkin  •  August 7, 2019 03:26 PM

http://michellemalkin.com/2019/08/07/warning-how-the-va-red-flags-patriots/

[Sighlass]

Been disappointed the last few weeks with some posters...

[roamer_1]

To put it bluntly, this puts your right to own a firearm into the hands of the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, who will set the standards for the mental health community. No thanks.

Translated to the Communist Association that pushes every liberal lunacy on the citizens of the United States.  Just look what they have done to us concerning gay, trans, LGBTQRSHorse shit.

ABSOLUTELY_RIGHT!!!

But wait! There's more! Don't think it will stop with guns!! Precedent==Unintended Consequence

[libertybele]

I don't know how any conservative thinking clearly would accept Trump supporting these laws.  They trample on the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments.  Now's the time to start making those phone calls to our Senators and Reps and even Trump himself.  NO red flag laws, no infringement on our rights period!!!

[libertybele]

I received this message from GOA:

Anti-gunners refused to even wait for the facts before pouncing on the tragic shooting of six brave police officers in Philadelphia to demand more gun control.

Here’s the truth: The man who shot those police officers was a FELON. He was already “not supposed to” own a weapon in Philadelphia... but he did.

Why? Because criminals do not follow the law -- that’s why they’re criminals.

President Trump has acknowledged that the existing gun control law failed to stop this felon from acquiring a gun.

Now he needs to understand that the Red Flag gun-grab bill he’s considering signing into law will do NOTHING to stop criminals, but will instead ONLY hurt honest and good Americans. ....


I believe President Trump understands, but he also thinks that by him doing something to appease the left will help him gain some much needed votes in 2020. 

Please consider calling the White House to ensure your voice is heard loud and clear: 202-456-1111

[roamer_1]

I received this message from GOA:

I think they're right - Except for their analysis of Tump... Tumpy's record says it all... If this gets in front of him, he'll sign it.