NY Red Flag law unconstitutional

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

What is the sanction against those who file fraudulent "stop this nut!" petitions?

That's a big question, and an important one. Most of the existing red flag laws don't include any sanctions for filing a false petition.

A poster child for abuse of red flag laws is the case of the woman on Colorado who, a couple or so years ago, filed an "extreme risk protection order" against the police officer who was forced to shoot and kill her son, who was approaching the officer with a knife and who refused to put it down. The officer's body cam showed him back peddling probably at least 100 feet, all the while begging the perp to drop the knife. Finally, the kid rushed the cop, so the cop (and another officer on the scene) had to open fire.

The grieving mother filed an ERPO against the cop, claiming that he was a murderer and a danger to society. The Colorado law (at least at that time) required that a complainant be somehow related to the subject of the order, so on the form she checked a box claiming [falsely] that she and the officer had a child in common.

Ultimately, she was arrested and convicted of perjury, but it took a couple of years for that to play out. But I don't think all states have a form such as that as part of their system. In my state, as originally adopted the ERPO law required two police officers to sign off on a petition. A recent revision removed that requirement, and also opened it up to the point where just about anyone who can remember your name (even if they can't spell it correctly) can file for an order against you.

https://www.reporterherald.com/2022/...ublic-servant/

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The tightrope that needs to be walked is to be able to balance, a law that meets Constitutional standards, AND works fast enough to take guns away from "nuts" to make people feel safe and happy.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Maybe, but I won't accept it under these terms:

I think this is what I am talking about. How would one craft such a law. What would be the components that would give us the desired result.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Operating from emotion is what gets bad laws made. If an idea can't stand on its own merits, it's not worth pursuing.

So, I think the issue of Red Flag Laws has some legs for these reasons:

School Shootings will continue

States (even gun friendly ones like Florida) are enacting them.

Really Gun friendly states like TN are seriously considering them and even the Governor has asked for one.

Voters feel like they are reasonable ways to prevent some of these shootings and that some tool other than full on involuntary commitment needs to be in play.

So, bottom-line is that this issue will be brought up again and may be coming to a state near you. Since I like proacting, maybe discussion of what that tool should look like would better be between us gun types or "others" will make it up for us. Sticking our heads in the sand prolly won't help and may get us a law that really sucks.

So, what are the components look like?

I listened to a few Mental Health types and diagnosis of a particular disease seems to be less helpful than actual behavior at the time and many of these nuts aren't formally diagnosed.

[44 AMP]

What would be the components that would give us the desired result.

What, in your opinion, is the desired result?

You keep asking "how do we write a better red flag law?" What I'm getting from that is "can we? and "how do we do it if we can?"

What I'm not getting is "should we?"

I don't think we should.

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that "its going to happen, if we help them, maybe we'll get a better deal".

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The way I see it, red flag laws are not just paving stones, but are steeply sloped down and covered with oil.

I'm not being paid to be part of the work crew installing them, and I'm not at all interested in telling that crew how to do a better job.

you can't fix anything until you know what is broken and no fix can last until you understand what caused it to break in the first place, and change that.

[Tom Servo]

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that "its going to happen, if we help them, maybe we'll get a better deal".

Oh, we've been down THAT road. In 1934, when we agreed to swallow the NFA as long as they took handguns off. In 1968, when they said they just wanted to put some slight restrictions and they ended up banning huge swathes of imports. In 1994, when they told us they'd leave us alone if we'd let them have the Brady Act.

Something most people don't understand is, gun-control advocates can't be dealt with in good faith. Any "deal" we think we're striking with them will be poisoned.

[Metal god]

Straight up word ! Tom . The cake analogy is perfect to make that point.

The Cake
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

cake
I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one-eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Something most people don't understand is, gun-control advocates can't be dealt with in good faith. Any "deal" we think we're striking with them will be poisoned.

All too true. As a reminder, for those who missed it the first (and the second, and the third, and ... time around), I offer Law Dog's succinct explanation of how it works with the anti-gun activists:

https://thelawdogfiles.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

“We cannot negotiate with those who say, ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.'”

— John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word ‘compromise’ for the first ‘negotiate’ in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of “compromise” in the “national gun conversation”.

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the “Gun Rights Cake” analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about “compromise” from the gun-control camp … except, it’s not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say — again: “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and this time I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already ‘compromised’ me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE …

… and here you come again. Compromise! … Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! … The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! … The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these “compromises” — in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING — I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise” as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I — or any other American — could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your “compromise” in 1934, and suddenly I can’t buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y’all lose in this “compromise”?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We “compromised” in 1968, and suddenly I’ve got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there’s whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, “sporting purpose” — a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT — suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do — exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 “compromise”?

The Lautenberg Act was a “compromise” which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor — a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this “compromise”?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine “compromise” means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more — and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, “compromise” means you’ll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I’ve got news for you: That is not “compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with “compromise”. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”, and I have flat had enough.

LawDog

[Aguila Blanca]

I see Metal god quoted Law Dog while I was typing. I'll leave mine up, because I gave Law Dog proper recognition as being the source of the analogy.

[44 AMP]

Thank you for giving Law Dog (a member here for many years) his due credit.

Metal God, you got one thing wrong about the cake.

I received it from the 2nd amendment.

You didn't get it from the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in the Bill of Rights grants any rights. ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on GOVERMENT in respect to our "Natural" rights. (God given rights, if you prefer that phrase). We have them because WE EXIST. Government does not give them to us.

and this is my primary objection to "helping" write better gun control laws, all it does is like throwing one of our babies (our rights) out of the sleigh in the hope the pursuing wolves will stop chasing us.

They won't. They may briefly pause while they devour the baby, but then they come on again, and stronger, because YOU FED THEM!

Appeasement does not work, long term and its really humiliating short term (though some won't see it. Once you pay the DaneGeld, you're never free of the Dane, and no matter how sincerely they seem to promise that this is the end of their territorial demands in Europe, we DON'T get "peace in our time", from giving them what they demand.

We get it (as much as we do) from fighting the war we hoped we could avoid, and winning.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

What, in your opinion, is the desired result?

Guns not in the hands of nuts. I'm curious about possible solutions. This is not about any type of "compromise" just curious about solutions.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I don't think we should.

Fair enough. No problem here just move along. But the Governor of a very gun friendly state thinks otherwise and other gun friendly states are enacting them. You said earlier that you would not oppose such a bill if it took into account due process. Why did you change your mind?

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm afraid I don't buy the argument that "its going to happen, if we help them, maybe we'll get a better deal".

So, we aren't helping "them" (LOL) we are looking at a problem that might need some ideas. Looking at ways to reduce mass shootings with ways other than gearing up and shooting it out with crazies is not "anti-gun" (again LOL). It's just trying to look at ways to deal with an issue.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The way I see it, red flag laws are not just paving stones, but are steeply sloped down and covered with oil.

The road to hell is also aided by sticking your head in the sand. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy too.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm not being paid to be part of the work crew installing them, and I'm not at all interested in telling that crew how to do a better job.

Really? I see you guys bitching all the time on here about what the gubmint should do or not do? So why is this issue any different?

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

you can't fix anything until you know what is broken and no fix can last until you understand what caused it to break in the first place, and change that.

We know what's broke. Nuts are getting guns and shooting up public places like schools. Unless you are Alex Jones and think they are false flags then I think we know what is broke. In many cases the shooters had all kinds of red flags that went up but there wasn't effective tools to get guns away from them without using laws designed for completely insane and nonfunctioning folk. You've admitted that in previous posts saying we need to walk the line between safety and civil rights. So, all I'm asking is how best to meet the issue.

As I posted before, this issue has legs and ain't going away. Some of you already live in states with bad Red Flag laws. I suspect my state will have something in the future so I'm interested in what the folks here think would make good law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

We know what's broke. Nuts are getting guns and shooting up public places like schools. Unless you are Alex Jones and think they are false flags then I think we know what is broke. In many cases the shooters had all kinds of red flags that went up but there wasn't effective tools to get guns away from them without using laws designed for completely insane and nonfunctioning folk. You've admitted that in previous posts saying we need to walk the line between safety and civil rights. So, all I'm asking is how best to meet the issue.

First, in a great many of the cases to which you refer, there were effective tools to either keep guns away from the evil people, or to keep the evil people away from guns (which, IMHO, is the better approach than curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of innocent people) -- but those tools were not used.

Second, why do you say, "without using laws designed for completely insane and nonfunctioning folk"? Are you suggesting that people who want to shoot up schools and kill large numbers of children AREN'T completely insane? In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, not only was he pretty much nuts, he was also pretty much dysfunctional -- if not non-functional. Do you object to using existing laws about crazy people to keep crazy people away from guns?

I respectfully submit that you have fallen into the trap of blaming the tool for the actions of the operator. You are still focused on the guns, and the guns aren't the problem. The problem is people who want to kill large numbers of other people. And our politicians don't want to address that, so they use GUNZ!!! as their scapegoat.

[Metal god]

AB give up he does not get it . He appears to be in the crowd, something has to be done - this is something so lets do this ! Not caring if this actually will work . He does not understand as long as guns are available, guns will be used in bad ways from time to time . The only way to truly stop people committing crimes using guns is to not only ban guns for sale but to take the ones we all have away . I’ll say it again , that is never going to happen . I say never because we’ve ( law abiding citizens ) fought wars over that before and we we will again if push comes to shove . This county will always have guns therefore there will always be people using them unlawfully.

He’s also not listening to what has been said many times . Its about DUE PROCESS period and every red flag law so far excludes due process . I understand why they do , good reason or not , for going due process is never ok . Why do they want to do everything in secret, simple because if they tell the crazy guy they are looking to take there weapons. If the guy really is crazy and is/was planning on doing harm to others . Tipping them off will likely force there hand and they will either do the bad deed right away before LEO can get to the weapons or they can hide the weapons so they can do it at a later date . I/we understand why the government feels the need to for go due process but the constitution says you can’t.

Again it has been said many times in this thread , there is already laws on the books to deal with crazy people . The issue is those remedies require due process . Maliciously or not government does not want to use those tools. Because it will tip off the bad guy about the government is up to. It’s really simple as that in my humble opinion.

We all must stand up and say no that is unacceptable.



Captain Picard said it best

THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE ! THIS FAR , NO FURTHER !!!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

We know what's broke. Nuts are getting guns and shooting up public places like schools.

No, you don't know what's "broke". That's why you can't define what a "nut" is or even have a proposal as to how one would be proven a "nut" before the state can remove his rights.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

In many cases the shooters had all kinds of red flags that went up but there wasn't effective tools to get guns away from them without using laws designed for completely insane and nonfunctioning folk.

Then why didn't the state use those laws?

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

You've admitted that in previous posts saying we need to walk the line between safety and civil rights. So, all I'm asking is how best to meet the issue.

The issue is best met by understanding and observing peoples' rights, not fishing for a way to write laws that violate those rights in new ways.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

As I posted before, this issue has legs and ain't going away.

The scourge of "Saturday Night Specials" wasn't going away until it did. Public hysteria about ritual satanic abuse of children in daycare wasn't going away until it did.

Your drive to violate the rights of people whose characteristics you can't even define is the problem, not the solution.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

First, in a great many of the cases to which you refer, there were effective tools to either keep guns away from the evil people, or to keep the evil people away from guns (which, IMHO, is the better approach than curtailing the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of innocent people) -- but those tools were not used.

I don't think so. Like what? Millions of innocent people? LOL

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

Second, why do you say, "without using laws designed for completely insane and nonfunctioning folk"? Are you suggesting that people who want to shoot up schools and kill large numbers of children AREN'T completely insane? In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, not only was he pretty much nuts, he was also pretty much dysfunctional -- if not non-functional. Do you object to using existing laws about crazy people to keep crazy people away from guns?

Because using current laws take too long and are aimed at people who cannot function independently. They require lengthy diagnosis and protracted legal proceedings to take away a persons liberty altogether. The Sandy Hook shooter is a bad analogy since Red Flag laws wouldn't have mattered as he did not legally possess firearms. However, it would have helped in other cases so it should be in the toolkit.

Often times, while crazy as bedbugs, these shooters aren't formally diagnosed (until it's too late) but it is clear to those around them that they are crazy based on statements and behavior. Red Flag laws won't stop all shootings but there needs to be a way to temporarily take guns away from suicidal and dangerous types.

I'm not a mental health professional (and neither are you) but crazy is not one size fits all. I've personally known people who wanted to and attempted suicide for instance but were not successful and later regretted it but it was during a crisis.

Others have testified that they wanted to shoot up a school but were not able to for some reason and then later were fine and glad they didn't. The laws you speak of were written for people who were diagnosed and nonfunctional.

Since shooting up schools has become a crazytown meme and SOP we need a tool to get guns away from nuts. It's not a silver bullet but a tool like this along with armed security at schools would be a great set of tools to help prevent such.

[mehavey]

As TG (and for that matter, AB) indicate, without a Dept of Pre-Crime the cost of a free society -- backed up w/ the armed means of
both self-determination and defense -- is going to be high.

That the Left has taken the stance that such cost is no longer in any "civilized" society's interest has become the driving issue.
Take care, for that is the existential issue at hand for what defines the American Experiment

Originally Posted by TG

"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before....

For that, I invite the Gentle Readers to Tommy (1890)

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Because using current laws take too long and are aimed at people who cannot function independently. They require lengthy diagnosis and protracted legal proceedings to take away a persons liberty altogether.

We know that isn't true. There is no delay involved in an arrest for menacing. Guardianship doesn't mean that a person can't function independently, but that for some functions, voting, driving, possessing arms and handling property, the ward isn't independent.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

The Sandy Hook shooter is a bad analogy since Red Flag laws wouldn't have mattered as he did not legally possess firearms. However, it would have helped in other cases so it should be in the toolkit.

Inasmuch as that scenario shows that one need not possess arms more than moments prior to a murder in order to use one in murder, the idea that an RFL would have helped in other cases is dubious speculation.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Often times, while crazy as bedbugs, these shooters aren't formally diagnosed (until it's too late) but it is clear to those around them that they are crazy based on statements and behavior. Red Flag laws won't stop all shootings but there needs to be a way to temporarily take guns away from suicidal and dangerous types.

I'm not a mental health professional (and neither are you) but crazy is not one size fits all.

Emphasis added.

Where you describe a need based on your informal diagnosis of craziness clear to unspecified people, and can't define what a "nut" is or how one is shown to be a "nut", you illustrate a problem with RFLs more than you make an argument for them.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Since shooting up schools has become a crazytown meme and SOP we need a tool to get guns away from nuts.

Where people want to enact vague laws based on ignorance and speculation because they feel frustrated by evidentiary standards and due process, what we could use is education about how that is a bad idea.

Indulging bad ideas isn't a strategic virtue.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I don't think so. Like what? Millions of innocent people? LOL

You don't think think so about what? That there were tools not used?

I'll just toss out one example: The Sutherland Springs church shooter. He had been convicted by a military courts martial, and had either a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The Air Force was required BY LAW to report that to NICS. The Air Force did not do so -- and recently paid a significant amount of money to survivors of the victims as a result. And please don't laugh out loud about it -- it's not funny.

According to a 2020 Gallup poll, 32 percent of adult Americans report owning firearms. Since many gun owners won't admit to owning them, the actual percentage is likely considerably higher, but let's go with 32 percent.

As of 2021 the adult population of the United States was approximately 249.77 million. 32% of that would be 79.93 MILLION people. I think it's fair to say that "most" of those gun owners are innocent. Do you disagree that this means that infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights affects millions of innocent people?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Federal law currently prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or domestic-violence misdemeanor, have an active restraining order against them, or have been committed to a mental health institution.

The problem is that very few mass public shooters have disqualifying criminal convictions or mental health histories that prevent them from legally purchasing firearms, even though they often display many signs of being a serious risk of danger to themselves or others.

Further, not all mass public shooters have a diagnosable mental illness, and therefore can’t be disarmed through civil commitment procedures.

In other words, there’s a gap in existing laws where objectively dangerous people are still permitted to lawfully purchase and possess guns because they have not yet reached a mental health crisis or committed an atrocity.

Part of the problem is that civil commitments are a legally intensive process with serious (and often lifelong) implications for the person being committed. They are, therefore, often reserved as a last resort when all else has failed.

Red flag laws can provide an intermediate “gap-filler” option for situations where someone is clearly becoming a serious threat to himself or the public, but has not yet committed a serious crime or falls outside the scope of existing laws.

Moreover, red flag laws can allow non-state actors to play a more significant role in alerting law enforcement officials and courts to the dangers posed by individuals who may otherwise “fly under the radar.”

Friends, family members, and co-workers are often well-positioned to recognize when an individual is becoming an extreme risk of danger and have been instrumental in preventing mass public attacks.

Unlike other commonly proposed gun control measures, red-flag laws could have been used to prevent many high-profile mass public shootings without broadly infringing on the rights of all lawful gun owners.

For example, the parents of the man who killed six people and wounded 13 in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011 were so worried about his mental health, they disabled his car and tried to hide his firearms. They tried unsuccessfully to get him mental health treatment.

A red flag law would have given these parents a means to petition a court for help without relying on county attorneys, and their son could have been disarmed and steered toward treatment before he reached a breaking point.

Similarly, red flag laws could have prevented the Parkland, Florida, shooting by allowing the family with whom the shooter was staying to petition a court for disarmament after local law enforcement and school officials refused to take action, despite repeated indications that the shooter was dangerous.

No one seriously suggests that any one piece of legislation could provide an easy fix to all mass public shootings, and red flag laws are certainly not a complete answer.

They are, however, a potentially important tool in the broader toolbox for combating gun-related violence in the United States, and can be paired with other important measures, such as those addressing untreated mental health issues or increasing the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in public places.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You don't think think so about what? That there were tools not used?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

I'll just toss out one example:

Bad example. That was the result of poor administration. Also, this incident did not involve mental illness that insanity laws in that state would cover.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And please don't laugh out loud about it -- it's not funny.

I most always laugh at hyperbole. It has no place in good discussion.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Do you disagree that this means that infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights affects millions of innocent people?

Yes and I laugh at it the same way I do at those who think School Shooters were "raised wrong" or that mass shootings are caused by not having prayer in schools.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TG

In other words, there’s a gap in existing laws where objectively dangerous people are still permitted to lawfully purchase and possess guns because they have not yet reached a mental health crisis or committed an atrocity.

That's not a gap; it's a feature. You are objectively dangerous; so am I. That's part of the point of being a useful effective person. Of course, the other part of being a useful person is having the self control and capacity to know when to pose a danger to another.

Originally Posted by TG

Red flag laws can provide an intermediate “gap-filler” option for situations where someone is clearly becoming a serious threat to himself or the public, but has not yet committed a serious crime or falls outside the scope of existing laws.

At this point in the discussion, it's fair to conclude that you know or should know this is false.

Originally Posted by TG

Moreover, red flag laws can allow non-state actors to play a more significant role in alerting law enforcement officials and courts to the dangers posed by individuals who may otherwise “fly under the radar.”

That is incorrect. RFLs allow petitions to the judiciary to be filed. LEO would only execute the ensuing order, if any.

Originally Posted by TG

[Sutherland Springs is a] Bad example. That was the result of poor administration. Also, this incident did not involve mental illness that insanity laws in that state would cover.

Sutherland Springs is a poor example because it relied on government that poorly administered an existing restriction, and your proposed solution is to rely on the government for competent administration of a new law?

Originally Posted by TG

...and can be paired with other important measures, such as those addressing untreated mental health issues ...

This is a tangent, but historical context of which people should be aware before handing local government even more power.

After WWII particularly, there was a problem with involuntary confinement of people we would never confine today. The horror stories involve people with a case of sadness seeking help and being locked up for months or years without access to counsel, medicated, and not shockingly developing mental problems from being confined, drugged and mistreated.

We've arguably had a swing to the other extreme now with the mentally ill composing a big part of urban homelessness. Swinging back the other way to the casual abridgement of the rights of people with nervous friends and family (a plan you don't want to be on) isn't progress.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Bad example. That was the result of poor administration. Also, this incident did not involve mental illness that insanity laws in that state would cover.

It's a perfect example. You are looking at red flag laws to take guns away from "nuts." Yet you admit that if a shooter isn't a nut, red flag laws won't make a difference.

The Las Vegas festival shooter wasn't a "nut" either (legally), but his actions weren't exactly exemplary of sanity.

I'm sorry, but your approach strikes me as a typical, hand-wringing "But we have to do SOMETHING!" approach. And I respectfully submit that this is not a solid basis for public policy.

I am reminded of a video I saw on YouTube several years ago. It was a meeting of some municipal or county board of governors or board of commissioners. They were discussing the adoption of a new anti-gun law or ordinance. It was a public meeting, and a member of the public stood up and reminded the panel that if they passed the law, it couldn't be enforced -- because that state had a firearms preemption statute. Only the state was allowed to regulate firearms.

And one of the commissioners responded, "I don't care if it can be enforced. I'm going to vote for it anyway because we've got to do something!"

In your case, the "something" you want won't be unenforceable -- but it would negatively impact a great many innocent people while there is no reason to believe that it would actually prevent a single mass shooting.

Here's my challenge: Nobody on this forum wants to see kids shot and killed in their schools (or anywhere else). We have made clear that -- setting aside for the moment that creeping incrementalism aspect of gun control legislation in general -- a primary objection to red flag laws as they have been written in every single state that has adopted them is the lack of due process. How about YOU explain to us how a red flag law would read that does provide real, substantive due process?

[Metal god]

Lol where is the bang your head on the wall emoji . The Sandy Hook killer killed the owner of the guns then stole them . What law prevents that ? That is a perfectly fine example because he was diagnosed . His mother chose firearms as one of his therapies. In hindsight does anyone think that was a good idea ? So why can’t a red flag prevent the parents from owning guns ? TG do you think it was a good idea for mom to supply and help train her son to carry out such an attack ? I mean if you saw anyone letting a “crazy” person use there guns wouldn’t that be concerning enough to turn them in as a danger to society and strip them of there rights ?

As far as I can tell you are trying to be a deep thinker but refuse to leave the shallow end . This is not about guns !

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's a perfect example. You are looking at red flag laws to take guns away from "nuts." Yet you admit that if a shooter isn't a nut, red flag laws won't make a difference

It's a perfectly bad example as the shooter in that case was a domestic abuser (unless you consider that nuts) and was thrown out of the AF. Red Flag laws would not have come into play anymore than if he had robbed a bank. The issue there was the admin error that did not include him in NICS. And of course red flag laws are for nuts so yes if you are not one or behaving like one it wouldn't apply. I am curious how you could conflate that.

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

The Las Vegas festival shooter wasn't a "nut" either (legally), but his actions weren't exactly exemplary of sanity.

Actually he was: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/la...ers/index.html

That acquaintance could have used a Red Flag law to stop this guy before he went postal.

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

How about YOU explain to us how a red flag law would read that does provide real, substantive due process?

Here are some thoughts.

To be unobjectionable, red flag laws should, among other considerations:

Use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that are based on objective criteria and that don’t treat factors such as lawful firearm ownership or political affiliation as presumptively suspicious;

Be temporary in nature, limited only to the period of time the person remains a danger to himself or others, and provide for the prompt restoration of firearms and corresponding rights when the danger no longer exists;

Afford strong due process protections, including burdens of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing evidence”), cross-examination rights, and the right to counsel.

Provide meaningful remedies for those who are maliciously and falsely accused, and expunge any records of petitions that are not granted;

Be integrated with existing mental health and addiction systems to ensure that people who are deemed to be dangerous because of underlying factors receive the treatment they need.

I have read that research is limited, but what we do have shows that red flag laws are not used as sweeping gun-confiscation measures. Rather, they effectively target a small class of individuals who are dangerous but can’t otherwise be reached under existing mental health or criminal laws.

Importantly, the available evidence suggests that judges do not merely rubber-stamp petitions, especially when adequate due process protections are implemented.

Studies of red flag laws in Connecticut and Maryland show that in a significant percentage of cases, petitions are either not granted in the first place, or petitions that were initially granted are rescinded upon further review, and the person’s firearms are returned.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You are potentially dangerous; so am I.

Fixed it for ya

Originally Posted by zukiphile

At this point in the discussion, it's fair to conclude that you know or should know this is false.

You have not shown it to be so.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

That is incorrect. RFLs allow petitions to the judiciary to be filed. LEO would only execute the ensuing order, if any.

Non Sequitur

Originally Posted by zukiphile

there was a problem with involuntary confinement of people we would never confine today.

Right and so the pendulum did swing way over to the other side for confinement but we are not talking about confining people rather taking their guns while they suffer what may be temporary mental illness. Confinement not being warranted.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

We've arguably had a swing to the other extreme now with the mentally ill composing a big part of urban homelessness.

I agree and this is precisely the issue I am addressing. Rather than swing to extremes lets find somewhere in the middle. A RFL might do that.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Fixed it for ya

No, you didn't.

Since ability is part of the primary definition of "dangerous", adding the word "potential" is redundant. https://www.google.com/search?q=dang...client=gws-wiz

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Red flag laws can provide an intermediate “gap-filler” option for situations where someone is clearly becoming a serious threat to himself or the public, but has not yet committed a serious crime or falls outside the scope of existing laws.

You have not shown it to be so.

That is incorrect. We've covered situations in which someone poses an explicit or implied threat, situations in which a person can remain free but isn't responsible for exercise of some of his rights but has committed no crime.

You haven't described a gap in circumstances, but have described a problem with burdens of evidence and procedure where you seek a result to which you are not entitled.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Moreover, red flag laws can allow non-state actors to play a more significant role in alerting law enforcement officials and courts to the dangers posed by individuals who may otherwise “fly under the radar.”

Non Sequitur

What do you believe doesn't follow?

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Right and so the pendulum did swing way over to the other side for confinement but we are not talking about confining people rather taking their guns while they suffer what may be temporary mental illness. Confinement not being warranted.

I agree and this is precisely the issue I am addressing. Rather than swing to extremes lets find somewhere in the middle. A RFL might do that.

The issue presented by postwar psychiatric commitment is the violation of basic rights without due process, the same problem raised by RFLs.

Observing due process isn't an extreme.


I think your response to AB's question could use another run.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

How about YOU explain to us how a red flag law would read that does provide real, substantive due process?

TG, in response you've posted a list of results, but not how they would be implemented. If all of your results are embedded in legislation, the result is no RFL of any kind as that term is currently used.

[Metal god]

Me after reading this thread