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.

[roamer_1]

So your position is that nothing can be done [...] 

You can commit him on grounds, or you can arrest him on grounds.
If you don't have evidence enough to do that, what makes you think you have the evidence to take his property?

and if something is tried to be done,  folks like you will decide to be lawless.

That would be a rogue government operating under the color of law, and no, I will not comply. See our founding document for where my duty lies.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@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.

That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him.  Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.

In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point.  There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them.   Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others"  -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically.  I also think it's stupid policy.

The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc..  But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.

[rustynail]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!

[txradioguy]

"Law abiding citizens?"  Hah!

Again Jazzy you don't get to corrupt the language.  I'm a law abiding gun owner.  Something you don't seem to have the slightest idea about.

I'm also sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  So defending that Bill of Rights isn't just some word salad game or a thought exercise to me on an internet chat board like it is to you.

[roamer_1]

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

On what charge do you take his property and for how long?

[Elderberry]

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?

And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.

If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You can commit him on grounds, or you can arrest him on grounds.

What kind of "grounds" are you talking about? Coffee grounds? 

You can't arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime, and you can't lock someone up for mental incompetency if they're just an bleep rather than mentally incompetent.

Also, I hardly see how you've made things better for gun owners if we say "well, you can have red flag laws to toss gun owners in jail indefinitely.  You just can't take their guns."

[libertybele]

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.

No.  I never stated that nothing could be done.  What I have stated is to absolutely leave the 2nd amendment alone and instead of attacking innocent gun owners, we need to increase mental health awareness, increase affordable hospitals and treatments centers; especially with after treatment programs that will help them deal with their afflictions.

To think that no person who is mentally ill will never be able to obtain a weapon is just plain illogical and absurd.  Red flag laws will do absolutely nothing to hamper them getting their hands on what they want.

As for due process -- Perhaps you didn't understand; Trump is for confiscation first and due process later.  If you're ok with that, then you ARE willing to give up rights under the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments.  I'm not ok with that. 

Our Constitution clearly lays out the Bill of Rights.  ALL of those rights should NOT be infringed period.

Did you even watch the video??  It may open your eyes a little and perhaps you may be able to begin to comprehend what's at stake.

As I stated before, it's ok for the left to approve late term abortions and abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected which in general murder far more innocents than those that happen randomly by a mass shooter....I don't see anyone on the left advocating to fully repeal Roe v. Wade ... yet they are attacking the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments.  Go figure.

In my books, I see it as rather warped thinking.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.

If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.

Of course you are.  Because you want to duck the hard choices that will force you to either change your position, or defend something that is indefensible.

[roamer_1]

It's extraordinarily difficult. 

As it should be. Likewise taking a man's property without cause.

[Bigun]

Again Jazzy you don't get to corrupt the language.  I'm a law abiding gun owner.  Something you don't seem to have the slightest idea about.

I'm also sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. So defending that Bill of Rights isn't just some word salad game or a thought exercise to me on an internet chat board like it is to you.

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

[Bigun]

And what if in his conversion to Islam he develops an extreme hatred of dogs. His neighbor blows him away for killing one of his dogs.

If you can change the circumstances of the "What if" I can too. I'm done.

I'm with you @Elderberry! These circular arguments get REAL tiresome REAL quick!

[txradioguy]

That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him.  Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.

No what he's been doing is corrupting the language.  Broad brushing any and all law abiding gun owners who support the Second Amendment as written as "extremists"...and now this morning he's referring to anyone who might bristle at these red flag laws as "lawless".  That's straight from the Alinsky playbook.

I'm counter punching against someone trying to turn on it's head who is the extremist and who is the sensible in this debate.

And in all of his gun grabbing schemes not once has he addressed or seemed to care about the impact of these laws or his insurance and registration schemes would have on the poor and or minorities who live in the areas where protection against crime is needed most.  he just skips right over that question when posed to him like it never happened.

I've addressed the issue at length with him...nut as usual he's into circular debate and igrnores anything that threatens his little echo chamber.

In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point.  There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them.   Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others"  -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically.  I also think it's stupid policy.

Then enforce the laws that are already in place.  As is pointed out continuously when these shootings happen...non of the proposed laws would prevent what happened.  No registry or insurance requirement or red flag law is going to stop someone hell bent on committing mass murder against a group of innocent people. 

Anyone who thinks they've got the perfect solution to prevent it is on a fools errand.

The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc..  But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.

Why not just enforce to the fullest the 22K laws already on the books concerning the ownership and usage of a firearm?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@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.

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.

[roamer_1]

What kind of "grounds" are you talking about? Coffee grounds?

You can't arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime, and you can't lock someone up for mental incompetency if they're just an bleep rather than mentally incompetent.

Guess what? Then you can't take their damn property either. If he has done nothing wrong, and he's not off his rocker, then you've no cause to bother him...

Also, I hardly see how you've made things better for gun owners if we say "well, you can have red flag laws to toss gun owners in jail indefinitely.  You just can't take their guns."

Hell no you can't have red flag laws to throw him in jail. What a dumbass idea.

You have two ways to deprive a man of his rights - Criminal due process, or mental due process.
work with that and quit trying to convict a man for what he has not done.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Then enforce the laws that are already in place.  As is pointed out continuously when these shootings happen...none of the proposed laws would prevent what happened.  No registry or insurance requirement or red flag law is going to stop someone hell bent on committing mass murder against a group of innocent people.

That's true of some of the proposed laws.  And no law is going to stop every single potential incident.  But that's kind of the same flawed logic as the left uses against the idea of a border wall.  "Well, some people are going to figure out a way around, under, through, or over it, so it's useless."  Just because a law won't stop everything doesn't mean that a reasonable law shouldn't be available to stop the ones that could be stopped. 

Why not just enforce to the fullest the 22K laws already on the books concerning the ownership and usage of a firearm?

Which of those laws would stop the homegrown radical Islamist in my hypothetical?  Because I think most people would agree that is something we should be able to stop.

[verga]

BKMK

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Guess what? Then you can't take their damn property either. If he has done nothing wrong, and he's not off his rocker, then you've no cause to bother him...

Okay.  You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.

Impasse.

[roamer_1]

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. 

What is it with you people and federal level laws? What the hell business do you have imposing your crap on people a thousand miles away?

Mind your own damn business. Mess up your state all you want. Leave me and mine alone.

[txradioguy]

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:

Each state already has some kind of involuntary/72 hour hold type of law for people with mental disorders correct?

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.

Ok you're going apples and oranges here.  But in any case...an involuntary 48 or 72 hour psych hold...something most states already have would give them time to figure out whether said person is mentally disturbed and needs to be placed in a psych hospital or is one of the others you sdescribed and needs to cool their heels in the county lockup.

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.

If the person is truly mentally unstable then a psych hold and subsequent admission ot a mental hospital has saved the public from another tragedy.

The types of abuses you describe the old USSR doing to anyone they don't like...is exactly what people fear about Red Flag laws.  It's completely naive to think that they won't be abused.  They already are being abused where they are in place.  It's why you see so many Sheriff's Departments beginning to refuse to enforce them when they are passed by a state.

My point is...we don't need another new law just to show we've "done something".  We have the laws in place to handle these things....had them for years.

How about we jsut start enforcing them?

[thackney]

That's a convenient way to dodge the issue -- attacking one person who is making the argument because you don't like him.  Maybe you don't like me either, but I'm not a liberal.

In this case, I think @Jazzhead made a going point.  There are clearly some circumstances under which the vast majority of citizens -- even if not the particular people in this thread -- would agree that someone should have guns taken away from them.   Making the argument that "under no circumstances should someone ever be deprived of their guns regardless of the threat they present to others" -- which is the essence of what is being argued here -- is massive loser politically.  I also think it's stupid policy.

The right argument is to permit red flag laws, but only those with strong due process guarantees, a "shall return" legal mechanism that doesn't require the gun owner to sue to get his stuff back, but rather places the burden on the government to periodically prove their case all over again, expedited appeals, etc..  But if you refuse to enter into any discussion for red flag laws of any kind at all, then you're going to let the gun grabbers draft all those laws by themselves, and we'll end up with something much, much worse.

To be clear, that is NOT what I propose.  There is existing law to remove people from society with due process for substantiated threats to others.  If it is planned mass murder, that fits terrorism statues.

They will not have access to their guns, or vehicles, or fertilizer bombs, or airplanes, or pressure cookers, etc...

Stop ignoring crazy people and pretending their threatening behaviour doesn't matter.

[roamer_1]

Okay.  You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.

Impasse.

Impasse indeed. I will never agree with mind police, convicting people for what they have not done.
Careful what you are opening up... The precedent you are setting will have long range unintended consequences.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As for due process -- Perhaps you didn't understand; Trump is for confiscation first and due process later.  If you're ok with that, then you ARE willing to give up rights under the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments.  I'm not ok with that. 

I'm not sure that's the case, but in any event, I don't support that at all, and I'm not advocating for that. 

I'm advocating for strict red flag laws that would include things like 1) mandatory due process 2) expedited appeals 3) mandatory return of weapons/ammo built into the law rather than requiring a suit to be filed, 4) damages/penalties mandatory when an order is determine on appeal to have been wrongly granted, etc. etc..

My concern is that if those of us who want to protect gun rights and gun owners just take a blanket position of "we're not even going to discuss red flag laws no matter how many built-in protections there are", then we're out of the debate, and the laws that will be enacted will likely be much, much worse.

[txradioguy]

That's true of some of the proposed laws.  And no law is going to stop every single potential incident.  But that's kind of the same flawed logic as the left uses against the idea of a border wall.  "Well, some people are going to figure out a way around, under, through, or over it, so it's useless."  Just because a law won't stop everything doesn't mean that a reasonable law shouldn't be available to stop the ones that could be stopped.

 The focus is in the wrong place with everyone wanting new laws just to have new laws.  Where's the focus on the criminal element.  The people who don't give a rats ass abot any law you or anyone else would like to see passed?

While everyone is going apoplectic over the shootings in El Paso and Dayton...80 people were shot in Chicago the same weekend.  One hospital ER was treating so many gunshot victims they had to stop accepting new trauma cases.

Baltimore just had it's 200th homicide of the year last week.  It's on pace to hit 300...for the fourth year in a row.

I haven't heard one politician or anyone on here backing these red flag laws say anything about that.  All I keep hearing are new schemes to take guns away from and restrict the usage of firearms from law abiding citizens trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Wonder why that is?

Which of those laws would stop the homegrown radical Islamist in my hypothetical?  Because I think most people would agree that is something we should be able to stop.

Which of the news laws the Libs keep proposing would stop any of the mass shootings we've had in even the last decade?

Answer: None.

[thackney]

Okay.  You think the homegrown radical Islamist with all the guns who is making online threats about going out and killing a bunch of American kids should be able to keep his guns anyway, and I don't.

Impasse.

Section 806 of the Patriot Act should already cover this individual.  Already law to seizes assets without a prior hearing, and without them ever being convicted of a crime.

https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism