|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 19,190
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 19,190 |
Two things.........first, at some point in time, probably sooner rather than later, there will be some serious gun control legislation that will become the law of the land. In other words, it will pretty much do away with the Second Amendment.......and it will be supported by a majority of the politicians in BOTH parties, the SCOTUS, and the NRA. The NRA will say that it is necessary in order to hold onto the rest of our rights.
Secondly....I don't know of anyone, other than a fool, and there are quite a few of those around, who would not support a law that would keep guns, along with other deadly weapons, out of the hands of people who desire to use them to take the lives of innocent people. But, therein lies the rub......how do you determine who those people are? We do not live in a perfect world, one whereby we would know who is, and who isn't, a dangerous threat to society. I might get mad at my neighbor and decide to pay him back by falsely reporting that he is a dangerous man, and then he would be red flagged and could not buy a gun....when in fact, it would be that was the bad guy, and he the good one.
I can see all sorts of differing scenarios, but, I do agree with those who say something needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of someone who intends on using a gun to commit a crime with. I just don't know how you go about doing it without stepping on the rights of the innocent people. You're a full-blown retard. Literally ineducable. Now now now... You just have to overlook EE. He doesn't like me because I've cleaned his clock on here so many times that we've lost count. Maybe if he'd go back to taking his medicine he'd act right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179 |
Unless a person is mentally deficient enough to be placed on at least a 72-hour involuntary hold by authorities and then after having at least two mental professionals diagnosed and then in court adjudicated as such, they should not lose the right to keep and bear arms..
I think in order for your criteria to work, society would need to become more efficient at being able to get people diagnosed as such, but as it stands, somebody mentally unstable can skirt by avoiding such, until the moment they go over the edge. I still believe family is the key, they are first to know, if there is to be new legislation, empower the family. A majority of mass shooters have had family's who knew their loved ones were sick. To use the uni-bomber as an example, it took family to stop him from killing more than he did, and I believe if family is given more leeway, even special leeway, that could be a major improvement. I know your pain somewhat reading about your daughter, my sympathies go out to you. I had a son that was a good boy until at about 18 had began to suffer from Schizophrenia like his mother had. It was a rough 10 years then he like her passed. Good luck with her in the future. Sorry to hear about your wife and son, it gives people a different perspective. When I was young I looked at the homeless people in Santa Cruz with humor, now I feel disdain for what they have done to themselves AND their families. You know, the hardest thing in life, is trying to convince a sick person that they are sick, I'm sure you spent a great deal of time trying to do the same. Having dealt with a lot of folks who were mentally ill, I sympathize. The Red Flag laws simply won't do any good. They are targeted at people who aren't mentally ill. I'll add something to what you said also, and I think you'll agree. Invariably folks who are mentally ill, but stable with their meds, will quit taking their meds. They always think they can do without them and they almost always can't. What do you base this on? I mean of course Red Flags will not cure the problem, but can it help the problem? If they changed the law that allowed family to request to law enforcement that their family member be taken in for evaluation, and the physician on duty was actually able to use his judgement as opposed to law enforcement asking the same two questions, more mentally ill would be 5150'd, at that point sending up a red flag. When the ACLU took away the rights of families to have their loved ones committed, they really opened a can of worms, we need a law where families are given more authority to have a family member evaluated upon request..not just asked if they feel like killing or being killed. The hardest part of the whole deal is getting your family member from the front door, to the hospital to be evaluated. The police actually seem to run interference for the sick. They claim there is nothing they can do if the individual does not claim they want to hurt themselves, but that simply is not true, it is policy, not law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
There has already been a study done on existing Red Flag Laws that showed them to only be effective about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.
It doesn't really matter how effective they are. I know that is a harsh thing to say, but it makes it no less true. It would also be effective to implement 100% gun control. IOW, no guns whatsoever. None in private hands, none in police hands, none in military hands. Of course, this can't be done, but it would be effective. Red Flag Laws, as has already been discussed and demonstrated numerous times, are obviously gross violations of our Constitution. The Constitution is the underpinning of all our laws and the country itself. You throw out the Constitution and what do you have? Just a bunch of land and people with no system of laws and probably tyranny. Our Constitution has already been violated way too much. Especially the 2nd Amendment.
It sounds like your real beef is with the government over the tightening of laws allowing family members to be committed. Violating Due Process isn't a substitute for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399 |
There has already been a study done on existing Red Flag Laws that showed them to only be effective about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.
It doesn't really matter how effective they are. I know that is a harsh thing to say, but it makes it no less true. It would also be effective to implement 100% gun control. IOW, no guns whatsoever. None in private hands, none in police hands, none in military hands. Of course, this can't be done, but it would be effective. Red Flag Laws, as has already been discussed and demonstrated numerous times, are obviously gross violations of our Constitution. The Constitution is the underpinning of all our laws and the country itself. You throw out the Constitution and what do you have? Just a bunch of land and people with no system of laws and probably tyranny. Our Constitution has already been violated way too much. Especially the 2nd Amendment.
It sounds like your real beef is with the government over the tightening of laws allowing family members to be committed. Violating Due Process isn't a substitute for this.
Great post, EE.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge in the process doesn't make for due process. Everyone burned at the stake as a witch had a judge in the process. Due process means that before your rights are interfered with, you've had an opportunity to face and contradict your accusers before a court of law, with the aid of legal representation, with all rules of evidence intact, etc.. The only exception is when there's probable cause you've already committed a crime, or are in the actual planning and prepping stage of doing so, in which case arrest and trial are the remedy, not gun confiscation at 4:00 AM by a SWAT team. The Red Flag laws fall miles short of any of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. And search warrants are issued only if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed, or a plot and preparations have been already made for doing so, all requiring sworn testimony as to the evidence of same, and Red Flag laws go far beyond searching to verify sworn testimony as to criminal evidence. Red Flag laws don't require that. They only require that someone has expressed concern that you are a danger. That affords zero protection via due process, leaving people wide open to acts of classical tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179 |
There has already been a study done on existing Red Flag Laws that showed them to only be effective about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.
It doesn't really matter how effective they are. I know that is a harsh thing to say, but it makes it no less true. It would also be effective to implement 100% gun control. IOW, no guns whatsoever. None in private hands, none in police hands, none in military hands. Of course, this can't be done, but it would be effective. Red Flag Laws, as has already been discussed and demonstrated numerous times, are obviously gross violations of our Constitution. The Constitution is the underpinning of all our laws and the country itself. You throw out the Constitution and what do you have? Just a bunch of land and people with no system of laws and probably tyranny. Our Constitution has already been violated way too much. Especially the 2nd Amendment.
It sounds like your real beef is with the government over the tightening of laws allowing family members to be committed. Violating Due Process isn't a substitute for this.
Except that I’m not talking about current red flag policy, I’m talking about increasing the likelyhood of identifying true mentally ill people, which in turn WILL make Red Flags more reliable. Look I understand the absolutist views on the 2nd Amendment, but they will not survive, and you know it, so why not improve the ability to identify truly menally ill people so that we become more efficient at it, and have less reasons to infringe on honest, healthy gun owners. If you think in this day and age of rampant drug use and mental illness, coupled with Internet hate, that we can survive with absolute gun rights, I’m sorry to say you are fighting a valiant fight, but a losing fight.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364 |
Slippery slope Barkoff, I try to understand your situation and recall mine which very soon didn't have much trouble having him taken involuntarily.
Are steps available to you outside law enforcement as a beginning?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,179 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge in the process doesn't make for due process. Everyone burned at the stake as a witch had a judge in the process. Due process means that before your rights are interfered with, you've had an opportunity to face and contradict your accusers before a court of law, with the aid of legal representation, with all rules of evidence intact, etc.. The only exception is when there's probable cause you've already committed a crime, or are in the actual planning and prepping stage of doing so, in which case arrest and trial are the remedy, not gun confiscation at 4:00 AM by a SWAT team. The Red Flag laws fall miles short of any of this. I’m not saying anything you have said here is wrong, however when we finally lose our 2nd Amendment Rights, you will bare part of the blame, for failing to do anything to address the problems of the day, rather choosing your absolutist stance on the 2nd. Nope, you are not wrong, but you fail to grasp where we are in the here and now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. And search warrants are issued only if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed, or a plot and preparations have been already made for doing so, all requiring sworn testimony as to the evidence of same, and Red Flag laws go far beyond searching to verify sworn testimony as to criminal evidence. Red Flag laws don't require that. They only require that someone has expressed concern that you are a danger. That affords zero protection via due process, leaving people wide open to acts of classical tyranny. Hawkeye said it better than me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
There has already been a study done on existing Red Flag Laws that showed them to only be effective about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, I don't have a link.
It doesn't really matter how effective they are. I know that is a harsh thing to say, but it makes it no less true. It would also be effective to implement 100% gun control. IOW, no guns whatsoever. None in private hands, none in police hands, none in military hands. Of course, this can't be done, but it would be effective. Red Flag Laws, as has already been discussed and demonstrated numerous times, are obviously gross violations of our Constitution. The Constitution is the underpinning of all our laws and the country itself. You throw out the Constitution and what do you have? Just a bunch of land and people with no system of laws and probably tyranny. Our Constitution has already been violated way too much. Especially the 2nd Amendment.
It sounds like your real beef is with the government over the tightening of laws allowing family members to be committed. Violating Due Process isn't a substitute for this.
Except that I’m not talking about current red flag policy, I’m talking about increasing the likelyhood of identifying true mentally ill people, which in turn WILL make Red Flags more reliable. Look I understand the absolutist views on the 2nd Amendment, but they will not survive, and you know it, so why not improve the ability to identify truly menally ill people so that we become more efficient at it, and have less reasons to infringe on honest, healthy gun owners. If you think in this day and age of rampant drug use and mental illness, coupled with Internet hate, that we can survive with absolute gun rights, I’m sorry to say you are fighting a valiant fight, but a losing fight. That's the thing Barkoff, rights including the 2nd Amendment, are absolute. That was the reason for codifying them in the Constitution. They are recognized as things not to be negotiated on nor bargained away. They aren't granted by the Constitution. They exist separately, apart from it. You can let people con you out of exercising them. Stronger people or groups can infringe upon them but they still exist. These laws or this law if it goes Federal, will be used against regular gun owners while the dangerous folks among the mentally ill will be ignored either passively or actively as in used as tools to advance political agendas, just like now. Do not be deceived. You're smarter than this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. So you can't find a single Red Flag that does not involve a judge and due process? Such as evidence or testimony?
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,399 |
I’m not saying anything you have said here is wrong, however when we finally lose our 2nd Amendment Rights, you will bare part of the blame, for failing to do anything to address the problems of the day, rather choosing your absolutist stance on the 2nd. Nope, you are not wrong, but you fail to grasp where we are in the here and now.
Not just the Second, but the Fourth and Fifth, too. The Red Flag laws are a violation of all of the core guarantees within those three articles of the Bill of Rights. Read Amendment IV. Unreasonable seizures by government actors are barred if they lack probable cause supported by oath or affirmation that a crime has been committed (including inchoate crimes like conspiracy or attempt evidenced by actual planning with intent to complete). Apart from that, seizures are outside of law, and therefore tyrannical by definition. If someone is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, the remedy is 1) temporary confinement with a court order for observation, followed by 2) a hearing with all due process intact, followed by 3) committal to an institution. Seizure of property is not one of the remedies permitted by our Constitution for insanity, and certainly not as a first step before due process protections are afforded. The Fifth Amendment says your property cannot be taken without due process, i.e., first due process, then (if legally justified) a taking of property from the owner's possession.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge in the process doesn't make for due process. Everyone burned at the stake as a witch had a judge in the process. Due process means that before your rights are interfered with, you've had an opportunity to face and contradict your accusers before a court of law, with the aid of legal representation, with all rules of evidence intact, etc.. The only exception is when there's probable cause you've already committed a crime, or are in the actual planning and prepping stage of doing so, in which case arrest and trial are the remedy, not gun confiscation at 4:00 AM by a SWAT team. The Red Flag laws fall miles short of any of this. I’m not saying anything you have said here is wrong, however when we finally lose our 2nd Amendment Rights, you will bare part of the blame, for failing to do anything to address the problems of the day, rather choosing your absolutist stance on the 2nd. Nope, you are not wrong, but you fail to grasp where we are in the here and now. That's wrong. Helping others is a choice and not an obligation. The whole idea of inalienable rights is that they are untouchable. That's what the Constitution is about. I, Hawkeye and many others have explained things like this over and over and over. We've used the power of our vote. Some of have been elected to office. Others serve their country in other ways. The ultra rich consistently buy people off and infringe upon rights that were never meant to be touched. We do what we can although we are not obligated to and shouldn't have to. I'll expand a bit on what Bristoe said recently and say, "any government which can't be ignored, should be feared,".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. So you can't find a single Red Flag that does not involve a judge and due process? Such as evidence or testimony? The guy in Maryland was Red Flagged and then killed by the police before his guns were taken. Where was his Due Process?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
I’m not saying anything you have said here is wrong, however when we finally lose our 2nd Amendment Rights, you will bare part of the blame, for failing to do anything to address the problems of the day, rather choosing your absolutist stance on the 2nd. Nope, you are not wrong, but you fail to grasp where we are in the here and now.
Not just the Second, but the Fourth and Fifth, too. The Red Flag laws are a violation of all of the core guarantees within those three articles of the Bill of Rights. Read Amendment IV. Unreasonable seizures by government actors are barred if they lack probable cause supported by oath or affirmation that a crime has been committed (including inchoate crimes like conspiracy or attempt evidenced by actual planning with intent to complete). Apart from that, seizures are outside of law, and therefore tyrannical by definition. If someone is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, the remedy is 1) temporary confinement with a court order for observation, followed by 2) a hearing with all due process intact, followed by 3) committal to an institution. Seizure of property is not one of the remedies permitted by our Constitution for insanity, and certainly not as a first step before due process protections are afforded. The Fifth Amendment says your property cannot be taken without due process, i.e., first due process, then (if legally justified) a taking of property from the owner's possession. Absolutely spot-on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,364 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. So you can't find a single Red Flag that does not involve a judge and due process? Such as evidence or testimony? Google can help you understand your constitutional rights beyond the 2nd and also help you find an explanation of " due process", as you apparently don't now. THC will hopefully be along soon to better explain that
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Show me any Red Flag Law that does not operate under Due Process.
All the ones I have looked at have a judge in the process. A judge is also needed for a search warrant. Red flag in some states is the same as arresting the accused for what they suspect will be found before the search is made. So you can't find a single Red Flag that does not involve a judge and due process? Such as evidence or testimony? Google can help you understand your constitutional rights beyond the 2nd and also help you find an explanation of " due process", as you apparently don't now. THC will hopefully be along so to better explain that I think that many members here are listening to THC to explain more than their rights. Another piece of the puzzle, as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
616 members (1minute, 160user, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 007FJ, 1lessdog, 66 invisible),
2,095
guests, and
1,257
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,276
Posts18,448,425
Members73,899
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
