General Question about Red Flag Laws

[44 AMP]

Instead of concentrating on trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who roam among us untreated, we could try and do something about better treatment for the mentally ill.

we could, and probably should. I like to suggest doing something else, as well. Something a little..less enlightened in some people's view. Something we used to do, and seldom do today.

Making certain that those who shoot people for fun or profit never, ever be physically capable of doing it again. Crazy or not, I don't care. If they did it, there should be permanent consequences.

I think we spend too much time pretending we can understand the motivation and that understanding it will prevent criminal behavior.

We understood the motivation of the Kamikazes, but what stopped them (when it did) was AA fire and CAP. In other words, force. Bombing the planes on the ground helped too. Again, force. On the other hand, its really a not a completely fair comparison, as enemy soldiers kind of have openly declared their intentions in war by being "the enemy".

We live in a society where we are taught that despite appearances, no one is a criminal until they commit a criminal act. TO my way of thinking, Red Flag laws ignore that.

 

[thallub]

Instead of concentrating on trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people who roam among us untreated, we could try and do something about better treatment for the mentally ill.

Many states formerly had functioning mental health systems. There were facilities for the criminally insane. In the 1980s Ronald Reagan and like minded folks dismantled the US mental health system.

US prisons are full of mental cases. Millions of mental cases are untreated.

During my short foray into the corrections field i listened as Donald Bordenkircher, warden of the WV state prison, say this: "They take a mental case, Thorazine his @$$, declare him a behavioral case and sent him to prison".

 

[zukiphile]

The de-institutionalization movement began in the 1950s and gained steam in the 1960s. We once locked people up relatively freely, but that came to be seen as unnecessary and unjust.

 

[davidsog]

How much more power does the state need to exercise?

Well it seems they have no problem discussing stripping us of our rights at the whim of an unfounded accusation. I am sure someone will pipe up and say, "Oh, know...it will be reviewed by the court!!" Pfft...show me a judge in New Jersey, New York, or California that is not going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away.

One party wants to redistribute the wealth and make everyone equally poor...except for themselves of course. They will still have decent medical care but the rest of us can suffer along with whatever the state provides.

 

[USNRet93]

Not advocating any position but not only are there pro 2nd amendment judges but there are actual pro 2A Democrats and a HUGE amount in that nebulous 'middle'.

show me a judge in New Jersey, New York, or California that is not going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away.

Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction Tuesday.

The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

In a landmark written opinion filed February 27, a New Jersey Superior Court recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen's Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

"The recognition of Second Amendment rights in New Jersey is long overdue,” said ANJRPCRegional Vice President and attorneyEvan F. Nappen, who represented appellant Dennis W. Peterson in the Warren County case. In the appeal, the Second Amendment was applied to New Jersey via the Constitutional doctrine of fundamental fairness, overcoming a significant legal hurdle needed for the Federal Bill of Rights to apply to the State.
This decision coincides with the recent Parker v. District of Columbia case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a decades-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C. on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That is a dandy suggestion, and certainly a large number of people on all sides of the political spectrum agree. Just one big snag....how to pay for treating large numbers of mental patients.

As thallub noted, we are already paying for many of them. We’re just calling them criminals and rotating them in and out of county jails and state mental facilities (such as there are).

And the NYT is being a little revisionist if it claims money was the issue, many people objected to the conditions of state-run asylums and considered them inhumane. Ever seen “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?” I guess sticking the guy under a highway bridge in San Francisco and letting him pay for his own drugs is kindler and gentler? Although I’m pretty sure the taxpayer ends up paying for those drugs too - and to be fair, the homeless guy is a lot more honest when he shows up to collect.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Not advocating any position but not only are there pro 2nd amendment judges but there are actual pro 2A Democrats and a HUGE amount in that nebulous 'middle'.

Not in states like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, RI. There may be a few in CA, but the overwhelming majority of judges in CA are anti-gun and anti-2A.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

As thallub noted, we are already paying for many of them. We’re just calling them criminals and rotating them in and out of county jails and state mental facilities (such as there are).

Exactly. In the cities along the Eastern Front Range of Colorado (Ft. Collins, Boulder, Denver and others) the jails are crammed with homeless people arrested for any of a number of misdemeanors such as public urinating, harassing people for handouts, public camping, etc. Some of these homeless are suffering mental illness and can't function in society. And then there are the truly deranged that commit crimes of violence. To accommodate the number of incarcerated that are suffering mental illness in asylums would cost a lot. Evidently, building bigger jails and hiring more staff to cycle these people through is preferable to any alternatives.

 

[USNRet93]

Not in states like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, RI. There may be a few in CA, but the overwhelming majority of judges in CA are anti-gun and anti-2A.

show me a judge in New Jersey, New York, or California that is not going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away.

Perhaps but I was answering this..again, nobody get their nighty in a knot..just 'absolutes' of any kind are mostly inaccurate..All Dems, all GOP, all, anything

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Not in states like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, RI. There may be a few in CA, but the overwhelming majority of judges in CA are anti-gun and anti-2A.

show me a judge in New Jersey, New York, or California that is not going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away.

Perhaps but I was answering this..again, nobody get their nighty in a knot..just 'absolutes' of any kind are mostly inaccurate..All Dems, all GOP, all, anything

I have to disagree. My characterization of judges in the states I mentioned is mostly accurate, not mostly inaccurate. Might there be an occasional exception? Yes, there might be -- but probably not. If there are exceptions in those states, they are few and far between.

 

[USNRet93]

Ok..but

show me a judge in New Jersey, New York, or California that is not going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away.

And I did, is all

My characterization of judges in the states I mentioned is mostly accurate, not mostly inaccurate

I never said your characterization was inaccurate.

Might there be an occasional exception? Yes, there might be -- but probably not. If there are exceptions in those states, they are few and far between

Yup, agree once again but 'show me a judge that isn't going to froth at the mouth at the chance to take a gun away'...I did, is all.

Again, absolutes kinda drive me nutz..'All', 'Every', 'Never'...mostly emotion.

See "US News World Report Gun Control/Gun Rights cartoons"...thread..

 

[Don P]

Is this a problem that needs some fixing with something not Bloombergian or just another gun grab

A knee -jerk reaction as usual "we had to do something" regardless if its right or wrong or if it going to do any good. I think you are a bad driver so I turn you in and they take away your car. Sounds stupid but that's the red flag laws,
with me substituting a car for the guns

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I would be surprised if there were a single state, commonwealth or territory in which the legislature had provided no mechanism for dealing with them.

I'm sure you are correct but are the mechanisms effective?

It isn't. The world is stuffed with people who aren't quite right, not to mention people who are mentally healthy but believe crazy ideas. Most of them never hurt anyone seriously. Yet, in hindsight each oddity of a killer takes on an ominous appearance even where they aren't omens.

Isn't some behavior so bizarre that maybe that person who exhibits it shouldn't have a gun? We had a shooting last year here in TN at a Waffle House. The shooter had a prior history of running around naked in public screaming at and threatening people. Illinois took his guns and gave them to his dad who then promptly gave them to the son who then came to TN and shot up a Waffle House. I agree the bar should be high to commit someone to an institution indefinitely and against their will but it seems in the Marjorie Stoneman case, Gabby Giffords and this Waffle House one most folks who knew of the shooter were not surprised when they committed their crimes. I'm not saying I have an answer fully but I fear these laws will be hard to stop if they contain some due process rules even if not strong.

Sorry, for not posting sooner. Been out of town.

 

[zukiphile]

No problem.

I would be surprised if there were a single state, commonwealth or territory in which the legislature had provided no mechanism for dealing with them.

I'm sure you are correct but are the mechanisms effective?

Yes. The mechanism involves people with expertise and experience assessing the actual evidence. Where they conclude that the person is incompetent, that person loses a range of rights.

Isn't some behavior so bizarre that maybe that person who exhibits it shouldn't have a gun? We had a shooting last year here in TN at a Waffle House. The shooter had a prior history of running around naked in public screaming at and threatening people.

Add alcohol and that sounds like college.

I agree the bar should be high to commit someone to an institution indefinitely and against their will but it seems in the Marjorie Stoneman case, Gabby Giffords and this Waffle House one most folks who knew of the shooter were not surprised when they committed their crimes.

I don't think that's true. (I am not doubting that someone said he wasn't surprised, but that measuring foresight in hindsight is accurate.) There is a lot of distance between believing that a person is likely to go on a mass murder spree on the one hand, and on the other hand telling a reporter after an event that one isn't surprised by it.

In which of those cases did someone petition a court to appoint a guardian before the shooting?

 

[USNRet93]

I don't think that's true. (I am not doubting that someone said he wasn't surprised, but that measuring foresight in hindsight is accurate.) There is a lot of distance between believing that a person is likely to go on a mass murder spree on the one hand, and on the other hand telling a reporter after an event that one isn't surprised by it.

In which of those cases did someone petition a court to appoint a guardian before the shooting?

Again, hind sight is always 20-20 but there sure 'seems' to be a lot of instances where a 'mass shooter's' background, when investigated, sure looked like 'somebody' should have taken an additional look at the person with regards to buying/owning a gun.

NOT necessarily outright banning the person from gun ownership forever but a 'red flag', to initiate some additional scrutiny. IMHO, of course.

I know this is probably slanted and not all 'domestic partner abusers' become killers BUT....

https://www.axios.com/mass-shooters...men-dfc6cfd4-7452-4198-b4d4-ba356bf9cbe7.html

 

[zukiphile]

Again, hind sight is always 20-20 but there sure 'seems' to be a lot of instances where a 'mass shooter's' background, when investigated, sure looked like 'somebody' should have taken an additional look at the person with regards to buying/owning a gun.

The bolded shows why the underlined is illusory.

I know this is probably slanted and not all 'domestic partner abusers' become killers BUT....

If you know that a vanishingly small percentage of men who hit their wives ever kill anyone, that "BUT" appears less reasonable.

Where we observe in hindsight that murderers have a trait that is shared with a vastly larger population of non-murderers, anticipating that someone with that trait will murder is irrational.

 

[USNRet93]

Where we observe in hindsight that murderers have a trait that is shared with a vastly larger population of non-murderers, anticipating that someone with that trait will murder is irrational.

I know..reading what happened in NewZealand..just sad..

 

[zukiphile]

It is sad, and this fellow sounds like a bag of nuts. People with marginally coherent ideas have put their stamp on history for a very long time, though not always with the same impact as Gavrilo Princip.

If you witnesses a person with a chain over his shoulder filling gasoline cans and telling people he was going to chain the "doors and burn down the school and everyone in it", do you think you would shrug your shoulders and go to lunch, or would you take it as a real danger and have him stopped?

You'd probably have him stopped because your foresight would allow you to see a man with a terrible plan going about his plan. You probably would not petition a judge for a hearing later in the day that would result in an order served even later. You might call the police instead.

The red flag law isn't made to address a particularly imminent danger. Instead it is constructed to free the state from the ordinary protections of legal process. That isn't a step forward.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin​

 

[JN01]

The red flag law isn't made to address a particularly imminent danger. Instead it is constructed to free the state from the ordinary protections of legal process. That isn't a step forward.

You hit the nail on the head.