The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: OfTheCross on October 02, 2019, 12:40:26 am
-
Because of this, we must demand that red flag laws use narrow definitions of “dangerousness†that focus on patterns of objectively dangerous behaviors. In particular, laws that paint gun ownership as inherently suspect—such as by allowing judges to consider the recent purchase of a firearm as a factor indicating “dangerousnessâ€â€”should be rejected. So should any broad criteria that would result in disarmament because of disfavored, vulgar, or politically incorrect speech.
Moreover, because these laws involve restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right, they should require that allegations of dangerousness meet high burdens of proof, such as clear and convincing evidence.
Other types of traditional due process protections, such as the right to an attorney and to cross-examine witnesses, should be afforded as well.
<Snip> Remember to excerpt articles.
dailysignal (https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/09/28/whats-in-a-good-red-flag-law/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=whats-in-a-good-red-flag-law)
Some reasonable recommendations...
-
Due process ... which "Red Flag" laws bypass. IOW "Red Flag" laws are Oh-Hell-No! grade and unconstitutional on their face.
-
Due process ... which "Red Flag" laws bypass. IOW "Red Flag" laws are Oh-Hell-No! grade and unconstitutional on their face.
Exactly right.
888high58888
-
There is no such thing as a good red flag law.
-
And you don't go writing hot checks down in Mississippi
-
What’s in a Good Red Flag Law
Nothing. There's no such thing as a "good" Red Flag law.
-
No such thing. These ideas are designed to gut the Constitution.
-
Some reasonable recommendations...
NOPE no such thing. Every state already has involuntary confinement laws. We don't need any more.
-
Hmmmm. Another "Post and Run" topic.
*hmmmm*
-
Hmmmm. Another "Post and Run" topic.
*hmmmm*
Gibbs rule #39.
-
Gibbs rule #39.
Well I'll be... I asked Google Assistant what that was, and I only had to ask her twice... The second time using a midwestern voice... Did you ever notice when the dang thing gets it wrong, you need to talk louder the next time?
-
Gibbs rule #39.
40 applies, too.
There is no such thing a a 'good' Red Flag law, and no changes to one (except total repeal) will make it reasonable.
If people are threatening (specific threats against people, for instance), certifiably insane, violently insane, then adjudicate that.
Once that has been done, they cannot own firearms.
-
There are some reasonable suggestions in the OP article. Conspicuous by its absence is any recommendation about just who can file a complaint under a red flag law. I think only family members and law enforcement officers should be able to file complaints. I don't necessarily trust third party actors, such as teachers, employers and mental health professionals to have the needed perspective. Such individuals should be required to have their concerns vetted through law enforcement.
I don't have any illusions that red flag laws will stop mass shootings. Where they have real potential is in preventing suicides.
-
There are some reasonable suggestions in the OP article. Conspicuous by its absence is any recommendation about just who can file a complaint under a red flag law. I think only family members and law enforcement officers should be able to file complaints. I don't necessarily trust third party actors, such as teachers, employers and mental health professionals to have the needed perspective. Such individuals should be required to have their concerns vetted through law enforcement.
I don't have any illusions that red flag laws will stop mass shootings. Where they have real potential is in preventing suicides.
Suicides and domestic violence murders
-
Suicides and domestic violence murders
Yes, agreed. But it's dishonest, I think, to pitch these laws as tools against mass shootings. If the problem that is focused on is suicides/domestic violence, then laws can be narrowly and Constitutionally tailored. To work with respect to mass shootings, the laws would necessarily be overbroad and lacking in due process protections.
-
Yes, agreed. But it's dishonest, I think, to pitch these laws as tools against mass shootings. If the problem that is focused on is suicides/domestic violence, then laws can be narrowly and Constitutionally tailored. To work with respect to mass shootings, the laws would necessarily be overbroad and lacking in due process protections.
I think the key to preventing either is to focus on the person, not so much the firearms. If someone is showing signs of being suicidal or homicidal, the person is what needs to be confined and helped, the guns would be moot.
-
I think the key to preventing either is to focus on the person, not so much the firearms. If someone is showing signs of being suicidal or homicidal, the person is what needs to be confined and helped, the guns would be moot.
Ideally, perhaps, but it is expensive and difficult to confine a person against his or her wishes. it is easier and more efficient to take away temporarily the tools by which he/she can do harm.
-
Ideally, perhaps, but it is expensive and difficult to confine a person against his or her wishes. it is easier and more efficient to take away temporarily the tools by which he/she can do harm.
We hve been through this before. That ranges from kitchen knives to crowbars, right up to rental trucks full of fertilizer and fuel oil. You can't get every weapon from the inventive and crazy. There is just too much out there that can be made from everyday stuff.
-
Ideally, perhaps, but it is expensive and difficult to confine a person against his or her wishes. it is easier and more efficient to take away temporarily the tools by which he/she can do harm.
Just the first tool, but in no way really restricts them from doing harm.
-
We hve been through this before. That ranges from kitchen knives to crowbars, right up to rental trucks full of fertilizer and fuel oil. You can't get every weapon from the inventive and crazy. There is just too much out there that can be made from everyday stuff.
You do the best you can. A gun is an extraordinarily convenient and efficient killing machine. Statistics show both its ubiquity and lethality with respect to suicides.
It is bogus to suggest that because you cannot solve every problems you shouldn't try to solve one.
-
It is bogus to suggest that because you cannot solve every problems you shouldn't try to solve one.
It's also bogus to suggest and/or believe that punishing law abiding citizens instead of tackling the real issues that lead to mass shootings and violent acts somehow solves anything.
-
It's also bogus to suggest and/or believe that punishing law abiding citizens instead of tackling the real issues that lead to mass shootings and violent acts somehow solves anything.
I advocate red flag laws with robust due process protections. I am not trying to "punish law abiding citizens". That ridiculous trope has been transformed into a perpetual whine from gun owners over the least little thing the community might want to do to address suicides and domestic violence.
-
I advocate red flag laws with robust due process protections. I am not trying to "punish law abiding citizens". That ridiculous trope has been transformed into a perpetual whine from gun owners over the least little thing the community might want to do to address suicides and domestic violence.
That "ridiculous trope" will persist as long as punishing innocent people remains the primary motivation of the gun-grabbers. If "robust protections" exclude due process prior to confiscation you can count on resistance from gun owners.
-
I advocate red flag laws with robust due process protections. I am not trying to "punish law abiding citizens". That ridiculous trope has been transformed into a perpetual whine from gun owners over the least little thing the community might want to do to address suicides and domestic violence.
It's nor ridiculous and it's not a trope. That's just you're way of avoiding the reality of the Red Flag laws...reality being they don't work and are abused for personal vendettas.
Suicides and domestic violence? When the hell did this come up in the discussion?
Ok...I'll play along. Tell me counselor how many instances of domestic violence and suicides have the already enacted red flag laws stopped?
I'll ask you again since you've ducked it on this issue before...how do you know that a person's weapons seized in his home under one of these unconstitutional laws are the only ones he/she owns? What's to stop the person from keeping a gun or two in a location only known to them?
Lets take this a step further. Lets say you get all the firearms out of the house of someone who's been served under one of these Red Flag laws...what's to stop them from doing whatever they intended to do with a knife? Again an instance where the Red Flag laws...in addition to being unconstitutional are completely useless in preventing violence. I've got a couple of knives I carried on deployment that are more than capable of doing serious damage to someone were I to deploy them in a violent manner.
It's a feel good measure for the "do something" crowd.
-
Ideally, perhaps, but it is expensive and difficult to confine a person against his or her wishes. it is easier and more efficient to take away temporarily the tools by which he/she can do harm.
What is to stop me from going and getting more? How do you know you got all I have (you didn't, guaranteed)
If I wanted you dead, you're dead - There ain't no two ways about it. I have hunted and tracked and trapped my whole life. The only thing that will prevent that is being dead myself, or incarcerated with no means of communication.
All you'd do taking my guns (or rather, trying to) is piss me off even more.
All y'all are walking around in a fantasy.
Laws don't stop a damn thing, and never will...
-
I advocate red flag laws with robust due process protections.
There is no such thing.
If there as been no crime, there can be no indictment, and hence NO DUE PROCESS.
-
I think the key to preventing either is to focus on the person, not so much the firearms. If someone is showing signs of being suicidal or homicidal, the person is what needs to be confined and helped, the guns would be moot.
The USA today, lacks both the common sense, and the survival instict to confine people.
In CA a person can be confined for 72 hours, to be evaluated as a "danger to self or others."
To minimize the number, few truly dangerous people, will remain confined.
It is sort of an "experiment," to find the limit when somebody gets hurt.
-
You do the best you can. A gun is an extraordinarily convenient and efficient killing machine. Statistics show both its ubiquity and lethality with respect to suicides.
It is bogus to suggest that because you cannot solve every problems you shouldn't try to solve one.
All of those suicides, homicides, and mass killings have one thing in common. On the end of whatever is used to perpetrate them, from a burner phone setting off a bomb to a slasher attack in the subway, to some jerk shooting up a concert, or a drive by at a block party, each one of those incidents or events has a person who is NOT normal attacking others, or themselves.
In the meantime, there are people using similar devices all around the world with neither attempt nor intent to harm others, and without doing so. The devices are not the problem, counselor, though banning everything might seem like an easy fix.
Cain smote Abel with a rock. Are you going to ban rocks? (Lay off, d@mnit, I'm a pro!)
Instead of turning the world into a padded cell, how about we gather those in need of help and put them in an environment where they can get that?-- while the rest of humanity goes on living, with their stuff intact.
-
In the meantime, there are people using similar devices all around the world with neither attempt nor intent to harm others, and without doing so. The devices are not the problem, counselor, though banning everything might seem like an easy fix.
That's a dishonest straw man. I have never suggested banning all guns ("banning everything"). Indeed, I have strenuously urged that Congress take action to codify Heller, knowing full well that the Constitutional right you claim hangs by the thread of a 5 -4 SCOTUS majority.
And it is also a dishonest slippery slope argument to suggest that a law aimed narrowly at denying deadly implements to persons adjudged following due process of being a danger to themselves or others is a prelude to "banning everything". Debate the merits of the needed due process protections, but don't give me this crap that a well-drafted red flag law is going to take your precious guns away.
-
knowing full well that the Constitutional right you claim hangs by the thread of a 5 -4 SCOTUS majority.
Speaking of dishonest.
And it is also a dishonest slippery slope argument to suggest that a law aimed narrowly at denying deadly implements to persons adjudged following due process of being a danger to themselves or others is a prelude to "banning everything".
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." ~ John Heywood
-
.... don't give me this crap that a well-drafted red flag law is going to take your precious guns away.
You got that right, but not for the reason you think.
-
That's a dishonest straw man. I have never suggested banning all guns ("banning everything"). Indeed, I have strenuously urged that Congress take action to codify Heller, knowing full well that the Constitutional right you claim hangs by the thread of a 5 -4 SCOTUS majority.
And it is also a dishonest slippery slope argument to suggest that a law aimed narrowly at denying deadly implements to persons adjudged following due process of being a danger to themselves or others is a prelude to "banning everything". Debate the merits of the needed due process protections, but don't give me this crap that a well-drafted red flag law is going to take your precious guns away.
Frankly, I don't care what the SCOTUS says. The Second didn't grant the RKBA, it told the Government to keep its power hungry meathooks off it. The Right exists, and I aim to keep my property as well. Send an Army to take that property, and the meaning of the predicate clause is made clear: A well regulated (controlled) Militia (army) being necessary to the security of a Free State.... That Army, to paraphrase Federalist 46, is controlled by the overwhelming number of arms in the hands of The People, as the Founders intended...
Now, at what point would my understanding of the History and intent of the Second Amendment make me a "threat", even though I have never advocated firing a shot in anger? Considering that the people who would own us, lock, stock, and barrel, who would control every minute aspect of our lives, essentially making us all slaves of the State, might consider arms in the hands of any patriotic American to be "threatening", eventually, they would ban all arms, in any hands but their own.
Some doors to totalitarianism are best left closed. People have already died over this issue.
-
I listened to a discussion between Alan Keyes and Roy Moore today on this subject (red flag laws)...
I think about 18 or so minutes into the discussion (yep 18 minute mark)... Roy and Alan were both a pleasure to listen to talking about this... and right on subject about how dangerous this is. They talked about how the divisions of government had overstepped their bounds (especially Judicial). Like I said, two good folks I admire chewing the fat on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlu0e9ySN5A&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2Fv4j1KWqYeAJidTU520Ja7z_pgo_USFl2IfYoq2WSAMD9oUvo7XsFAmE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlu0e9ySN5A&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2Fv4j1KWqYeAJidTU520Ja7z_pgo_USFl2IfYoq2WSAMD9oUvo7XsFAmE)