The real danger of red flag laws...

tRidiot

Perpetually dissatisfied
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
19,527
Reaction score
12,677
Location
Bartlesville
Well that sucks and whether a flaw of the system or application, really doesn't make much difference at that point. I think we overly burden law enforcement and in some cases, medical professionals with mental health counseling and treatment. There should be more resources available to those who suffer. :(

Absolutely! And here in Oklahoma, we're all about cutting back on the availability of those resources! W00T!!!!
 

chuter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
5,865
Location
over yonder
Talking with an anti gun coworker yesterday, I had a thought: we both acknowledge the possibility for abuse of red flag laws, and we both don't want violent mentally ill people to have guns. The difference seems to be that I fear the abuse of such laws more than I fear the violent mentally ill shooter. He fears the shooter more than the abuse of the laws.

Of course he does! He doesn't have guns and will experience no consequence of the abuse of the laws! Even if he sees the wrong in the abuse.

I'm afraid the majority of folks are in his position.
 

Timmy59

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
4,593
Reaction score
5,129
Location
Oklahoma
Talking with an anti gun coworker yesterday, I had a thought: we both acknowledge the possibility for abuse of red flag laws, and we both don't want violent mentally ill people to have guns. The difference seems to be that I fear the abuse of such laws more than I fear the violent mentally ill shooter. He fears the shooter more than the abuse of the laws.

Of course he does! He doesn't have guns and will experience no consequence of the abuse of the laws! Even if he sees the wrong in the abuse.

I'm afraid the majority of folks are in his position.

"PEOPLE" it takes people to carry out the laws.. The people you work with, go to church with and associate with..
 

emapples

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
3,123
Location
Arrow Repaired
In every state in the nation, there are mechanisms with which concerned family members and/or the government can have someone declared mentally incompetent. While not every jurisdiction reports the mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS prohibited persons list, there's nothing saying they can't. Yet all we hear about is how they can't prevent mentally ill people from buying or possessing guns without these new "Red Flag" laws.

I've seen law enforcement officers on other forums supporting these types of laws, saying Due Process is afforded by the affidavit sworn to a judge and it's no different than getting a warrant on probable cause of a crime. What they fail to mention is the "Due Process" hearing is in absentia and were they actually swearing a warrant for a crime, the warrant would be denied due to lack of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What they really want is this:

th


They want an easy way to circumvent the hard work of proving a case against someone, and that's borne out in Florida where they've had a Red Flag law on the books for 18 months and they've already used it some 2,500 times:

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/7528...ample-for-lawmakers-considering-red-flag-laws



The big risk comes in two ways. One is where a person is flagged for removal of their rights under the law (I don't consider 12 months to be "temporary") who IS NOT an actual threat to themselves or others, has committed no crime and despite that, the mere act of being reported is enough for a judge to grant the order "out of an abundance of caution". The other risk is mistaken identity, and Florida has already had this happen:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...se-of-another-mans-criminal-activity-n2551921



In this case, this man's civil and constitutional rights have been violated by the government, and yet he will likely have no redress for damages because the sheriff's office is acting in accordance with the law. This is unconscionable and intolerable. These laws MUST be challenged and overturned all the way through the Supreme Court. The risk of abuse is far too great and is not an acceptable shortcut in protecting the public.

This really isn’t going to change, it’s going intensify over the next few years/decades. The only way to stop the progression is 1)states leaving the union to form a new country 2) total collapse of our government 3) civil war. With options 2 & 3 you have the risk of China mounting an offensive and taking over (I made the middle of it all) . In short it’s unstoppable short of the rapture.
 

Lewis F Jones

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
60
Reaction score
51
Location
Sapulpa, Ok
In every state in the nation, there are mechanisms with which concerned family members and/or the government can have someone declared mentally incompetent. While not every jurisdiction reports the mentally incompetent to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS prohibited persons list, there's nothing saying they can't. Yet all we hear about is how they can't prevent mentally ill people from buying or possessing guns without these new "Red Flag" laws.

I've seen law enforcement officers on other forums supporting these types of laws, saying Due Process is afforded by the affidavit sworn to a judge and it's no different than getting a warrant on probable cause of a crime. What they fail to mention is the "Due Process" hearing is in absentia and were they actually swearing a warrant for a crime, the warrant would be denied due to lack of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What they really want is this:

th


They want an easy way to circumvent the hard work of proving a case against someone, and that's borne out in Florida where they've had a Red Flag law on the books for 18 months and they've already used it some 2,500 times:





The big risk comes in two ways. One is where a person is flagged for removal of their rights under the law (I don't consider 12 months to be "temporary") who IS NOT an actual threat to themselves or others, has committed no crime and despite that, the mere act of being reported is enough for a judge to grant the order "out of an abundance of caution". The other risk is mistaken identity, and Florida has already had this happen:

Florida Man Lost His 2A Rights, Thanks To Red Flag Laws And Mistaken Identity



In this case, this man's civil and constitutional rights have been violated by the government, and yet he will likely have no redress for damages because the sheriff's office is acting in accordance with the law. This is unconscionable and intolerable. These laws MUST be challenged and overturned all the way through the Supreme Court. The risk of abuse is far too great and is not an acceptable shortcut in protecting the public.

Glocktogo has thoroughly reviewed this and not knowing the outcome of the Osceola case I would think because of the mistaken identity and the ensuing explanation of the incorrect individual having to "bear the cost" would be grounds for any prosecutor to prevail in a wrongful process re 4th Amendment, ie: the Wrong person was still at large and could have committed who knows what while the cops bumbled along. Please don't get me wrong though. I respect out Men and women of our Police Forces. I was a Reserve Deputy In Ouachita Parish and thoroughly enjoyed my experience but we are all human and mistakes can occur. Red Flag Laws are controversial at best and I feel we have a long way to go. The Left does NOT need any more excuses to exploit in their insane approach to gun control. I'm no lawyer but Even I can see not al is right with them.
 
Last edited:

Lewis F Jones

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
60
Reaction score
51
Location
Sapulpa, Ok
Glocktogo has thoroughly reviewed this and not knowing the outcome of the Osceola case I would think because of the mistaken identity and the ensuing explanation of the incorrect individual having to "bear the cost" would be grounds for any prosecutor to prevail in a wrongful process re: the 4th Amendment, ie: the Wrong person was still at large and could have committed who knows what while the cops bumbled along. Please don't get me wrong though. I respect out Men and Women of our Police Forces. I was a Reserve Deputy In Ouachita Parish and thoroughly enjoyed my experience but we are all human and mistakes can occur. Red Flag Laws are controversial at best and I feel we have a long way to go. The Left does NOT need any more excuses to exploit in their insane approach to gun control. I'm no lawyer but Even I can see not all is right with them.
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
20,979
Reaction score
22,033
Location
Edmond
The real problem with Red Flag laws is that we are letting anti-gunners write them and they have no interest in protecting our rights. No interest in due process for gun owners, no interest in fairness, etc.

I can see a use for them but I also see the need for due process. They should have to prove a person is too nuts to have guns.

Maybe before a panel of mental health experts and judges. If not proven a threat to the public they should have to return all your firearms, ammo, accessories, etc in the condition they were when removed. And it should all be at their expense and all legal fees charged to the person who filed the complaint.
 

wawazat

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
636
Reaction score
1,072
Location
OKC, OK
The real problem with Red Flag laws is that we are letting anti-gunners write them and they have no interest in protecting our rights. No interest in due process for gun owners, no interest in fairness, etc.

I can see a use for them but I also see the need for due process. They should have to prove a person is too nuts to have guns.

Maybe before a panel of mental health experts and judges. If not proven a threat to the public they should have to return all your firearms, ammo, accessories, etc in the condition they were when removed. And it should all be at their expense and all legal fees charged to the person who filed the complaint.
My biggest issue with this is who gets to determine threat. Within the past 12 months, anyone hesitating to submit their child to 2 rounds of vax were deemed equivocal to domestic terrorists. I dont care either way on people's beliefs on the vax, but wanted to point out how extremely fluid the definition of a "threat to society and/or themselves" can be. Unless someone wants to nail it down to such specific terms that there will never be any room for contesting or changing the definition of what merits invoking a red flag review on someone, I am not interested in giving a moment of my time to even entertain the brain storming session.
 

chuter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
4,617
Reaction score
5,865
Location
over yonder
Just thinking out loud here, not saying I'm a proponent of red flag laws.

Red flag laws that had a very precise list of things that indicate a threat, like posting on social media or making verbal threats of mass violence, and the ability to carry out the act.
Isn't that close to what assault is? A threat and the ability to carry it out? (not a lawyer).

If the threat doesn't say "shooting", but something like 'I'm going to hurt a bunch of kids at school', does that mean we take away all tools of violence? Knives, vehicles, hammers? What if there are no firearms in the home? If the firearms are properly locked up do they take all the family firearms?

What if the threat is only made against one person; "Billy is mean to me so I'm going to hurt him", does that get a red flag?

If a red flag order is issued should it come with mandatory counseling and inspection of the family and home by state DHS? To insure a healthy home life?
If the person is dangerous enough to have his weapons taken away then they obviously need serious help.

People making a false red flag claim should suffer some consequences.

There are a lot of people now that think all republicans are evil and have blood on their hands for gun violence; these people should not be able to just say "Johnny said some scary stuff and his dad has guns" and be able to start red flag proceedings.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom