"Red Flag" Laws in Practice

[ctwiggs1]

So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement? 

[Tinmaniac]

What about free speech?No limit?There are laws on yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire.Should those be thrown out based on free speech?

[ctwiggs1]

What about free speech?No limit?There are laws on yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire.Should those be thrown out based on free speech?

[singleshot12]

Common sense laws for the common good "if enforced" is all we really need to get society back on track. Crazy times we're living in. Blame it on the snow-flakes and the Libs I guess

[ctwiggs1]

Common sense laws for the common good "if enforced" is all we really need to get society back on track. Crazy times we're living in. Blame it on the snow-flakes and the Libs I guess

The median voter age is over 50.

[Tinmaniac]

Define common sense please.Would you say that someone that advocates the fighting and shooting law enforcement has good common sense?

[ghosthunter]

The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???

[ghosthunter]

Sooner or later some sheeple will be on a hiking trail out of the high country and see some regular guys with a gun. They might even have words, because the mere sight of a gun offends the sheeple.

Than the knock comes and you pay thousands to defend yourself for nothing.

[singleshot12]

Define common sense please.Would you say that someone that advocates the fighting and shooting law enforcement has good common sense?

Nope!  I guess most of those laws originally set in place would be defined as common sense. But new laws that would tend to instigate could escalate into a whole other lot of problems for everyone involved.

[Tinmaniac]

The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???

So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

[Fl0und3rz]

The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???

So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

I am guessing you have not read the law either.


https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94

Everyone should familiarize themselves with WA's and determine whether ex parte orders, service by mail or publication, relative lack of criminal or civil liability for false reporting or use as harassment, and lack of reimbursement for persons disenfranchised and seeking to regain their rights under this RCW constitutes sufficient due process to deprive someone of a right that shall not be infringed and the right of life.

[rasbo]

So at what point do we fight the police? I'm truly a guy that wants to follow laws and obey commands when approached by LE. So as the left slowly take rights away using any tool necessary, when do you say enough..

[ctwiggs1]

The big issue for me is someone says he is dangerous. They have a meeting and decide to take his guns.

Why wasn't the guy that got shot at the hearing? Shouldn't you get to hear and answer the charges against you before they come for your guns???

So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.

I don't believe this is accurate in this case.  There was an incident Sunday, a report filed that night, and the police were on the doorstep at 5AM the next morning.

I am not sure that Maryland due process really is that good here.

[pianoman9701]

I do see the need  for better monitoring of mentally ill/dangerous people but you have to understand that those laws are going to be used as a tool against people who have done nothing to deserve losing their 2nd Amendment rights. Do I think you should resist the police? Not with a gun in your hands, no. Do I think the police departments should be trained better in serving these warrants (and others) and using alternatives to lethal force? Yes. Do I think the courts should undertake and order these seizures with the understanding that reports of people unfit to own guns will be made falsely? Yes, and I think it should be a serious crime to falsely accuse someone in an attempt to deprive them of their Constitutional rights. It should be written as part of the law and a felony, and the accuser should be forced to pay any legal costs and associated expenses for the accused to be exonerated, fines, and possible prison time. Do I think the government should be held liable for wrongly depriving someone of their Constitutional rights and be forced to return firearms, repay legal fees and related expenses to someone whose rights are reinstated, as well as restitution or further compensation? Absolutely. It would help keep the government from being overzealous in its pursuits. Do I think there are "common sense" gun laws? Maybe, but far more laws that are called "common sense" are nothing of the sort. 1639 was touted as such and that's far from the truth. Do I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is still valid today. Absolutely and maybe more than when the Constitution was ratified.

[Tinmaniac]

That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.