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

[thackney]

I have taught in Urban, suburban and rural districts. I will agree with you about the urban and some of the suburban students. The vast majority of the urban ones are just occupying space. going through the motions to get by and the same is true for the about 30 percent of the Burbs kids. But in the rural districts the opposite is true. Most of them work on the family farm or a neighbors farm and know the meaning of hard work. When i worked up north it took me about a day to figure out who were the "Townies" and who were the farmers. In five years I saw maybe 2 townies on the football and wrestling teams.

We moved from a typical suburb to a mostly rural, oldest daughter in the former, youngest in the latter.  Our rural HS has a significant amount of very poor, and over half the school defined as economically disadvantaged.  We moved for the Ag, very strong FFA program.  But it is still a minority of students who are actually involved in Ag.

[LMAO]

If the fight over what to do is as intense as it is in this  little forum, imagine the intensity when it’s  being debated in the halls of Congress or even the nation as a whole

[verga]

We moved from a typical suburb to a mostly rural, oldest daughter in the former, youngest in the latter.  Our rural HS has a significant amount of very poor, and over half the school defined as economically disadvantaged.  We moved for the Ag, very strong FFA program.  But it is still a minority of students who are actually involved in Ag.

That is very surprising, in my school (student pop. about 770) I would say we have about 200+ in the FFA, about 100 participate in contests. All the guys want to do Ag Mech, the want to do Small animal or Horticulture. Having a hard time recruiting for Parle. I have been doing some recruiting for Ag Dept.

[thackney]

That is very surprising, in my school (student pop. about 770) I would say we have about 200+ in the FFA, about 100 participate in contests. All the guys want to do Ag Mech, the want to do Small animal or Horticulture. Having a hard time recruiting for Parle. I have been doing some recruiting for Ag Dept.

We are nearly 2,000 kids total.  We have 4 Ag teachers this year, up from 3.  So a minority of the population is still a significant amount of kids, but far from the majority of the school.  I just don't know the total numbers.

https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/angleton-isd/angleton-high-school/

[Jazzhead]

If the fight over what to do is as intense as it is in this  little forum, imagine the intensity when it’s  being debated in the halls of Congress or even the nation as a whole

There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists.  (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.)   Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .   

Of course,  most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights.   But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise".    There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.   

[skeeter]

There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists.  (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.)   Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .   

Of course,  most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights.   But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise".    There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.

Lol. You really need to stop evoking the Constitution as if it backs up your position here. It most definitely does not, quite on the contrary.

Your argument has more in common with that of the abortion absolutists, in fact. Both of you read things into the Constitution that just aren't there.

[Sanguine]

There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists.  (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.)   Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .   

Of course,  most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights.   But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise".    There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.

Jazzhead, a bit of friendly advice - you need to stay out of this discussion.  You don't have a clue, and you don't have a clue that you don't have a clue.

[thackney]

There are obvious parallels between 2A absolutists and abortion rights absolutists.  (I'll use that term instead of "extremist", which appears to ruffle feathers around here.)   Neither will abide any restriction or regulation of their favored right (while, in what can only be described as hypocrisy, often seeking to abolish entirely the right they disfavor) .   

Of course,  most citizens see the need for reasonable and constitutionally-sound regulation of both rights.   But it is the absolutists who man the barricades and condemn those who dare to speak common sense as weak advocates of "compromise".    There's no dirtier word to an absolutist.

When we already follow thousands of laws on gun regulations already, I don't see how you claim we won't accept any regulations or restrictions.  But there seems to be no end of the ever chipping away of the law abiding citizens rights.  You demonize us with such hyperbole that doesn't reflect reality.

[aligncare]

Jazzhead, a bit of friendly advice - you need to stay out of this discussion.  You don't have a clue, and you don't have a clue that you don't have a clue.

That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead

He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.

These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.

[Sanguine]

That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead

He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.

These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.

Well, something else we disagree about.

[txradioguy]

That’s a demeaning thing to say to @Jazzhead

He doesn’t deserve that characterization. His point of view is shared by many in both parties and the non affiliated, opinion polls suggest.

These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.

So it's ok for him to refer to people as extremists absolutists and lawless but someone telling him he's clueless is a no go?

[austingirl]

So it's ok for him to refer to people as extremists absolutists and lawless but someone telling him he's clueless is a no go?

Rules for radicals would approve.

[txradioguy]

Rules for radicals would approve.

Good point.

[roamer_1]

These folks, my relatives, friends and neighbors) are equal American participants in our republic’s politics. And we’ve got to learn to negotiate with them the way Reagan did, by bringing people on board, not by trying to kick them off the train.

@aligncare
No, first thing y'all have to do is to quit trying this crap at the federal level. If you want to impose limits in your state or municipality (no doubt like you already have) then knock yourself out. But don't think your priorities are equally shared across the country, even if there are more people in metro areas. Your ways don't work around here.

NOBODY has trigger locks, and few, other than collectors, have gun safes. And most guns not in storage are loaded and ready to go (My big iron is clean and unloaded and stored until hunting season). There has been a loaded 45 above my right hand on my headboard through my whole life, to include when children were in the house, as well as a loaded short shotgun hanging above the exterior door, and a long pump shotgun inside the closet. When you need em, you need em now.

And with a 30/30 and a .357mag that live in the truck, and all the rest I have laying around, I have never had a gun stolen, with the exception of 2 shotguns my former gunsmith ran off with when he split town, And a 45 colt that got confiscated by the cops after my involvement in a fist fight over in Spokane Wa.

Guns are just part of every day life out here, and that CANNOT change.

Your negotiations are meant to take place in your state, and not at the federal level. This country is way, way too big and diverse to dictate a one-size-fits-all solution. As long as you reject the natural federalism that is supposed to be the norm, there can be no negotiations. What y'all want doesn't work where you are, so why the hell do you think it will work here? When you have something that provably works, then other states may well adopt it. That is how this is supposed to be.

Predictably your federal dictates and impositions will be summarily ignored by most rural states, and that is the least damaging outcome. Certainly the Rockies will give you the finger. At the worst, civil war - and y'all are pushing for it HARD.

Mind your own business and write your idiotic laws for yourself. Leave me and mine out of it.
I am imposing nothing on you. It would be right neighborly if you did the same.

[sneakypete]

As is everyone who has ever put on a uniform! As far as I know, none have ever been released from that oath.

@Bigun

If I have ever been released from it,nobody told me about it.

[sneakypete]

Fair question.

The Baker Act - which permits the voluntary and involuntary temporary commitment of someone who is mentally incompetent --  is only the law in Florida, so you'd have to make a national version.  Assuming you did that, there are two problems:

1) It is entirely possible that the person in question is not so mentally impaired that they meet the high standards mental illness standards required under the Baker Act.  They're just an extraordinarily dangerous, angry a-hole.  Perhaps they are just a committed Islamic radical, Antifa goon, or Nazi who has published a desire to kill people with guns.  Or just some really pissed off, antisocial young adult who talks about shooting up schools.  The Baker Act is useless against all those people.

2) The Baker Act permits involuntary commitment via an ex parte court order, meaning you don't even get a say before you're locked up.  That level of due process...isn't.  How is it better for an accused gun owner to be thrown in jail as "insane" rather than be temporarily deprived of a gun?  That's what the Soviets did -- define conduct they didn't like as insanity, and then just have people committed.

@Maj. Bill Martin

This whole discussion makes my head hurt. If you are arrested,they automatically take your weapons from you,and you don't get them back without a court order.

If you are a suspect in a violent crime the cops generally get a court order to seize all your weapons until the court releases you and the weapons.

Sooooo,WTH is everybody arguing about? There is nothing new about this. It was SOP back in the 1800's.

OOOPS! That's right,I forgot. The 'murikan left equates gun owners to criminal suspects or outright criminals merely BECAUSE they own a gun,and they want the line between suspect and citizen to be so narrow as to be non-existant.

Bad,sneakypete,bad!

[roamer_1]

Sooooo,WTH is everybody arguing about? There is nothing new about this. It was SOP back in the 1800's.

They want federal red flag powers.

[sneakypete]

They want federal red flag powers.

@roamer_1

I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.

Right now 'red flag' laws are local to county or municipality, and vary state to state, county to county, etc. They are looking for a universal federal law.

And they are looking for a lesser reasonable cause, lesser level of proof, and a larger pool of athoratative witnesses that have standing.

So my ex wife can make crap up and use the feds to swirl me down the tubes for crap I ain't done yet... And don't think she won't.

[Sanguine]

@roamer_1

I must be even slower than usual today,because I still don't get it.

They want the federal government to be able to confiscate the guns of those flagged by a red flag "violation".

[sneakypete]

They want the federal government to be able to confiscate the guns of those flagged by a red flag "violation".

@Sanguine

Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?

First, it is without having committed a crime, and secondly, it would be the feds doing it, not your local police force. 

[roamer_1]

@Sanguine

Ok,I will admit to having a bad case of "chemo brain" today,but what is new about that? Once again,the cops confiscated all your firearms when you were arrested for felonies,even back in the 1800's. Granted,they didn't call it a "red flag violation" back then,but so what?

You are assumed to have committed felonies. The new standard is that you may be thinking of committing felonies... Or maybe just running your mouth down at the bar...

[sneakypete]

You are assumed to have committed felonies. The new standard is that you may be thinking of committing felonies... Or maybe just running your mouth down at the bar...

@roamer_1


Ahhhhhhh,now I get it!

Being charged or punished for something you MIGHT be thinking about doing changes everything.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1


Ahhhhhhh,now I get it!

Being charged or punished for something you MIGHT be thinking about doing changes everything.

Yeah, don't it?