General Question about Red Flag Laws

[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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

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]

Originally Posted by Zukiphile

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?

Originally Posted by Zukiphile

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.

Originally Posted by TennesseeGentleman

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.

Originally Posted by TennesseeGentleman

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.

Originally Posted by TennesseeGentleman

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-...56bf9cbe7.html

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNret93

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.

Originally Posted by USNret93

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]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

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.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Zukiphile

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Zukiphile

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

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?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Maybe my answer is that freedom entails risk that others will abuse said freedom sometimes and there is little way to prevent it?

I'd embrace that answer as true.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

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.

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.

[44 AMP]

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.

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...


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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44_AMP

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.

Actually, I have considered that, and my answer is, "No!"

[HiBC]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

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

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.

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.

[USNRet93]

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?

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.

The "principal officers of the executive departments" are the fifteen Cabinet members enumerated in the United States Code at 5 U.S.C 101

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.

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.

[HiBC]

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.

[USNRet93]

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?

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

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.

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.