ah.
I also see you amended your other post to acknowledge that the system seemed to work properly in that case.
any system could be abused, but that doesn't mean it will be or can't be insulated to minimize the chances of abuse, either.
I also see you amended your other post to acknowledge that the system seemed to work properly in that case.
any system could be abused, but that doesn't mean it will be or can't be insulated to minimize the chances of abuse, either.
If anyone thinks that law enforcement, judges, medical professionals, and politicians of a certain political persuasion would not team up to take your gun rights away by involuntarily commiting someone to a mental institution for at least some minimum period of time, then you must also believe that all elections are 100% honest and that Joe Biden got 81 million legal votes...
What kind of cheese eating comment is that "I also see you amended your other post" Waah! What grade of school are you in?!
You’re confused about what a temporary psych evaluation hold is and calling it an involuntary commitment. You can’t involuntary commit people within 72 hours.
The topic is confusing because you’re mixing medical and legal systems together, in both criminal and civil proceedings. Police powers of arrest are often involved, but are not strictly required. It’s the same for criminal law violations and charges, often involved but not strictly required.
It’s easier if you look at it this way. A person is interviewed because someone either filed a complaint to LE, or to another government agency of an unsafe condition (criminal or civil). They come and interview the subject, while observing other plain view evidence to support or refute the claims.
If a mental health condition is observed, and it appears to rise to the level of unsafe to self or others, then the legal process is begun to officially evaluate the subject. In California that’s a 5150 hold, which iirc, a LEO can initiate? Here in Oklahoma, unless the subject becomes violent and is arrested on charges, they call a certified crisis team like COPES to do an on-site evaluation as to whether the subject needs to be placed on an emergency evaluation hold.
https://www.fcsok.org/services/crisis-services/
It’s only when the evaluation hold is complete and a report generated that official involuntary commitment process begins, if deemed necessary.
He tried to give an example of an activist LE, but admitted a judge and medical provider were involved in the process. That process is critically important because the entire Red Flag issue is lack of Due Process.
It’s not impossible, but it’s far more difficult to abuse the involuntary commitment process, specifically because there is Due Process and the subject has a right to legal counsel, independent evaluations, hearings where they or their lawyer are present, and all the other civil and constitutional rights they deserve to have considered.
Red Flag laws as they’re all written, violate multiple constitutional rights and are ripe for abuse by activist LE, judges and prosecutors. They place almost all the burden on the citizen, and completely absolves the government of any liability. Red Flag laws are wrong on their face.
i simply was addressing the change between your post as it appears and the part that i quoted in my initial response. I didn't realize directly referencing the difference as the basis for my response would upset you so.
As i said, things could happen, but that doesn't mean you throw up your hands and scrap the entire system, either.
Well maybe I'm "misunderstanding" things but in Illinois it says "Any person over the age of 18 can file a petition for immediate hospitalization of a person with the mental illness" and the last I checked most individual law enforcement officers would be classified as a "person." Of course we could parse words and say that the officer himself doesn't actually have the power to make the commitment decision, but he caused the decision process to begin and in my mind if I'm the one permanently losing my rights his face is who I'm connecting with the dirty deed. Besides the case I'm remembering was back some 20 or 30 years ago and I'm sure the laws have changed some since then and I can't even remember what state it was in.
I didn't see his reply as trying to give an example "of an activist LE" since he wasn't replying to my comment but to yours. I agree 100% on the red flag laws being unconstitutional and wrong.
Sure, but immediate hospitalizations aren’t involuntary commitments under the law. Yes that seems a bit counterintuitive because they’re not being hospitalized of their own free will, but involuntary commitments require more than just a complainant signing a piece of paper.
You're right it's confusing as all get out. I remember when the Dems wanted to take away the 2A rights of veterans who spent time in psych units with PTSD and such - even for voluntary commitments - as well as for outpatient psych treatment.
The really bad part is: once a person's name is sent in to NICS it is almost impossible to get it off. There is no way to recover your rights - for mental health issues anyway. The government refuses to fund an agency to oversee the recovery of American's rights who may have recovered from their drug addiction or mental illness for which they may have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
Yes and iirc, it was Tom Coburn who got that shot down? It’s been quite a while so I could be incorrect.
Agreed. NICS is systematically abusive and no one has the balls to fix it.
That's the thing on flags. The judge will basically rubber stamp almost all requests. They would fear denying a red flag claim and being wrong more than confiscating the guns and being wrong.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oklahoma City Trades added Price drop Heavy duty extruded metal Cabinet- Latest: Almost Jack Burton
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
