About red flag laws
Why Red Flag Laws Are Not A Good Solution To Mass Shootings
The people who report your Twitter account and your Facebook pages because they dislike your opinion want you to trust a government-run system where people can, without serious penalty of law, report you and have your property confiscated before you’re allowed to defend yourself in court weeks, even months, later.
Politicians refer to law-abiding, gun-owning Americans as “domestic security threats,” yet want you to trust them with implementing such a system.
I’m talking about red flag laws and the risk they pose to due process–you know, those other rights after the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), have passed through a number of state legislatures across the country;
Sen. Marco Rubio has a somewhat new legislative proposal titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. Sen. Lindsay Graham joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal to co-sponsor red flag legislation;
even Rep. Dan Crenshaw has mentioned ERPOs for potential consideration.
There is nuance to be had here, for sure, but realize that it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of “innocent until proven guilty” to “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.”
The question isn’t whether these laws do this, the question is whether you feel comfortable giving up a cornerstone of our republic for a safety dependent upon enforcement by a government that has failed at this before.
The murderers in Parkland, Florida and Dayton, Ohio, are two recent examples.
These two monsters were walking red flags with access to firearms and yet, with all of the laws available to adjudicate them ineligible to carry or purchase guns, they continued unabated until the unthinkable.
They weren’t stopped.In fact, the Parkland murderer was coddled by a school district that pretended a refusal to report crime (thereby suppressing their criminal statistics) was the same thing as reducing crime,
and they received federal dollars for it. That murderer’s violent behavior (beating his adoptive mother, sending death threats to fellow students, and putting a gun to another person’s head, to list a few offenses) was so well known, teachers had a backup plan in case he decided to become threatening, and he was searched every morning after arriving at school.
We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes.
According to numerous local reports, had the previous Broward County sheriff performed his duties, case number 18-1958 would not have been able to legally purchase the rifle he used to carry out his evil.
From everything reported on the Dayton murderer, it seems barring him from legal purchase or possession of firearms by adjudicating him mentally unfit was entirely possible.
None of this is to say that nothing can be done.
To the contrary: I and others have spoken for some time about the need to ensure that the systems upon which we rely to stop heinous would-be criminals at the point of sale needs to be up-to-date with timely reporting of ineligible, violent cases.
This problem was pushed into the national spotlight after the horrific murders at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where an evil prohibited possessor took the lives of 26 innocents and injured 20 others.
That murderer was convicted of domestic assault during a court-martial and thus ineligible to legally purchase or carry a gun before his spree.
Yet because his record was not submitted to the federal database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is referenced during a background check at the point of sale when purchasing a firearm, he was able to legally purchase firearms.
The Air Force took responsibility and vowed a lengthy review and to never repeat the error.
The Chicago Tribune examined other cases of oversight wherein states and even government agencies failed to forward similar cases to the NCIC.For the system to properly work requires information.
For us to properly address why these awful tragedies keep occurring, we need to ask why and give that every effort instead of only ever focusing on the how, with no considerations for anything else.
We have a society that champions disrespect for life, abandons responsibility for one’s actions, a society that redefines criminal activity by calling it a “loophole” instead of what it is, a criminal act; a culture that is slowly accepting violence as a legitimate form of disagreement, a society where male role models are hard to find and there is a crisis among young men that isn’t attributable to video games
(are Republicans seriously entertaining the idea of exchanging gun control for game control?).
We need to fix these problems for our society to work properly.
I hope that those promoting red flag laws address these concerns and answer questions like:
What do red flag orders offer that our current legal options (civil commitments, TROs, et. al) do not?
Why a long 14-day waiting period (Rubio’s bill) to defend oneself in court?
Where are confiscated firearms to be kept – and if the answer is with local law enforcement, how are local enforcement agencies empowered to both store confiscated firearms and assume liability for that storage?
For friends of mine who have proposed Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO), how soon are respondents able to defend themselves against claims, particularly ex parte orders?
And with either ERPOs or GVROs, will any considerations be given to women defending themselves against domestic abusers who might misuse the system to render their victims defenseless?
How will GVROs be lifted – and doesn’t that still require the respondent to prove his or her innocence? Is anyone concerned that both of these proposals still invert the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
We all want to save lives and prevent terrorists, dangerously mentally unstable, or just plain evil people from carrying out horrific intentions.
If preserving innocent people’s right to defend themselves with force equal to that of their potential attacker is off the table, then how?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...-to-mass-shootings/ar-AAFq5je?ocid=spartanntp
It is good the other points are making to the headline news.
Politicians refer to law-abiding, gun-owning Americans as “domestic security threats,” yet want you to trust them with implementing such a system.
I’m talking about red flag laws and the risk they pose to due process–you know, those other rights after the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
Red flag laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), have passed through a number of state legislatures across the country;
Sen. Marco Rubio has a somewhat new legislative proposal titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. Sen. Lindsay Graham joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal to co-sponsor red flag legislation;
even Rep. Dan Crenshaw has mentioned ERPOs for potential consideration.
There is nuance to be had here, for sure, but realize that it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of “innocent until proven guilty” to “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.”
The question isn’t whether these laws do this, the question is whether you feel comfortable giving up a cornerstone of our republic for a safety dependent upon enforcement by a government that has failed at this before.
The murderers in Parkland, Florida and Dayton, Ohio, are two recent examples.
These two monsters were walking red flags with access to firearms and yet, with all of the laws available to adjudicate them ineligible to carry or purchase guns, they continued unabated until the unthinkable.
They weren’t stopped.In fact, the Parkland murderer was coddled by a school district that pretended a refusal to report crime (thereby suppressing their criminal statistics) was the same thing as reducing crime,
and they received federal dollars for it. That murderer’s violent behavior (beating his adoptive mother, sending death threats to fellow students, and putting a gun to another person’s head, to list a few offenses) was so well known, teachers had a backup plan in case he decided to become threatening, and he was searched every morning after arriving at school.
We didn’t need red flag laws to get either of these individuals before they committed their crimes.
According to numerous local reports, had the previous Broward County sheriff performed his duties, case number 18-1958 would not have been able to legally purchase the rifle he used to carry out his evil.
From everything reported on the Dayton murderer, it seems barring him from legal purchase or possession of firearms by adjudicating him mentally unfit was entirely possible.
None of this is to say that nothing can be done.
To the contrary: I and others have spoken for some time about the need to ensure that the systems upon which we rely to stop heinous would-be criminals at the point of sale needs to be up-to-date with timely reporting of ineligible, violent cases.
This problem was pushed into the national spotlight after the horrific murders at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where an evil prohibited possessor took the lives of 26 innocents and injured 20 others.
That murderer was convicted of domestic assault during a court-martial and thus ineligible to legally purchase or carry a gun before his spree.
Yet because his record was not submitted to the federal database, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which is referenced during a background check at the point of sale when purchasing a firearm, he was able to legally purchase firearms.
The Air Force took responsibility and vowed a lengthy review and to never repeat the error.
The Chicago Tribune examined other cases of oversight wherein states and even government agencies failed to forward similar cases to the NCIC.For the system to properly work requires information.
For us to properly address why these awful tragedies keep occurring, we need to ask why and give that every effort instead of only ever focusing on the how, with no considerations for anything else.
We have a society that champions disrespect for life, abandons responsibility for one’s actions, a society that redefines criminal activity by calling it a “loophole” instead of what it is, a criminal act; a culture that is slowly accepting violence as a legitimate form of disagreement, a society where male role models are hard to find and there is a crisis among young men that isn’t attributable to video games
(are Republicans seriously entertaining the idea of exchanging gun control for game control?).
We need to fix these problems for our society to work properly.
I hope that those promoting red flag laws address these concerns and answer questions like:
What do red flag orders offer that our current legal options (civil commitments, TROs, et. al) do not?
Why a long 14-day waiting period (Rubio’s bill) to defend oneself in court?
Where are confiscated firearms to be kept – and if the answer is with local law enforcement, how are local enforcement agencies empowered to both store confiscated firearms and assume liability for that storage?
For friends of mine who have proposed Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO), how soon are respondents able to defend themselves against claims, particularly ex parte orders?
And with either ERPOs or GVROs, will any considerations be given to women defending themselves against domestic abusers who might misuse the system to render their victims defenseless?
How will GVROs be lifted – and doesn’t that still require the respondent to prove his or her innocence? Is anyone concerned that both of these proposals still invert the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
We all want to save lives and prevent terrorists, dangerously mentally unstable, or just plain evil people from carrying out horrific intentions.
If preserving innocent people’s right to defend themselves with force equal to that of their potential attacker is off the table, then how?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...-to-mass-shootings/ar-AAFq5je?ocid=spartanntp
It is good the other points are making to the headline news.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
I was talking to a local PO about this. He said it's not going to be a he said she said thing and we come take away guns. People say dumb things when in a heated argument. He said if the person who the complaint is against has a history of violence or self harm then they will confiscate. Another point he bought up will a person hand over all weapons? Yard sale, person to person .flea market long guns there is no records of. And handguns via family exchange there is none.
From TFA:
[QUOTE
It [Colorado red flag law] allows judges to temporarily take away the guns of people deemed a danger to themselves or others...[/QUOTE]
It's similar to Child Protection Services.
Children and guns can be temporarily extracted from potentially harmful environments by law (due process).
From an actual state law in existence:... that it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of “innocent until proven guilty” to “somewhat guilty until proven innocent.”
[QUOTE
It [Colorado red flag law] allows judges to temporarily take away the guns of people deemed a danger to themselves or others...[/QUOTE]
It's similar to Child Protection Services.
Children and guns can be temporarily extracted from potentially harmful environments by law (due process).
These are some great questions that need to be discussed. And I do think it depends largely on how the law is worded and the process is carried out. Firstly, I would support someone who is in close proximity to the alleged threat, such as a family member, close friend, co-worker, etc., to bring the alleged threat to the judge. Second, it would be important for both the person filing the claim and the defendant to be in front of the judge, and for the defendant to meet their accuser. Third, what is the level of evidence needed to temporarily suspend someone's access to firearms? Technically, almost ANYONE can be a threat to themselves and others. So this is one area that needs careful wording. With a sufficient threshold of evidence, the burden rests on the accuser, as it should be. Fourth, I do think it would be worthwhile to have a penalty for frivolous claims, so that the system doesn't get bogged by petty grievances. As far as timelines for court dates and such, that area is much more grey, I think, and dependent on how busy the court in question is already. Those are my two cents on it. If I feel the wording is appropriate, I would be in favor of a "Red Flag" law. Although I also think it is a reactive response against gun violence, and not necessarily a proactive response against gun violence. We could spend a long time debating what we feel is the appropriate proactive response.
Never trust the government to do whats right.
And the police only enforce the laws the untrustworthy government enacts.
According to the Constitution my 2nd Amendment rights come from God.
When He tells me to hand over my guns, I will obey.
And the police only enforce the laws the untrustworthy government enacts.
According to the Constitution my 2nd Amendment rights come from God.
When He tells me to hand over my guns, I will obey.
Anyone that agrees to more gun laws should be red flagged an not depend on someone with a gun to protect them.These are some great questions that need to be discussed. And I do think it depends largely on how the law is worded and the process is carried out. Firstly, I would support someone who is in close proximity to the alleged threat, such as a family member, close friend, co-worker, etc., to bring the alleged threat to the judge. Second, it would be important for both the person filing the claim and the defendant to be in front of the judge, and for the defendant to meet their accuser. Third, what is the level of evidence needed to temporarily suspend someone's access to firearms? Technically, almost ANYONE can be a threat to themselves and others. So this is one area that needs careful wording. With a sufficient threshold of evidence, the burden rests on the accuser, as it should be. Fourth, I do think it would be worthwhile to have a penalty for frivolous claims, so that the system doesn't get bogged by petty grievances. As far as timelines for court dates and such, that area is much more grey, I think, and dependent on how busy the court in question is already. Those are my two cents on it. If I feel the wording is appropriate, I would be in favor of a "Red Flag" law. Although I also think it is a reactive response against gun violence, and not necessarily a proactive response against gun violence. We could spend a long time debating what we feel is the appropriate proactive response.
There are too many gun laws on the books now and are different in all States. If the police/Gov. would just enforce them and increase the penalties and not allow any plea bargains, most criminals would be off the streets for a few years.
Those concerns are reasonable. What I do is jump straight out of a fire and brimstone click-bait fear mongering article and head for the primary source -- the bill proposal itself.These are some great questions that need to be discussed. And I do think it depends largely on how the law is worded and the process is carried out. Firstly, I would support someone who is in close proximity to the alleged threat, such as a family member, close friend, co-worker, etc., to bring the alleged threat to the judge. Second, it would be important for both the person filing the claim and the defendant to be in front of the judge, and for the defendant to meet their accuser. Third, what is the level of evidence needed to temporarily suspend someone's access to firearms? Technically, almost ANYONE can be a threat to themselves and others. So this is one area that needs careful wording. With a sufficient threshold of evidence, the burden rests on the accuser, as it should be. Fourth, I do think it would be worthwhile to have a penalty for frivolous claims, so that the system doesn't get bogged by petty grievances. As far as timelines for court dates and such, that area is much more grey, I think, and dependent on how busy the court in question is already. Those are my two cents on it. If I feel the wording is appropriate, I would be in favor of a "Red Flag" law. Although I also think it is a reactive response against gun violence, and not necessarily a proactive response against gun violence. We could spend a long time debating what we feel is the appropriate proactive response.
"Red flag" is the Politically Correct form of "Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs)."
Find a few of those already in existence (17 states and the District of Columbia have already implemented such laws) or proposed bills (appreciate bills in process are in flux).
You'll find words like, "affidavit," "judge," "temporary," etc.
Again, the template is Child Protective Services. That structure does not allow for arbitrary extraction of children from homes without due process. It is temporary until things get straightened out.
The inflammatory (and incorrect) "without due process" does not apply to either CPS or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).
--
I support red flag laws if they conform and comply with the CPS template.
Those concerns are reasonable. What I do is jump straight out of a fire and brimstone click-bait fear mongering article and head for the primary source -- the bill proposal itself.
"Red flag" is the Politically Correct form of "Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs)."
Find a few of those already in existence (17 states and the District of Columbia have already implemented such laws) or proposed bills (appreciate bills in process are in flux).
You'll find words like, "affidavit," "judge," "temporary," etc.
Again, the template is Child Protective Services. That structure does not allow for arbitrary extraction of children from homes without due process. It is temporary until things get straightened out.
The inflammatory (and incorrect) "without due process" does not apply to either CPS or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).
--
I support red flag laws if they conform and comply with the CPS template.
Why would you conform to any new laws being passed that restrict anyone's due process? It will be abused by all who wish to do anyone harm by those that THINK you will commit a crime. The complainant should be locked up and there rights be taken away, just as the accused.There was a movie about this with Tom Cruise as a policeman about how the Government would arrest anyone who would commit a crime in the future as he was supposedly to kill his wife. But the technology was manipulated to show him doing it rather than who actually did.
I had this to happen to me when raising my children. A neighbor called CPS on me for whipping my son because of what he did wrong. They came to take him away so I handed them my other son and said in front of a Sheriffs Deputy, fine then you raise them and support them and feed them for if I can't do it my way, maybe you can. She said I would go to jail and would have to pay child support. I said how since I will lose my job and be a criminal that no one would hire with no way to make money. Needless to say the neighbor spoke up and said she wish she hadn't called if this was going to happen. I told her to go to hell and don't ever talk to me or my family again. The Sheriff got my 2 sons out of the car and handed them back to my wife and I and told the DPS worker he wasn't allowing this today. Then he asked me what my son had done wrong. I told him he had picked up my gun and was waving it
around. This was all before any laws were passed as we know today and the Sheriff said good job, and to this day neither of my 3 children ever forgot that lesson or whipping and are great parents who teach the same things to my Grand children as I did with them.
I have NEVER understood what the scales of justice mean when it comes to right/wrong--guilty/innocent. There should NEVER be any compromise to the laws on the books or the penalties incurred or any commuted for anything by anyone found guilty by a jury unless it was wrong doing on the DA's part who are exempt from prosecution unless he admits to guilt of a crime of Perjury .
California has a 'red flag' law.
As it was originally passed, only immediate family members wewe allowed to petition the court. Bills are being seriously considered that expand allowed petitioners to employers, live-in partners & coworkers, Bills are being drafted that will expand this list to include rental agents and neighbors.
Can you see where this is headed?
As it was originally passed, only immediate family members wewe allowed to petition the court. Bills are being seriously considered that expand allowed petitioners to employers, live-in partners & coworkers, Bills are being drafted that will expand this list to include rental agents and neighbors.
Can you see where this is headed?
Wait, Are you saying that if a disgruntled employee of a gun store accuses the owner of making violent threats they take away their business with NO PROOF???
Crack Open the door, insert foot and then shove it wide open and annihilate.California has a 'red flag' law.
As it was originally passed, only immediate family members wewe allowed to petition the court. Bills are being seriously considered that expand allowed petitioners to employers, live-in partners & coworkers, Bills are being drafted that will expand this list to include rental agents and neighbors.
Can you see where this is headed?
Instead of NEW gun laws just do away with the ones that violate the 2a in all 50 States and D.C.
New Gun Violence Laws?
"Sen. Marco Rubio has a somewhat new legislative proposal titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. Sen. Lindsay Graham joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal to co-sponsor red flag legislation;"
Consider The Sources.
"Sen. Marco Rubio has a somewhat new legislative proposal titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act. Sen. Lindsay Graham joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal to co-sponsor red flag legislation;"
Consider The Sources.
There has to put in place SEVERE penalties for false accusations. This could become a weapon for anyone who is anti gun, anti ex or disgruntled employer or neighbor. Once you go before the judge and the accusations are proven false, all costs, loses and other impacts to the innocent should be the burden of the accusers and even worse. Abuse of the system can NEVER be tolerated. This is more than an AMERICANS rights.
I think it matters less who can submit the claim, and it matters more what the threshold of evidence is in order to temporarily confiscate their guns.California has a 'red flag' law.
As it was originally passed, only immediate family members wewe allowed to petition the court. Bills are being seriously considered that expand allowed petitioners to employers, live-in partners & coworkers, Bills are being drafted that will expand this list to include rental agents and neighbors.
Can you see where this is headed?
Keep in mind, there are liberal judges out there who will set a VERY, VERY LOW threshold. As up2it stated, crack open the door ......I think it matters less who can submit the claim, and it matters more what the threshold of evidence is in order to temporarily confiscate their guns.
Big Brother is not a technological animal. It's other people.
--Wag--
--Wag--
While I agree, this does go back to the way the law is worded. A nebulous criteria of "poses a threat to others" would be a fallacious threshold, because it can be interpreted a large amount of ways. I would only be in favor of said law if it was much more specific and not open to interpretation. Again, this goes back to how the law is worded to begin with.Keep in mind, there are liberal judges out there who will set a VERY, VERY LOW threshold. As up2it stated, crack open the door ......
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
National Gun Forum
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, gunsmithing, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Mad Scientist
847 Replies
Yosemite Sam
274 Replies
IowaShooter
170 Replies
Recommended Communities
