Kamala Harris is proposing a new kind of 'red flag' law to take guns away from racists

[mystery-ak]

August 15, 2019
Kamala Harris is proposing a new kind of 'red flag' law to take guns away from racists

It's part of her plan to 'disarm violent hate'


Nate Madden

Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) has taken the concept of "red flag" gun confiscation laws a step further with a proposal to take guns away from white nationalists who might commit a hate crime.


According to a policy proposal on her campaign website Wednesday, Harris said she would work to "combat and disarm violent hate" from white supremacists by pushing for legislation to give courts the ability to issue "Domestic Terrorism Prevention Orders" to take away the guns of "a suspected terrorist or individual who may imminently perpetrate a hate crime."

According to the statement, such orders "will allow certain individuals, including law enforcement officers and family members, to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person's access to guns if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness."

"We need to take action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and stop violent, hate-fueled attacks before they happen," Harris said in a statement. "By focusing on confronting these domestic terror threats, we can save lives."

more
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-is-proposing-a-new-kind-of-red-flag-law-to-take-guns-away-from-racists

[libertybele]

This folks, IS exactly why, NO red flag laws should be passed into legislation.  The left will take it and run until the 2A is completely dismantled!

[skeeter]

Lets work with the statists on reasonable gun control.

What could go wrong?

[Jazzhead]

This folks, IS exactly why, NO red flag laws should be passed into legislation.  The left will take it and run until the 2A is completely dismantled!

This proposal is, indeed, appalling.   But it does not affect the merits of a narrowly-drafted red flag law aimed at the mentally ill.   

[roamer_1]

Riiiight the kinder-gentler mind police...
I don't think so, Scooter.

[Cyber Liberty]

This proposal is, indeed, appalling.   But it does not affect the merits of a narrowly-drafted red flag law aimed at the mentally ill.

I'm afraid it does.  it demonstrates how easily any such law can be perverted by simply changing the definition of "mental illness."  Being a "white nationalist" (a vaguely defined term) can be labeled a mental illness.  Hoplophila can be designated a mental illness.  Being a registered member of a particular party can be tagged a mental illness.  Posting on the wrong political forum?  Mental illness.

The Soviet Russians used this technique to lock up millions of people in asylums.  They would be proud of this effort underway in the US.

[skeeter]

This proposal is, indeed, appalling.   But it does not affect the merits of a narrowly-drafted red flag law aimed at the mentally ill.

Once you've adapted red flag laws in principle - seizing property without due process - there's no way you can promise they won't be politicized and expanded. No way.

[roamer_1]

Once you've adapted red flag laws in principle - seizing property without due process - there's no way you can promise they won't be politicized and expanded. No way.

Exactly right.

[GrouchoTex]

This proposal is, indeed, appalling.   But it does not affect the merits of a narrowly-drafted red flag law aimed at the mentally ill.

Not so fast.
Until recent history, homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
By your definition, anyone who was homosexual up until the 70's would not have the right to own a firearm, because they would be considered mentally ill.

What will be considered a mental illness in the future is anybody's guess.

We shouldn't be so willing to take the chance that this will be a reasonable law and have proper oversight.

Where in recent history of our federal government has there been a case of a law being passed, being reasonable and having proper oversight?

[txradioguy]

This folks, IS exactly why, NO red flag laws should be passed into legislation.  The left will take it and run until the 2A is completely dismantled!

@libertybele

But...but...but...they PROMISE there will be due process protections in any law that's passed!

[Jazzhead]

I'm afraid it does.  it demonstrates how easily any such law can be perverted by simply changing the definition of "mental illness."  Being a "white nationalist" (a vaguely defined term) can be labeled a mental illness.  Hoplophila can be designated a mental illness.  Being a registered member of a particular party can be tagged a mental illness.  Posting on the wrong political forum?  Mental illness.

The Soviet Russians used this technique to lock up millions of people in asylums.  They would be proud of this effort underway in the US.

We are not the Soviet Russians.   Appealing to what the Soviets did is no effective response.   We have a Constitution that guarantees due process and a tradition of free elections whereby those who overreach can and do get shown the door.   

It is astonishing to me to hear the gun extremists compare their fellow citizens to Soviet Russians.   

[Jazzhead]

We shouldn't be so willing to take the chance that this will be a reasonable law and have proper oversight.

Well, yes, we should (although I agree with many that these laws should exist at the state rather than the federal level).   But I have no reason to believe this paranoid nonsense that we are one step away from the abuses of Soviet Russia.   

[txradioguy]

Well, yes, we should (although I agree with many that these laws should exist at the state rather than the federal level).   But I have no reason to believe this paranoid nonsense that we are one step away from the abuses of Soviet Russia.

If you honestly believe that...after a proven track record of our government abusing "good intention" laws...you're more naive than you should be.

[Cyber Liberty]

We are not the Soviet Russians.   Appealing to what the Soviets did is no effective response.   We have a Constitution that guarantees due process and a tradition of free elections whereby those who overreach can and do get shown the door.   

First, I'd remind the Soviets had a Constitution as well, prohibiting things that were done anyway.  Secondly, "we" are not Soviet Russians, but Democrats are not "us," and they're all for a Soviet National government.

Call it paranoid all you want, it's one of your favorite epithets, but it isn't paranoia when your political opponents have already demonstrated the willingness to do the things you fear.  The only recourse is to prevent the left from having the ability.

You seem to trust the National Government far more than most Briefers, which is why you can count on pushback from them.

[GrouchoTex]

If you honestly believe that...after a proven track record of our government abusing "good intention" laws...you're more naive than you should be.

@Jazzhead
I think @txradioguy is right.
CAF laws were good intention-ed laws designed to stop drug dealers.
Abuses of this law would fill a book larger than a Metropolitan Yellow Pages.
(do they still have those?)
This is only one example.
I could come up with a lot more.
It is not paranoia to think that the government would not screw this up, or worse, do so intentionally.
I will repeat myself:
"We shouldn't be so willing to take the chance that this will be a reasonable law and have proper oversight."

[Jazzhead]

You seem to trust the National Government far more than most Briefers, which is why you can count on pushback from them.

What I trust more than most Briefers, it appears, is the American people.    Do our elected officials pass bad laws?   Yes - but the remedy is to throw the bums out.   

Yes,  I believe the system still works.   

[Cyber Liberty]

What I trust more than most Briefers, it appears, is the American people.    Do our elected officials pass bad laws?   Yes - but the remedy is to throw the bums out.   

Yes,  I believe the system still works.

You should understand many of us don't agree with that, and you can say so without calling us mentally ill.  This country was founded on the principle that gummint is not to be trusted, and it requires eternal vigilance.  That's not "paranoia," it's a "founding principle."

[txradioguy]

In an era where being a Trump supporter...being white...being a Christian...wearing a MAGA hat...being Republican...being a homeowner...having a yard (seriously!)...believing in the Constitution...standing up for the rule of law...disagreeing with someone who doesn't hold your world view and basically anything and everything that founded this country is deemed racist...we're all going to lose our gun rights to the version of a Red Flag law proposed by Willie Brown's Chewtoy (grrrr...grrr).

I mean FFS the NYT is starting a new series called 1619 where they will over the next few months print in their pages stories showing how everything in America since the Jamestown Colony (hence the 1619 reference) has been and is still steeped in racism and slavery.

And we're gonna trust people like Kamala harris to determine who should be subject to a Red Flag law targeting racists?

Sorry I'll pass.

[Jazzhead]

You should understand many of us don't agree with that, and you can say so without calling us mentally ill. 

I think that such views are paranoid in the context of the checks against tyranny built into our Constitutional republic (as compared with such views in the context of King George or Soviet Russia).   But that is hardly a charge of "mental illness".   Don't know where you're getting that from. 

[txradioguy]

I think that such views are paranoid in the context of the checks against tyranny built into our Constitutional republic (as compared with such views in the context of King George or Soviet Russia).

One of those checks against tyranny built into our Constitution is one that you want to take away from us.

It's also the one thing that's NOT in any British or Soviet Constitution.

   

But that is hardly a charge of "mental illness".   Don't know where you're getting that from.

History.

[roamer_1]

Yes,  I believe the system still works.

Nope. Here's what works:

[Cyber Liberty]

I think that such views are paranoid in the context of the checks against tyranny built into our Constitutional republic (as compared with such views in the context of King George or Soviet Russia).   But that is hardly a charge of "mental illness".   Don't know where you're getting that from.

I guess I was wrong about what you should understand.  My bad.  Carry on with your efforts to stamp people who disagree with you as "mentally ill."  ("Paranoia" is a recognized mental illness, which is I refer to it as what it is, so don't play sematics.)

[Cyber Liberty]

One of those checks against tyranny built into our Constitution is one that you want to take away from us.

It's also the one thing that's NOT in any British or Soviet Constitution.

   

History.

I got it from the American Psycho Association.   

[roamer_1]

One of those checks against tyranny built into our Constitution is one that you want to take away from us.

It's also the one thing that's NOT in any British or Soviet Constitution.

   

History.

That's right - One might argue that it is THE check... with all the others being less than efficacious... Or only being efficacious because of the one.

Without the people having the right and power to rebel against tyranny, any other checks are made moot.

efficacious.... Does it count in the drinking game if it wasn't @Jazzhead that used it?
It is my intention to get y'all plowed by 2:30

[Victoria33]

I'm afraid it does.  it demonstrates how easily any such law can be perverted by simply changing the definition of "mental illness."  Being a "white nationalist" (a vaguely defined term) can be labeled a mental illness.  Hoplophila can be designated a mental illness.  Being a registered member of a particular party can be tagged a mental illness.  Posting on the wrong political forum?  Mental illness.  The Soviet Russians used this technique to lock up millions of people in asylums.  They would be proud of this effort underway in the US.

@Cyber Liberty

Yes, as you said, "it demonstrates how easily any such law can be perverted by simply changing the definition of "mental illness." Being a "white nationalist" (a vaguely defined term) can be labeled a mental illness."

Harris said: "We need to take action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and stop violent, hate-fueled attacks before they happen," Harris said in a statement. "By focusing on confronting these domestic terror threats, we can save lives."

Changing the definition of "mental illness"

Right now, the DSM V, is what an examiner uses to put certain behaviors into a mental diagnosis.  Perhaps there will be a new category called "Dangerous Person", with a list of behaviors that fit into that category.  Behaviors could be:

1. "Bought a gun".
2.  "Took new gun home."
Diagnosis - "Dangerous Person" - contact police to remove gun from person.