General Question about Red Flag Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zukiphile said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe this quote better illustrates what I am saying. My reading is that in some of these cases (Marjorie Stoneman and Giffords) that the police WERE called but really couldn't do anything about these guys. Agree that when called we weren't dealing with an immediate threat like the gas station example. But what if we did call the cops in that case, what could they really do? The guy could say he was just kidding and having chains and gas isn't illegal.

Zukiphile said:
In which of those cases did someone petition a court to appoint a guardian before the shooting?
Click to expand...

Is that hard and cumbersome to do? I really don't know. My "impression" is that it's hard.

Maybe my answer is that freedom entails risk that others will abuse said freedom sometimes and there is little way to prevent it?
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Is that hard and cumbersome to do? I really don't know. My "impression" is that it's hard.
Click to expand...

Somewhat. Someone has to draft the petition and file it, and get an expert evaluation for hearing. It takes some time and attention, both of which are finite things.

Taking someone's rights should be at least that hard.

Tennessee Gentleman said:
Maybe my answer is that freedom entails risk that others will abuse said freedom sometimes and there is little way to prevent it?
Click to expand...

I'd embrace that answer as true.

Tennessee Gentleman said:
Maybe this quote better illustrates what I am saying. My reading is that in some of these cases (Marjorie Stoneman and Giffords) that the police WERE called but really couldn't do anything about these guys. Agree that when called we weren't dealing with an immediate threat like the gas station example. But what if we did call the cops in that case, what could they really do? The guy could say he was just kidding and having chains and gas isn't illegal.
Click to expand...

The fellow could say all sorts of things to the police, but then he could say all sorts of things to a medical doctor or a judge too.

Is it possible that no one really foresaw any of these sad events? Where no one attempted to stop the event from unfolding, it seems likely to me that no one foresaw them as the equivalent of the fellow at the gas station.

Is it true that the FL authorities really couldn't do anything about the highschool shooter, or that inaction was a decision all the way from under-reporting the shooter's actions as a student to an officer standing around outside the school listening to gunfire?

My point isn't to hang any specific crime on any one failure to act, but to note that people are fallible so any system that relies on them will feature failures. Where we already have legal means to deal with attempted crimes and incompetents, re-jiggering that system for a t-ball version of law is a solution with its own universe of problems. If your doc tells you that your clothes don't fit because you are obese, buying larger trousers makes you more comfortable, but doesn't address your real problem.
 
Last edited:
The fellow could say all sorts of things to the police, but then he could say all sorts of things to a medical doctor or a judge too.
Click to expand...

And, people do, all the time. Which is why there is humor in the old joke about how many psych/mental health councilors does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change...
:D

Where do you draw the line between someone who sounds dangerous, and someone who actually is dangerous?? People want a law that will do that, and none can.

There was a guy who posted rants about shooting all kinds of people. When the police checked on him, all they found all he owned was a keyboard and a big mouth.
Another case, cops were called, people were worried a guy was going to go on a killing spree. Cops did a "wellness" check. Found the guy rational, stable, apparently sane, and determined there was no threat. The very next day (or maybe the day after) that guy DID go on a killing spree.

And how about the poor guy killed by SWAT because someone half a dozen states away "pranked" him over a video game dispute,.

You might want to consider if its really a good idea to allow the state to seize people and their property (even "temporarily), and be held blameless for doing so, when no actual crime has been committed.
 
44_AMP said:
You might want to consider if its really a good idea to allow the state to seize people and their property (even "temporarily), and be held blameless for doing so, when no actual crime has been committed.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have considered that, and my answer is, "No!"
 
I understand this is debateable,the popular opinion is "OJ did it",but we shrug and accept aquittal because of the process of justice during the investigation and prosecution (Please,spare me the messages "I did not accept it" He walked)
My understanding is the Miranda decision was about due process.Our justice system has let murderers go free,perhaps to kill again,over violations of civil rights.Do we choose to abandon that standard?Why remove due process from someone who s not even suspected of a crime?

Search warrants are SUPPOSED to be about gathering evidence in CRIMINAL matters. These Red Flag laws require officers to search and seize for a civii matter when there is no crime to gather evidence for.

Will it be abused?First,I want to insist my next comment s NOT about President Trump,and I hope the Mods will not allow it to degenerate to that point.

It IS about the people in the US House and Senate who have actively tried to use the 25th Amendment to try to pull off a coup because they want to remove him from office by any means possible.

These members of Congress are shining examples at the top of our government that supposedly trusted and responsible people who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution will,for reasons of hate or politics misuse a law to persecute or abuse another Citizen,President or not.

We have all heard the endless news about inappropriate persecution of US Citizens for political reasons.

f members of Congress will use the 25th Amendment as a weapon,why wouldn't an ex spouse or business partner weaponize the Red Flag Law?

If we are concerned enough about due process to let a murderer go free,why abuse and seize property from someone who gets no more due process than an accusation convincing enough to sway a judge into taking "The Prudent Course" with no opportunity to confront the accuser.?

Its just wrong. A significant number of our sheriffs (I can't confirm,but I heard 50) have stated they will not enforce the law.

The state AG has stated any Sheriff that refuses to enforce should resign.

This is in Colorado. By "fight" I mean a civil,lawful fight. There is going to be a fight.
 
Last edited:
HiBC said:
The state AG has stated any Sheriff that refuses to enforce should resign.
Click to expand...
That's hypocrisy in action.

The Colorado state constitution has a RKBA provision in it:

Sec. 13. That the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Click to expand...
That was adopted in 1876. Based on this, Colorado is (or is supposed to be) an open-carry-with-no-permit state. Any state AG who doesn't actively protect this right should resign.
 
f members of Congress will use the 25th Amendment as a weapon,why wouldn't an ex spouse or business partner weaponize the Red Flag Law?
Click to expand...

Congress has little to no power when it comes to starting the 25th amendment process. The cabinet does and the 25th is the very definition of lack of 'due process'. Similar in a lot of ways to RedFlag laws.
It allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide," to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" in a written declaration. The transfer of authority to the vice president is immediate, and (as with Section 3) the vice president becomes acting president – not president – while the president remains in office, albeit divested of all authority.
Click to expand...
The "principal officers of the executive departments" are the fifteen Cabinet members enumerated in the United States Code at 5 U.S.C 101
Click to expand...
If a second declaration of incapacity is issued within the four-day period, then the vice president remains acting president while Congress considers the matter. If within 21 days the Senate and the House determine, each by a two-thirds vote, that the president is incapacitated, then the vice president continues as acting president; otherwise the president resumes his powers and duties.
Click to expand...

So, the talk of invoking the 25th A is the stuff of the media, on both sides. The cabinet, appointed and approved by the Senate(GOP), and 2/3 of the House and then Senate to make this stick..??

NONE of this is going to happen.
 
I agree,its not going to happen.

I doubt the mods (or anyone else) want us to rehash the intrigue of the last two years.

Agreed,weaponization of law was at play with partisan non-elected officials.
That gets to the point.Laws that may be used as weapons by hateful.vindictive people.

I don't care to search for audio/video evidence of members of Congress discussing the 25th Amendment. What difference does it make?
A vindictive former spouse or a sibling doing what siblings sometimes do,does it make a difference if a hateful vendetta is the real point?
At the highest level of Federal Government,the practice of misusing law to illegitimately attempt to take down another Citizen occurs,and most of us are aware of it.

If XXXXX discusses with YYYYY and ZZZZZ secretly gathering evidence to misuse a law attacking another Citizen,does it somehow make it better if ,as you say,its cabinet or congress?

Let me ask this.,USN,are you really a deep down supporter of this red flag law or are you just a loyal supporter of the new Governor and the majority in the legislature?

It really makes a big difference whether we are debating the merits of the law or partisan politics. If its about your party loyalty..this is a waste of time.What are you trying to prove?

I don't give a hoot which political party wrote this law.If MY political party wrote this law,I would fight this law and actively fight to recall whatever politicians took part in it. Its bad law.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask this.,USN,are you really a deep down supporter of this red flag law or are you just a loyal supporter of the new Governor and the majority in the legislature?
Click to expand...

Neither..I see advantages to identifying people who have dangerous tendencies/actions/words and how it relates to owning guns. More than a few of these shootings could have been prevented if the person either couldn't buy a gun or didn't have access to those guns.
BUT, I don't like the lack of due process that the CO RedFlag law uses. I think the law could have been written to include the 'subject/gun owner' , and preserve 'due process(I'm not a lawyer), giving them their 'day in court' up front rather than further into the process.

There are things I like about Polis and the State legislature and things I don't, just like before the election in November....

BTW-I wasn't trying to argue politics but merely pointing out that Congress, and individual members can say all sorts of things over a couple of things of bourbon that are contrary to the actual process that the constitution lays out to do things like the 25th Amendment.
 
USNRet93 said:
Neither..I see advantages to identifying people who have dangerous tendencies/actions/words and how it relates to owning guns. More than a few of these shootings could have been prevented if the person either couldn't buy a gun or didn't have access to those guns.
Click to expand...
By definition, since shooting involves guns, the reality is that ALL of mass shootings could (and would) have been averted if the shooters had not been able to buy (or steal) guns. That begs the question. The question is, how many of recent mass shooters would have been stopped by "red flag" laws such as are currently being proposed around the country?

The Stoneham Douglas school shooting? Probably yes. The Sutherland Springs church shooting? That shooter was already disqualified from possessing weapons, in theory, but the United States Air Force didn't do its job and submit his name to the NICS system, so we had a prohibited person who was allowed to buy guns.

Sandy Hook? The shooter killed his own mother to steal the guns he used. In one of the other ones (don't remember if it was the Pulse nightclub shooting or the county office in California) the shooter was doubly checked out and approved -- he had a carry permit AND he was a licensed security guard. No indications or "red flags" that he was a threat.

The Las Vegas shooter? No hints anywhere that he was a nutter. More than a year after the incident, none of the authorities have been able to establish a motive. How could he have been stopped?

Try compiling a list of mass shooting over the past ten years or so, read up on them, and then come back to report on how many of the shooters realistically would have been flagged by the type of laws currently being proposed.
 
Aguila,I suggest the question how many laws are already on the books to address preventing these shootings?

Are these laws flawed? Ineffective? Or is the issue execution? Unmotivated,or incompetent,or CYA or a contrary philosophy?

There are so many laws no one can know what is lawful.

If the only tool you have is a hammer,everything looks like a nail.

Make more punishable and raise taxes. The fix for everything.


It was back in the 80's ? maybe...I read J Edwards Deming's book "Out of the Crisis" It was about Quality,and transforming industry and manufacturing.

I think a key was something like a "Shewart" cycle? Like you first study,gather data,identify a root cause,make a change then MEASURE THE RESULTS.

How about we make it so if a law does not deliver the results t goes away>

Our system of laws is a hoarder house. So much worthless clutter we have no freedom to move.

The Rahm Emmanuel plan to exploit crisis is similar to the chaos Deming described as coming from "tampering" with the process.Like the folks who use a thermostat for an ON/OFF switch.Feel a chill?Crank it to 85. To warm? turn it down to 65.

Crisis and emotion make for very bad law.
 
Last edited:
davidsog said:
Are you really trying to say New Jersey and New York are "in the Middle" when it comes to gun laws?

Of course there are good people who exhibit common sense in every state. They are losing badly in New Jersey.


http://delawarevalleynews.com/2018/...ands-of-people-including-cops-into-criminals/
Click to expand...
Nope...not at all. Saying that there are people who respect the 2A, but still hold 'moderate' political views...and the 'RKBA message' isn't resonating with them in a lot of cases..

AND saying there are Dems who even own guns and embrace the 2A..
 
USNRet93 said:
Nope...not at all. Saying that there are people who respect the 2A, but still hold 'moderate' political views...and the 'RKBA message' isn't resonating with them in a lot of cases..
Click to expand...

If the RKBA message isn't resonating with them, then they probably don't really respect the Second Amendment aside from vague platitudes about hunting or target shooting.
 
How you got into college or wealth in general - don't care.
Click to expand...

Is that meant to be a dig at me? My degree is in Aeronautical Engineering...

IIRC from my college days, those that could not pass engineering and hard sciences went to business, history, and law school.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top