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

[roamer_1]

Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck.

All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   

You're dreaming. It will never, ever happen. there will always be easily obtainable guns. That is the very essence of the absurdity of your position.

[Jazzhead]

Yes.

Well, that's where we differ.  Your position is that a Muslim radical who has amassed guns and ammo, posted online about his desire to kill infidels, and whose sister has said he is off his meds and a danger to others, should be able to keep his guns and ammo as a matter of right, without any kind of process available to potentially deprive him of those before he kills a bunch of people.

I don't.

And neither do most sensible people, including sensible conservatives.    The linchpin, of course, is that the gun owner be afforded due process.   The difference, it seems, is between those of us who have enough faith in the rule of law to respect the efficacy of due process,  and those who believe the courts are corrupt and riddled with bias. 

[Bigun]

Sure, because he can just buy one off the back of a truck.

All transfers of ownership should take place through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   

Right! Because that thug in Philly selling guns out of the trunk of his car is going to do that! /S

[txradioguy]

So you're saying we should be able to take his truck away from him?  Okay.

Should he be permitted to keep his guns and ammo?

No.  You know what he was trying to say.  If that person is that kind of threat lock them up...period.  Don't take the guns and leave him out in public.

He's still gonna find a way to carry out his plan.  Instead of killing 20 with a gun...he may end up killing 80 with a truck.  A threat is a threat...put that threat where they need to be...in jail.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Interesting that some here prefer taking a man's freedom away (at great expense to the taxpayer) before taking his gun away.

Doesn't make any sense to me either.  Especially since there were some upthread who said that taking someone's guns away in part because of statements they made was a violation of the First Amendment.  Obviously, the exact same would be true for throwing him in jail for the making of those statements as well.

[Jazzhead]

You're dreaming. It will never, ever happen. there will always be easily obtainable guns. That is the very essence of the absurdity of your position.

So your position is that nothing can be done,  and if something is tried to be done,  folks like you will decide to be lawless.   

[Bigun]

Yes.

Well, that's where we differ. 

  I suppose so!

[txradioguy]

And neither do most sensible people, including sensible conservatives.    The linchpin, of course, is that the gun owner be afforded due process.   The difference, it seems, is between those of us who have enough faith in the rule of law to respect the efficacy of due process,  and those who believe the courts are corrupt and riddled with bias.

Again with the Liberal corruption of the Language.

[Elderberry]

Assume he's a citizen.  There are naturally born American citizens who become radicalized.  Can't deport them.

Are you okay with him keeping those guns, or not?

As his sister said he's wacko and refuses to take his meds, then have him certified as a wacko and locked up.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No.  OYu know what he was trying to say.  If that person is that kind of threat lock them up...period.

On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?

[txradioguy]

So your position is that nothing can be done,  and if something is tried to be done,  folks like you will decide to be lawless.

Oh boy here we go with the lawless bit again.  Don't you have anything new?

[Jazzhead]

Right! Because that thug in Philly selling guns out of the trunk of his car is going to do that! /S

So what is the purpose of having laws?    This lawless mentality on the part of "conservatives" is disturbing, especially because it is not rooted in principle, but selfishness.   

[thackney]

So your position is that nothing can be done,  and if something is tried to be done,  folks like you will decide to be lawless.

Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society?  Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?

[Bigun]

So your position is that nothing can be done,  and if something is tried to be done,  folks like you will decide to be lawless.

NOPE!  That is NOT his position and your sophistry is on full display for all to see.

His position is that the right to self-preservation is fundamental!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As his sister said he's wacko and refuses to take his meds, then have him certified as a wacko and locked up.

Doesn't work like that either.

And...what if he's not insane at all?  Just a very militant convert to Islam who states his desire to shoot up a shitload of infidels?

[Jazzhead]

On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?

Good question.  He hasn't yet acted on his threat.   If the state has gotten it wrong,  it is a far lesser injustice that his gun be removed,  rather than his liberty.   

[roamer_1]

Maybe yes, maybe not.  If he's clearly off his rocker, he may have a tough time getting another gun and all that ammo.

But I assume that means you're also fine with leaving him with all his guns and ammo as well.  Right?

Of course I am. If you don't have a reason to commit him, and you don't have a reason to arrest him, what the hell makes you think you have a reason to take his property?

But then - He's off his meds...
People taking medicine for psychosis would not have been able to purchase the gun in the first place, and if he is off his meds, you have a reason to commit him.
so your entire drama is rendered moot.

[txradioguy]

Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society?  Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?

@thackney  like most Liberals...Jazz doesn't care about the criminal element.  He's only concern is taking guns away from law abiding citizens and making it safer for criminals who don't give a sh*t about all his schemes and proposals...and less safe for people like you and me.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society?  Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?

It's extraordinarily difficult.  We now have so many homeless precisely because involuntary commitment is so legally difficult.  And again, remove the mental illness component of it if you like -- he's just a very militant convert to Islam who is posting on social media about his desire to kill a bunch of infidels.

[txradioguy]

Doesn't work like that either.

And...what if he's not insane at all?  Just a very militant convert to Islam who states his desire to shoot up a shitload of infidels?

Arrest him on terrorism charges and put him in jail.  It's that simple.  We do it to people and groups plotting attacks in the U.S. all the time and we don't need new laws to do it.

[Jazzhead]

Are you claiming that with due process and substantiated threats, a unstable person cannot be removed from society?  Only legally obtained guns are the only risk?

It's like the practice of step therapy in medicine.  If a man's a substantiated potential threat,  but hasn't yet acted, take his dangerous tool away.   That is a far lesser deprivation than of his liberty. 

Why do you fetishize the tool?    Why is that "property" more important to be protected than the man's liberty?     

[txradioguy]

@Maj. Bill Martin serious question...why not just use the Baker Act on mentally unsteady people who have weapons?  Why this urgent need to create new law where the old ones work just fine?

At least with the Baker Act there's a psych eval done before the judge makes a ruling.  There's none of that in a single red flag law I've seen so far.  Jsut the say so of the person making the charge to a judge.

I mean if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[thackney]

Why do you fetishize the tool?    Why is that "property" more important to be protected than the man's liberty?     

Why do you?  Why do you pretend society is safe if you only take away his legally obtained firearms?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/

[Jazzhead]

@thackney  like most Liberals...Jazz doesn't care about the criminal element.  He's only concern is taking guns away from law abiding citizens and making it safer for criminals who don't give a sh*t about all his schemes and proposals...and less safe for people like you and me.

"Law abiding citizens?"  Hah!

[txradioguy]

On what charge do you lock them up, and for how long?

Terrorism or the plotting or a terrorist act. 

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B. There are 22 different statutes within 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B that define terrorism offenses impose penalties, or otherwise establish federal rules and regulations related to terrorism.

Lock him up for however long it takes for him to get to trial.