"Red Flag" Laws in Practice

[Fl0und3rz]

Yeah, it seems that more than a few are willing to give up liberty - or at least of others - for the promise of security, or at least the false sense of security. 

As an interesting aside, here is a bit of historical background on Franklin's oft-quoted remark about liberty and security.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said


And finally, it is time we had a national discussion about my proposal of common sense millennial control.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/seth-ator/

[ctwiggs1]

I actually wouldn't mind red flag laws... If there was a clear path to quickly getting your rights restored and your record expunged.  Seems like this could be the next SWATting trend.

[Fl0und3rz]

If there was a clear path to quickly getting your rights restored and your record expunged.

That is an impossible "if."  I made this same argument after Parkland, and what resulted were slipshod, feel good, versions of "do something."  In the face of reality, I am compelled to reverse course and assume the proven position that nothing will stop an evil person intent on committing evil, except a good person armed with the most appropriate tool to end that attempt as early as possible.

[ctwiggs1]

I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder. 

[Fl0und3rz]

To your point, Curtis.

https://spectator.org/red-flag-laws-are-lethal-leftist-weapons/

It’s fairly obvious that violent convicted felons and people who are seriously mentally ill with violent tendencies should never have firearms. Yet people like this are turned loose by prisons and jails every day to wreak havoc on our streets, with or without guns. In spite of this reality, “progressives” want the law-abiding citizens disarmed. They want ordinary Americans to depend on government to protect our lives — that’s the same government that can’t keep Jeffrey Epstein alive while locked up in a 10-by-10-foot cell.

Red flag laws attack the liberties of American gun owners, one person at a time. Not a fan of your firearm-owning ex-spouse, sister-in-law, or neighbor? All you need do is fabricate an accusation that she is a danger to herself or others. All it will take is one person who holds a grudge and is willing to make a phone call articulating a credible story.

Red flag laws empower agenda-driven psychologists, police, politicians, and attorneys to move quickly against gun owners with court orders to seize firearms with virtually no due process for those accused. If such laws keep getting passed, gun confiscation could happen to anyone. Red flag laws place law-abiding gun owners at the mercy of social justice “do-gooders” and timid judges who will rubber-stamp confiscation orders simply because an accuser’s allegations meet the “straight face” test.

To the point about BPD and other mental health challenges, perhaps it is time to focus less on the tool and more on the person needing identification and care. If a person should not be trusted with firearms for self-defense, should they be trusted with access to vehicles, poisons, gasoline, and matches.

Before 2019, I was aware of mechanisms for involuntary committal and judicial processes for ensuring due process.  I have not followed these laws closely, but it seems that these laws have received some recent attention.  For example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.05.150


I sympathize with families struggling with mental health challenges.  I am not so removed from the same. 

However, I fail to see how branding marginal or otherwise law-abiding people and depriving them from full rights of citizenship without rigorous due process, restoration and compensation provisions, and punitive measures that discourage abuse of the process can be anything other than a kneejerk, do-something bandaid, whose future all but certain failure will be used to justify further erosion of law-abiding firearm owners rights.

[pianoman9701]

I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

[ctwiggs1]

I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

I think you're saying you agree with me here 

[ctwiggs1]

To your point, Curtis.

https://spectator.org/red-flag-laws-are-lethal-leftist-weapons/

It’s fairly obvious that violent convicted felons and people who are seriously mentally ill with violent tendencies should never have firearms. Yet people like this are turned loose by prisons and jails every day to wreak havoc on our streets, with or without guns. In spite of this reality, “progressives” want the law-abiding citizens disarmed. They want ordinary Americans to depend on government to protect our lives — that’s the same government that can’t keep Jeffrey Epstein alive while locked up in a 10-by-10-foot cell.

Red flag laws attack the liberties of American gun owners, one person at a time. Not a fan of your firearm-owning ex-spouse, sister-in-law, or neighbor? All you need do is fabricate an accusation that she is a danger to herself or others. All it will take is one person who holds a grudge and is willing to make a phone call articulating a credible story.

Red flag laws empower agenda-driven psychologists, police, politicians, and attorneys to move quickly against gun owners with court orders to seize firearms with virtually no due process for those accused. If such laws keep getting passed, gun confiscation could happen to anyone. Red flag laws place law-abiding gun owners at the mercy of social justice “do-gooders” and timid judges who will rubber-stamp confiscation orders simply because an accuser’s allegations meet the “straight face” test.

To the point about BPD and other mental health challenges, perhaps it is time to focus less on the tool and more on the person needing identification and care. If a person should not be trusted with firearms for self-defense, should they be trusted with access to vehicles, poisons, gasoline, and matches.

Before 2019, I was aware of mechanisms for involuntary committal and judicial processes for ensuring due process.  I have not followed these laws closely, but it seems that these laws have received some recent attention.  For example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=71.05.150


I sympathize with families struggling with mental health challenges.  I am not so removed from the same. 

However, I fail to see how branding marginal or otherwise law-abiding people and depriving them from full rights of citizenship without rigorous due process, restoration and compensation provisions, and punitive measures that discourage abuse of the process can be anything other than a kneejerk, do-something bandaid, whose future all but certain failure will be used to justify further erosion of law-abiding firearm owners rights.

So I think you and I are more in agreement than disagreement... The concept isn't a terrible idea, but so far the execution has been dismal.  If someone told me our current red flag laws were only a liberal weapon against our 2A rights, I wouldn't necessarily disagree at this point.

It should be a very open and clear process to get to the point of taking someone's guns, and there should be a very quick, clear process for getting those guns back (I would go so far as to say a compensation process as well for people whose rights were wrongfully violated).

[pianoman9701]

I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

I think you're saying you agree with me here 

I've agreed with you from the start.  I'm against red flag laws because of the potential for abuse and the elimination of due process. If there were a vehicle in place for immediate review which affirms our rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments and puts the burden of proof of wrongdoing on the courts, AND if there were very substantial felony penalties for false accusations which result in gun confiscation, I might be more amenable to such a law. However, I don't see any such requirements being called for by the people wanting these laws in-place. They're looking for anything they can dig up to take guns away and I'll stay opposed to that.

[Cougartail]

I don't think red flag laws will ever stop a mass murderer.  I'm not naive here.  I would argue against even having the conversation immediately after a mass murder.

Tim McVeigh. No guns, 168 dead. The left and their lapdog media will always have this conversation after a mass shooting, if the mass shooting fits their narrative. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Rahm Emanuel

If they were even handed at using the "Red Flag" laws, every gangbanger and drug dealer in Chicago (and every other big city.) would be paid a visit and stripped of their guns and gun rights. This isn't going to happen as they are targeting certain sectors of society where there will be no voter backlash.. More feel good BS.

I think you're saying you agree with me here 

I've agreed with you from the start.  I'm against red flag laws because of the potential for abuse and the elimination of due process. If there were a vehicle in place for immediate review which affirms our rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments and puts the burden of proof of wrongdoing on the courts, AND if there were very substantial felony penalties for false accusations which result in gun confiscation, I might be more amenable to such a law. However, I don't see any such requirements being called for by the people wanting these laws in-place. They're looking for anything they can dig up to take guns away and I'll stay opposed to that.

[optic2]

Regardless of your political views it is imperative that Trump be re-elected for the sole reason of replacing Ruth Bader-Ginsberg with Amy Coney Barret. I don't really like the guy but if a democrat is elected there will be a left leaning justice put in, almost definitely one that has ruled against the 2nd amendment in the past. That is our only hope in terms of running these ridiculous laws up to the US Supreme Court and getting them overturned.

[Fl0und3rz]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/red-flag-candidate-alyssa-milana-owns-two-guns-and-has-self-admitted-mental-illness-but-leads-charge-to-take-way-your-guns/

You, first.

[724wd]

So say I have a few guns and get one of these red flag thingies levied against me. cops show up to take my personal items and once they have them, they need to do their photo op for the paper, so my $120,000 Purdy and $10,000 handmade custom 98 mauser and my $5000 Stag arms rifles are piled on the concrete driveway with the Ruger 10/22s and "hundreds" of rounds of ammunition... who's responsible for the damage to my property?

[Fl0und3rz]

Rep. Buck said Democrats want to use the laws to take guns from rural Americans but that Democrats voted down his amendment to include gang members in the legislation.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member. According to JPFO.org 80% of gun homicides are committed by gang members.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/shocking-democrats-red-flag-laws-meant-to-weapons-from-rural-gun-owners-but-not-gang-members-who-commit-80-of-gun-homicides-video/


Got that?  They don't want to solve 80% of the actual gun homicides.  Why?  Because it's just brown people?  One wonders.


In the business, we used the concepts of Pareto principle or Pareto efficiency to troubleshoot and optimize allocation of resources including manpower to the solution of a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1][2] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

A Pareto improvement is a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual or preference criterion better off without making any other individual or preference criterion worse off, given a certain initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made, in which case we are assumed to have reached Pareto optimality.

Colloquially, these principles might combine and you would say to focus your attention where you get "the most bang for your buck."


In any event, it is antithetical to the notion that dems want to "solve" the problem of "gun violence" that they ignore the 80% instances of homicide attributable to a small subset of America's population, while going straight for law-abiding gun owners in a dystopian pre-crime gun grab.

[Tinmaniac]

How would a red flag law help take away guns from people that don't buy their guns legally in the first place?Most "gang members"have probably lost their right to own a gun.Red flag laws don't apply to people that have lost their gun rights.There are already many laws that deal with this.The first would be a new charge of felony gun possession,which leads directly to jail not a temporary suspension of legal gun possession.