The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws - KrisAnne Hall, JD

[EdJames]

Man oh man was that a great argument!
Who can deny it?

Would that folks like her walked the halls of government!

Doesn't she do an amazing job of bringing the discussion of these Principles to Life!!

She explains how the essence of what set the United States of America apart from all other nations was, and remains, so vital to our existence as a Free People. 

Would that all adults (and children old enough to understand) in America be exposed to her message!!

.

[Bigun]

I find it queer that this aspect is never discussed.  One may reasonably come to the conclusion that the proponents aren't focused on solving the problem of the mentally ill perpetrating violence on society, but rather an attack on RKBA.

Truer words have never been spoken my friend!  Just another avenue of attack on the BOR.

[roamer_1]

Doesn't she do an amazing job of bringing the discussion of these Principles to Life!!

She explains how the essence of what set the United States of America apart from all other nations was, and remains, so vital to our existence as a Free People. 

Would that all adults in America be exposed to her message!!

That's absolutely right. I swear, I heard bells going off!
But then, I always do when it's nitty gritty, down to the bone about principle things.
I guarantee there will be no argument that stands against her. She's just damn well right.

[libertybele]

Feel free to disagree.    But they are conservatives,  and plenty of us support doing something about mass shootings.

Anyone who accepts relinquishing their rights afforded by the Constitution, including the second amendment is not a conservative.

Gun confiscation, red flag laws, will not guarantee that there will not be another mass shooting.  Far from it.  In fact,IF and after the red flag laws are federally implemented, the next mass shooting will only bring about more laws that infringe upon the 2nd amendment.  The liberal left will once again proclaim that something needs to be done and that these laws didn't go far enough.  Wake up!

As I have stated several times what needs to be done is to insist on better and more affordable mental health facilities along with systems in place to ensure that these individuals are on the road to recovery and stay on a managed mental health plan.  Much like AA.  Alcoholics go through a program, but should we insist on taking away their right to purchase liquor??  AA is only as effective as those who are willing to attend and keep up with meetings and help to stay sober.  Mental health should be treated the same way.  Individuals suffering need help, medication and CONTINUED guidance with systems in place to help them wean into society and become productive when possible.  For those who cannot be helped into society, and elect never to stay on a program, if they are bent on shooting someone, they're going to get their hands on a gun. No law is going to change that.

[Sanguine]

What do you think of Hall's presentation?

@Jazzhead, what do you think of Hall's presentation? 

Surely you didn't come on this thread and make comments without having actually reviewed the information being discussed?  That would be sort of like, well, trolling.

[Jazzhead]

Anyone who accepts relinquishing their rights afforded by the Constitution, including the second amendment is not a conservative.

Straw man.   David French and Andrew McCarthy  - and other conservatives like them -  support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster. 

There is no "relinquishment of rights".     

[txradioguy]

There is no "relinquishment of rights".   

Yes there is...your second amendment right is relinquished.  And you either naive or a fool if you honestly think due process will be followed.

To paraphrase you from a year ago "all it takes is a Dem controlled SCOTUS to make these protections go away".

[Jazzhead]

To paraphrase you from a year ago "all it takes is a Dem controlled SCOTUS to make these protections go away".

That's right.   So why take extreme positions that push voters into the arms of Chuckie Schumer?   

[Jazzhead]

And you either naive or a fool if you honestly think due process will be followed.

Oh, stop it.  Are you in favor of capital punishment?   Of course you are.  And yet,  when a man is sentenced to death,  his very right to life is forfeit (let alone his right to play with his guns).   But the state's execution of a human being is Constitutional because of the requirement that due process be followed.   

[txradioguy]

Oh, stop it.  Are you in favor of capital punishment?   Of course you are.  And yet,  when a man is sentenced to death,  his very right to life is forfeit (let alone his right to play with his guns).   But the state's execution of a human being is Constitutional because of the requirement that due process be followed.

And how many people have been set free because those due process laws were violated?

Stop with the straw men and concentrate.

[txradioguy]

That's right.   So why take extreme positions that push voters into the arms of Chuckie Schumer?   

I'm not.  The people here that don't agree with you aren't. And neither are the millions of legal gun owners who'd recoil in horror at what you propose and how you characterize them.

No matter how many times you try to apply Alinsky's Rules #11 and #13...we who believe in the 2nd Amendment as written aren't the extremists on the side of Schmucky Schumer.

You're the extremist for supporting these unconstitutional laws and a liar to boot for continuing to say you're conservative when it's clear you're the only one that believes that.

[libertybele]

Straw man.   David French and Andrew McCarthy  - and other conservatives like them -  support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster. 

There is no "relinquishment of rights".   

????  "Only if they provide robust due process".  For one "due process" is due process ... there is no "robust" to the equation.  The problem is, that the proposed red flag laws, confiscate guns first and afford due process later.  Clearly a violation of the Constitution as referenced in amendments V and XIV.  So now, we're not just talking about trampling on the 2nd amendment but other amendments as well.  @Jazzhead either you get the possibility of gov't overreach here or you don't.

To trust that once red flag laws are implemented that "due process" will be absolute is naive.  Due process when?  After the fact?? Red flag laws are supposedly to protect someone from harming themselves or others ... all that needs to be stated is that "gee we didn't have time for due process...this was an emergency".  B.S.  Even our President who proclaims that he is 2A himself, has stated confiscate first and worry about due process later.  Basically, If I go to law enforcement and say that I suspect that you have a weapon and I believe that you are possibly not of sound mind as I think you should be, they will come by, snatch your weapon and evaluate the situation, if you think things are going to go down any differently, you are dreaming.  Oh ... good luck afterwards, trying to get your gun back.

Secondly, when you go to renew your concealed carry (even after it has been determined that you are no threat) good luck as you were involved with law enforcement and a weapon.

[EdJames]

That's absolutely right. I swear, I heard bells going off!
But then, I always do when it's nitty gritty, down to the bone about principle things.
I guarantee there will be no argument that stands against her. She's just damn well right.

Absolutely!!

 

[roamer_1]

To trust that once red flag laws are implemented that "due process" will be absolute is naive.  Due process when?  After the fact??

Due process is largely incidental... The problem is the deciders.

I'll tell you right now, any liberal whacko shrink will have problems with me. It goes without saying... Just because I am hard right, passionately independent, unabashedly male, and self-contained.

Believe me, I get it all the time from my whacko liberal shrink sister.

Letting those people have free reign as mind police will throw due process right out the window. There may be some sort of show trial, but that's all it will be.

[libertybele]

Due process is largely incidental... The problem is the deciders.

I'll tell you right now, any liberal whacko shrink will have problems with me. It goes without saying... Just because I am hard right, passionately independent, unabashedly male, and self-contained.

Believe me, I get it all the time from my whacko liberal shrink sister.

Letting those people have free reign as mind police will throw due process right out the window. There may be some sort of show trial, but that's all it will be.

What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist.  How do you think that's going to turn out?

No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days.  Nope.  No gun back.  It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.

BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.

[Jazzhead]

The problem is, that the proposed red flag laws, confiscate guns first and afford due process later. 

So what?   That's common enough.   For example, accused criminals have their very freedom denied if they can't post bail.   And judges refuse bail, or impose stiff bail,  all the time because they believe, based on testimony and the application of common sense,  that an accused may be a flight risk.   

[Sanguine]

What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist.  How do you think that's going to turn out?

No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days.  Nope.  No gun back.  It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.

BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.

@Jazzhead need to go watch the video before he comments any further.  It's imperative to know what you're talking about.

[EdJames]

Straw man.   David French and Andrew McCarthy  - and other conservatives like them -  support red flag laws only if they provide for robust due process protections that pass Constitutional muster. 

There is no "relinquishment of rights".   

@Sanguine clearly pinged you over an hour ago, to remind you of the question that @skeeter posed to you over three hours ago, @Jazzhead.  Of course, you just ignore the posts to carry on with your trolling.

Why don't you stop trolling the thread and watch the KrisAnn Hall presentation so that you can engage constructively with the other members on this thread?

All you have done is ruin all of these related threads over the past week with your constant spamming of logical fallacies.  Amongst others, you repeatedly resort to:

- Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") in an attempt to manipulate people's emotions to support unreasonable and illogical measures.
- Argument to moderation or argumentum ad temperantiam  in an attempt to assert that the answer must be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.
- Argument from authority or argumentum ab auctoritate, or an appeal to authority, in an attempt to convince others that the statements of known public figures is reason to accept your position.

You ignore the reasonable posts of other members that present logical, reasonable, and cogent arguments against your case.  Over and over.

You resort to spamming these threads as you do other topics in the forum, in an attempt to obfuscate the message of others, and drive people away that are seeking intelligent discussion.

Why don't you take the time and review the material in the OP, so that you can honestly engage with the other members, instead of trolling?

.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead need to go watch the video before he comments any further.  It's imperative to know what you're talking about.

Is there a transcript somewhere?

[roamer_1]

What I forsee happening, is this; under the red flag laws, law enforcement shows up, speaks to the person in question, decides to confiscate the weapon as they'd rather err on that side just in case, apprehend the person in question and take them down to a holding facility where they will be "evaluated" by a government appointed psychologist or psychiatrist.  How do you think that's going to turn out?

No gun back and mandatory psychiatric treatment and re-evaluated in 30 days.  Nope.  No gun back.  It will be up to the accused to go to court to try to get the gun that was wrongfully seized back.

BTW, I hope @Jazzhead you're considering the different scenarios that these red flag laws will create.

Yeah something just about like that, except the fines and payments, which you've overlooked.

And most municipalities and counties have a time limit on their responsibility wrt property. So by the time you actually get a shot at getting the gun back, it will probably already have been destroyed.

So by the time you're in 6 months or more, and a few thousand bucks down, you won't get it back anyway. Far better to just go buy another... off the street this time.

[libertybele]

So what?   That's common enough.   For example, accused criminals have their very freedom denied if they can't post bail.   And judges refuse bail, or impose stiff bail,  all the time because they believe, based on testimony and the application of common sense,  that an accused may be a flight risk.   

Seriously?  You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...

Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good. 

You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window.  I'm not.  End of conversation.

[EdJames]

Is there a transcript somewhere?

Not to my knowledge.  As @Sanguine mentioned above, there are Settings (drop down menu under the "GEAR" looking icon, at the lower right corner of the video) that you can use to alter the playback speed (play it much faster to save time, or play it slower to modulate the speaker's tone).  Also, if you are hearing impaired, Closed Captions are available ("CC" next to the "GEAR")  but the quality of them vary by video.

Beyond that, pull up a chair and a nice beverage when you have the time, and enjoy!!

[thackney]

Not to my knowledge.  As @Sanguine mentioned above, there are Settings (drop down menu under the "GEAR" looking icon, at the lower right corner of the video) that you can use to alter the playback speed (play it much faster to save time, or play it slower to modulate the speaker's tone).  Also, if you are hearing impaired, Closed Captions are available ("CC" next to the "GEAR")  but the quality of them vary by video.

Beyond that, pull up a chair and a nice beverage when you have the time, and enjoy!!

Okay, I'll come back to the thread in 2026 or so.  I did some searching before I asked.

[roamer_1]

Is there a transcript somewhere?

You'd be missing out... Although audio would be enough...

[Jazzhead]

Is there a transcript somewhere?

I would be pleased to read a transcript.   I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.