National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
THOMAS MASSIE & JOHN R. LOTT JR.
August 12, 2019


Everyone is sick of mass public shootings in the United States. Enough is enough. Everyone, including us, is incredibly frustrated.

But let’s do something that doesn’t make the problem worse.

With President Trump’s endorsement, Senate Republicans are moving forward with one law that they hope will help — a so-called “red-flag” law, advancing on the federal level what are known as “extreme risk protection orders.” Ohio’s governor also came out and endorsed such a law for his state after the attack.

Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, or ex to house- or apartment-mates or a police officer can file a complaint. Under Colorado’s recent law, anyone at all can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before him is the statement of concern.

While Trump emphasized mental health in last week’s speech about the Texas and Ohio shootings, red-flag laws are not specifically about mental illness. Indeed, only one state law even mentions the term. It’s about figuring out who is going to commit a crime (or suicide). This is the realm of science fiction, and is the theme of the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. At least the Future Crime division in the movie had the help of psychics.

Seventeen states have now adopted these laws. Thirteen states passed these laws since Parkland last year.

During the first nine months after Florida passed its red-flag law last year, judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect on October 1, more than 300 people had their guns confiscated. In one case in Arundel County, a 61-year-old man died when the police stormed his home at 5 a.m. to take away his guns. Connecticut and Indiana, which have had these laws in effect for the longest time, have seen increasingly large numbers of confiscation orders.

Little certainty is needed. Initial confiscations often require just a “reasonable suspicion,” which is little more than a guess or a hunch. When hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. These laws make no provisions to cover legal costs, and many people facing these charges do not retain counsel.

These laws let the government take firearms away from people who are arrested but not convicted of crimes. Even simple complaints without arrests have been enough.
That is quite a violation of due process, and hopefully the courts will strike down this provision. Gun-control advocates have resisted making this rule explicit in the laws, presumably out of fear that it would create problems in the courts, but presentations before the State Uniform Law Commission make it clear that these actions are quite common. Also, courts frequently take into account other factors, such as gender and age, in predicting the chances that someone will commit a crime or commit suicide. This can be seen as a discriminatory practice.

It has always been possible to take away someone’s guns, but all 50 states have required testimony by a mental-health expert before a judge. Under red-flag laws, however, expert testimony will no longer be used. Gun-control advocates argue that it’s essential not even to alert the person that his guns may be taken away. Hence, the 5 a.m. police raids.

When people really pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they should be confined to a mental-health facility. Simply denying them the legal right to buy a gun isn’t a serious remedy. If you think you are any more likely to stop criminals from getting guns than illegal drugs, you are mistaken. The same drug dealers sell both, and gangs are a major source of guns. Mentally ill individuals can also use other weapons, such as cars.

Guns are certainly not the only way for mentally unstable people to commit suicide. Many substitutes are as effective. Very effective poisons such as cyanide are readily available.

These laws may damage trust between people. In the absence of a red-flag law, a person contemplating homicide or suicide might speak to a friend or family member and be dissuaded from that course of action. But now that person may fear that the authorities will be tipped off. As a result, some of these individuals may not seek help and instead may go on to kill themselves or others.

Police are also often depressed on the job, and it’s not right for them to worry that they might lose their jobs if they share their feelings.

Liberals understand this point when it comes to something such as AIDS. They know that the threat of quarantining may discourage infected people from seeking medical help. But they seem unaware that the threat of early-morning raids and leaving people defenseless might engender similar problems.

Despite the sacrifices, the evidence shows no benefits from red-flag laws. Looking at data from 1970 through 2017, these laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, mass-public-shooting fatalities, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. These laws do not save lives.

As a whole, the rest of the world has much higher murder rates from mass public shootings than does the U.S. This includes major European countries such as France, Finland, Russia, and Switzerland. Many of these countries also have much stricter gun-control laws, including bans on semi-automatic guns.

Everyone wants to stop mass public shooters. But we haven’t previously punished people on the basis of little more than a hunch, without any specific guidelines in place. Stopping “future crimes” didn’t work in the movies, and it doesn’t work in real life.


Thomas Massie represents Kentucky’s fourth district in the House of Representatives. John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of The War on Guns.




https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...S0BixnzRGnooyTA_DYvZNmt8L0Zbi7P9Q0Bfv8hf4rgjo
 

·
Live Free
Joined
·
3,503 Posts
These types of laws can and will be used to take guns away from law abiding owners. Some Republicans might even think they are doing a good thing (I do not trust any of them) with this sort of nonsense, when, in reality, they are opening the door for anti-gun liberals to take away guns without violating the 2nd. Amendment because they are circumventing it. But they do violate due process in a huge and ugly manner by allowing complaints or suspicions to be raised without any consideration of the rights of the individuals. This is an underhanded way of getting at people’s guns with a law that supposedly is seeking the safety of the masses and possibly suicide prevention. Everything about this smells of underlying treachery that will be seen clearly, only after the laws are enacted. This is just political maneuvering to get around the Constitution. It is bovine defecation! I suggest they take their Red Flag laws and “enjoy them like a suppository.”
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,541 Posts
When they come in at 5:00 AM, somebody’s going to get hurt. Miss understandings and surprised gun owners could go real bad. They’ll claim victory but not everyone will go home that night. These laws can not be enacted. It’s a recipe for disaster for both sides and will not prevent any of these mass shootings.
Make no mistake. This time it’s not going away with out throwing the anti’s and the ignorant a bone. They won’t stop after they get one and all they need is another shooting and they’ll be back for more. This is a very dark day for gun owners.
Who will be our hero? Who will prove that a good guy with a gun is better than a unarmed sheep ripe for the slaughter? We are on the loosing side of this battle. This is exactly what the anti’s and power hungry have been waiting for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,913 Posts
You should have your day in court and be able to face your accusers before gun confiscation can happen.
Set up special courts that can see cases in 48hrs.
Also the accusers should do jail time and pay huge fines for false accusations.
And get sued up the wazoo.
Not a perfect solution, but better than what they are planning to ram down our throats
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
'red flags" are useless, there have been plenty of "red flags" before almost all the shootings and nothing was done to stop them.
What do statistics show about how many red flags were processed in the courts and either failed to prevent a shooting after the guns were confiscated, or successfully prevented a shooting after the guns were confiscated.

Don't we need those numbers to make an informed opinion?

Note: I can't find any statistics.

I do, however, use Colorado's law as a template:

Colorado’s law generally ensures that the process for restricting firearm access via a red flag law has the same protections in place as its process for involuntarily committing someone to mental health treatment.

Once a petition is filed for a yearlong order, the court must hold a hearing within 14 days.

There, the defendant is entitled to legal counsel and the full array of due process protections for a civil commitment hearing—including the right to testify, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses.

The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a significant risk of danger because of his access to firearms.

If the petition is for a 14-day emergency order, the hearing must be held within one court day, but it may be done without the defendant present.

The burden of proof is also lower, at a preponderance of the evidence. However, the petitioner must show that the risk of harm is in the “near future,” and must seek a full-fledged hearing for a yearlong order or else the emergency order expires after 14 days and the individual must have their firearms returned.

Orders don’t renew automatically, and any petitioner who requests a renewal must again show that the person is still a significant risk of danger.

If a petition is granted, the defendant may later request that the court remove the order before its expiration date and show that he is no longer a risk of danger.

It is common in all civil and criminal procedures for the person appealing a decision to bear the burden of proof.

In short, there is nothing out of the ordinary or fundamentally lacking in terms of due process prior to the temporary restriction of an individual’s rights under this law.
ALERT: Op-Ed

I don't think red flag gun laws are the solution to mass shootings. I do think they might help with suicides, which is the number one cause of death by gun.
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,659 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
  • Like
Reactions: BigNastyCowboy

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,745 Posts
I am still of the opinion that "Red Flag" type of laws are extremely dangerous for law abiding gun owners. They are like a closed and locked door of which the key is being held by politicians, and some politicians ( Most likely DemocRATS) will be more than happy to use such key to open the door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigNastyCowboy

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
I am still of the opinion that "Red Flag" type of laws are extremely dangerous for law abiding gun owners. They are like a closed and locked door of which the key is being held by politicians, and some politicians ( Most likely DemocRATS) will be more than happy to use such key to open the door.
I don't think so.

Red flag gun laws vary by state:

Red-flag laws typically allow petitions to a judge to temporarily remove a gun from someone believed to be dangerous. A temporary confiscation order is usually followed by a hearing at which the judge weighs barring the person from having a gun for a longer period.

In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-
removal orders ...
Roughly a dozen states have adopted laws that empower household members to seek the petitions, while a few states also allow mental-health workers to do so.
"... key is being held by politicians ..."

Politicians can't file solely on their standing as being a politician.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
I don't think so.

Red flag gun laws vary by state:

*snip*

In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-
removal orders ...
*snip*

"... key is being held by politicians ..."

Politicians can't file solely on their standing as being a politician.
So, you're saying that in those three states only the government can petition the government to take your guns without due process. That's going to work well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
So, you're saying that in those three states only the government can petition the government to take your guns without due process. That's going to work well.
Don't change my narrative. I don't change yours.

So, I'm saying In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-
removal orders ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Don't change my narrative. I don't change yours.

So, I'm saying In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-
removal orders ...
Ok, so let me say it differently. Based on what you're saying, I am saying that in Florida, Rhode Island, and Vermont, only the government can petition the government to take a person's guns away without due process. I don't think that's going to work out well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Ok, so let me say it differently. Based on what you're saying, I am saying that in Florida, Rhode Island, and Vermont, only the government can petition the government to take a person's guns away without due process. I don't think that's going to work out well.
I'm not the one who's saying it. Talk to Grace, OK?

Who can petition for a firearm to be removed?

California: Family, household members and law enforcement
Colorado: Family, household members and law enforcement
Connecticut: One state attorney or any two police officers
Delaware: Family, household members and law enforcement
District of Columbia: Family, household members, mental health professionals and law enforcement
Florida: Law enforcement
Hawaii: Family, household members, teachers, medical professionals, coworkers and law enforcement
Illinois: Family, household members and law enforcement
Indiana: Law enforcement
Maryland: Family, household members, certain health professionals and law enforcement
Massachusetts: Family, household members and law enforcement
Nevada: Family, household members and law enforcement
New Jersey: Family, household members and law enforcement
New York: Family, household members, school administrators and law enforcement
Oregon: Family, household members and law enforcement
Rhode Island: Law enforcement
Vermont: State attorneys or the office of the state attorney general
Washington: Family, household members and law enforcement

By Grace Segers
Updated on: August 9, 2019
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
I'm not the one who's saying it. Talk to Grace, OK?

Who can petition for a firearm to be removed?

California: Family, household members and law enforcement
Colorado: Family, household members and law enforcement
Connecticut: One state attorney or any two police officers
Delaware: Family, household members and law enforcement
District of Columbia: Family, household members, mental health professionals and law enforcement
Florida: Law enforcement
Hawaii: Family, household members, teachers, medical professionals, coworkers and law enforcement
Illinois: Family, household members and law enforcement
Indiana: Law enforcement
Maryland: Family, household members, certain health professionals and law enforcement
Massachusetts: Family, household members and law enforcement
Nevada: Family, household members and law enforcement
New Jersey: Family, household members and law enforcement
New York: Family, household members, school administrators and law enforcement
Oregon: Family, household members and law enforcement
Rhode Island: Law enforcement
Vermont: State attorneys or the office of the state attorney general
Washington: Family, household members and law enforcement

By Grace Segers
Updated on: August 9, 2019
Ok, I'm not going to play the word games. I tried to respect your request to not change your words - though I really didn't think I did that anyway - but now you're moving the goalposts again. It's just a diversion to keep the discussion from focusing on the evil of red-flag laws.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top