NY Red Flag law unconstitutional

44 AMP said:
Murder, Theft, things like that are orders (laws) it is expected that people would obey.

Except they don't. It is patently ridiculous to say we should only make laws that people will follow. You make laws based on public safety and community morals. Since all laws are broken then based on your criteria we would be an anarchy.

I'm waiting for your try at the RFL. C'mon now, fair is fair.
 
Since all laws are broken then based on your criteria we would be an anarchy.

Since you have misidentified my criteria tis obvious you missed my point. Moving on.....

I'm waiting for your try at the RFL. C'mon now, fair is fair.

Fair is fair. You've already got my "try" at improving the RFL.

It is, essentially due process, but I'll state it again, in simple terms...

IDENTIFY the person suspected of being a "dangerous nut".
Hold a hearing before a court, where both parties are present, and allowed to present evidence and challenge evidence/accusations against them.
Court ruling, based on evidence and arguments presented at the hearing.

Actions taken (or not taken) to implement the court's ruling.

IN THAT ORDER.

IF this is done, I can only see all possible outcomes falling into one of three possibilities.

The court can order the person incarcerated, the court can release them and order their guns taken, or the court can release them without ordering their guns taken.

While not 100% error free (nothing made by man is), the process is as fair as we can make it.
 
Hey TG I thought you had actually put me on your ignore list . No I’ve been reading all the post . The good faith debate had nothing to do with me . I feel everyone has given reason after reason , example after example why RFL as they are written avoid due process . Then everyone has explained if you take each post separately. There isn’t a way for them to work AND you still have due process. 99% of people will be found not a threat and still shoot up a … whatever the next day . Yet you keep ask for things already said or explained , that is the bad faith argument I was speaking of .

I thought I was the only one that came up with an option that is allowed in most jurisdictions today . Just about everywhere a person can get put on a 24 or 48hr psychiatric hold . “IF” these people are so dangerous or potentially so . Then write a law that puts the person on a psychiatric hold for 24 to 48 hours. They do it all the time so why not here ? This allow the public to be safe and the experts to evaluate the person . All while we/me/you/they get to fight the allegations while all their firearms. Stay safe in their home because while on the hold you/me/they don’t have access to there firearms.

“IF” you/me/they are deemed not to be a threat they are released to go home to all there guns while filing for all attorneys fees , lost wages and ANY other financial reimbursement they may have lost . To include moneys for any child sports games missed ( emotional suffering) for both them and the children. Other family maters missed that cost them money . All to be paid by the initial complaint be it a family member neighbor coworker government employee doesn’t matter .

So there you go …. again I’ve put my self out there to be slapped down . One of us has giving a clear suggestion. Your turn , If you were king how would you stop people from using guns illegally while staying with in the due process clause ?
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
IF this is done, I can only see all possible outcomes falling into one of three possibilities.

The court can order the person incarcerated, the court can release them and order their guns taken, or the court can release them without ordering their guns taken.

So, I'm not sure you will get them locked up without a medical diagnosis from a mental health type.

Seems like we have a serious case of agreement here. Damn, it took a while to get there.

Finally, I think the gun community should be open to and suggesting of ways to help get the guns out of the nuts hands. Why?

Because we ALL want less murderous grief.

It helps us in our evangelism to the unwashed (unarmed) folk

And we can come up with better ways than these hand wringing antis.

Won't stop em all but then nothing this side of heaven will. It's been interesting. Thanks.
 
So, I'm not sure you will get them locked up without a medical diagnosis from a mental health type.

I think you're being a little fixated on the mental health diagnosis as the only thing that will get them locked up. It's not.

In general terms, the court doesn't have to find them "nuts" in order to lock them up, it has to find them "dangerous" that part doesn't matter if they are nuts, or not.

Dangerous nuts get committed. Dangerous people who aren't ruled to be nuts get arrested. People who are neither get to go home. And then work on who owes them what for the crap they had to go through...:rolleyes:

Ok, so this is an ideal and we're not going to get 100% proper performance, but isn't it what we should strive for??
 
44 AMP said:
I think you're being a little fixated on the mental health diagnosis as the only thing that will get them locked up. It's not.

Mileage may vary state to state.

44 AMP said:
Dangerous nuts get committed.

Not necessarily. I've seen it for mental incompetence and not being able to function in society. Personal experience.

44 AMP said:
Dangerous people who aren't ruled to be nuts get arrested.

Not if they commit no crime.

44 AMP said:
we're not going to get 100% proper performance, but isn't it what we should strive for??

Indeed. My reason for posting. Good discussion.
 
Back
Top