Red Flag Confiscation Orders

[kmott]

One could easily argue a court issued order is part of the due process. With it come time constraints, hearings, and appeals.

The underlying question is does the potential danger this person poses to society temporarily override their right to life, liberty and happiness until the courts can decide if the threat is valid or not.

most would disagree , but my thoughts are NO , it does not.

the logical coarse of action would be to stop giving passes to those who do commit crimes .

no law will ever stop bad things from happening.
in my mind enforcing laws already on the books will do more good then passing more "feel good " laws ever could. and would also cause much less damage to the very foundation of this nation.

 

[MTGomer]

One could easily argue a court issued order is part of the due process. With it come time constraints, hearings, and appeals.

The underlying question is does the potential danger this person poses to society temporarily override their right to life, liberty and happiness until the courts can decide if the threat is valid or not.

The answer is no. One individual, no matter how dangerous is not capable of posing as much of a threat as the largest militarized police force of the most heavily funded, most powerful nation in the world, when it decides it can just disregard the rights of the people.

People that disagree with this should work with their elected officials to amend the constitution, so their viewpoints fit within the constitutional framework of our country. Of course, that isn’t easy to do and for good reason.

 

[kmott]

You missed the point. 'Sorry I posted. Carry (rant) on.

this is no rant, this is a discussion of differing principles. no need to make it any more then that.
if folks can continue to speak calmly , and rationally on the subject, as they have thus far , perhaps the discussion will be allowed to continue .

 

[MTGomer]

If we are going to violate the Constitution, I have an idea that I think could be just as effective. Tell the media they are not allowed to report the name, or the faces of any mass shooter on any network, ever. They’re only allowed to report that the shooting happened and report on the victims.

Without the couple days of being on a 24 hour news cycle, and people for other crazy people to draw inspiration from, would these things slow down? Possibly. Of course we can’t tell the media what to do or at least we are not supposed to, because we have freedom of the press

 

[JLS]

The answer is no. One individual, no matter how dangerous is not capable of posing as much of a threat as the largest militarized police force of the most heavily funded, most powerful nation in the world, when it decides it can just disregard the rights of the people.

The answer is not no. We incarcerate people every day and hold them until it can be decided, through due process, if they are guilty.

 

[MTGomer]

The answer is not no. We incarcerate people every day and hold them until it can be decided, through due process, if they are guilty.

And before we did that, there was reasonable suspicion for a LEO to make contact and then there was probable cause for the arrest.

If we are going to follow the way the system currently works for other proceedings, what’s the need for a new law?

 

[MTGomer]

How great is it, that with a republican president, Senate, and for two years, house we are discussing this. Instead, of discussing the dismantling of the ATF, the repealing of the NFA, etc.

Good thing so many sent so much money to the NRA and voted for the guy from NYC.

 

[JLS]

And before we did that, there was reasonable suspicion for a LEO to make contact and then there was probable cause for the arrest.

And, in the states I'm familiar with, in order to invoke a red flag the petitioner must present probable cause to a judge, who then determines if the PC is sufficient to issue a temporary red flag order that is valid until the person named in the order has an opportunity to respond (typically 14ish days). Not that much different. When a person is arrested, they don't get to refute the PC for the arrest until later. If they can't make bail, that means they sit in jail until their arraignment hearing.

 

[NR_Hunter]

I don't agree with taking guns one bit, but I think that article does a good job explaining that if it does happen to you, don't fight with the police doing their job serving the court order. Rather, show them to your guns and keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do their job and get you your guns back.

They said the same thing to folks right before they got sent to the gulag too.

 

[kmott]

And before we did that, there was reasonable suspicion for a LEO to make contact and then there was probable cause for the arrest.

If we are going to follow the way the system currently works for other proceedings, what’s the need for a new law?

yes but now we are going a step further and discussing holding them because they MIGHT commit a crime. and confiscating innocent peoples property because they MIGHT use it while committing said crime.

this is not a slope we should traverse.

 

[RockinU]

yes but now we are going a step further and discussing holding them because they MIGHT commit a crime. and confiscating innocent peoples property because they MIGHT use it while committing said crime.

this is not a slope we should traverse.

Are we doing it because they might commit a crime, or because they might be mentally unstable and therefore a danger?

There is a process for determining if someone is too mentally disturbed to have access to firearms, in my mind we are discussing whether or not there should be a way to limit one's access to firearms while this process plays out.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I would hope that we could all agree that there are people who are dangerous because of mental instability and that we do not, in fact, want those people, who are a danger to others, to have access to firearms.

 

[kmott]

Are we doing it because they might commit a crime, or because they might be mentally unstable and therefore a danger?


There is a process for determining if someone is too mentally disturbed to have access to firearms, in my mind we are discussing whether or not there should be a way to limit one's access to firearms while this process plays out.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I would hope that we could all agree that there are people who are dangerous because of mental instability and that we do not, in fact, want those people, who are a danger to others, to have access to firearms.

sure there are . there is also not one person alive I trust to make the call on who they are before they commit the crime. there is not even a group of people I would trust with that sort of power and certainly no government agency.


who cares if they are mentally unstable if they never commit a crime??????????????????if they obey our laws and hurt no one. they can be as crazy as they want to be for all I care. when they do commit the crime , we should stop giving excuses for their behavior and simply put them down. anyone above the age of accountability who cannot be trusted with a gun should not be allowed to live , I agree with that. problem is , until they commit that crime there is no way to really know . sure there may be signs . but there are signs that at least 99% of this nations population is unstable. there is not one soul in this nation who is above scrutiny. if we follow this path

 

[RockinU]

sure there are . there is also not one person alive I trust to make the call on who they are before they commit the crime. there is not even a group of people I would trust with that sort of power and certainly no government agency.


who cares if they are mentally unstable if they never commit a crime??????????????????if they obey our laws and hurt no one. they can be as crazy as they want to be for all I care. when they do commit the crime , we should stop giving excuses for their behavior and simply put them down. anyone above the age of accountability who cannot be trusted with a gun should not be allowed to live , I agree with that. problem is , until they commit that crime there is no way to really know . sure there may be signs . but there are signs that at least 99% of this nations population is unstable. there is not one soul in this nation who is above scrutiny. if we follow this path

We're pretty far out in the weeds now, afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on...well, most all of that.

 

[kmott]

yes .agree to disagree. I will never agree to take an innocents liberty to prevent what another MIGHT do. nor will I ever agree to take an innocents liberty because of what another did.

it is a despicable thing to do.

 

[ignorethefringes]

@kmott

Man, I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty in general. I can't understand how freely you sentence people to death.

I know this much, you would be considered an extremist by many people in this conversation nationally. The things you say on this thread could very easily be used to stoke anger on the other side. Frankly I'm not surprised you're nervous someone might recommend you get your guns taken away.

 

[NR_Hunter]

kmott, u seem like a cool dude but let’s be really real, if we don’t wanna give the government the power of Red flag laws, we shouldnt give the government the power to execute folks who aren’t fit to own guns.

 

[JLS]

It ironic to me someone can be opposed to things like red flag laws because it is a violation of civil right and due process, yet support a death penalty that clearly ends anyone’s ability to continue fighting for due process. One single execution of an innocent is too many. It astounds me we still have people sitting in prison cells for years before their guilty verdict is overturned.

 

[kmott]

kmott, u seem like a cool dude but let’s be really real, if we don’t wanna give the government the power of Red flag laws, we shouldnt give the government the power to execute folks who aren’t fit to own guns.

thank you , for bringing the point home . no one and no government should have that sort of power. I , can't understand how folks can be for red flag laws and be so opposed to the death penalty???????? to flip it makes perfect sense to me though.. one(death sentence) punishes the guilty ,the other (red flag laws ) punish the innocent( and yes ,the POTENTIALLY guilty) for what the guilty MIGHT do!

lol. and folks think I am the extremist here. cracks me up how upside down the though process of this nation has become. I seriously doubt a single one of the founders would still be willing to fight to preserve it.

 

[kmott]

It ironic to me someone can be opposed to things like red flag laws because it is a violation of civil right and due process, yet support a death penalty that clearly ends anyone’s ability to continue fighting for due process. One single execution of an innocent is too many. It astounds me we still have people sitting in prison cells for years before their guilty verdict is overturned.

seriously??????????????? the death penalty is due process! no one is talking about vigilante justice . we already have laws in place to take care of these things! it doesn't violate anyones rights unless they are a criminal. by being a criminal(murderer) they forfeight their right to exist. because we have death penalty red flag laws are not needed for anything other then to make the weak feel safe, even though the never can be.

and before anyone gets silly as I know some will , we are not talking about speeding tickets , we are talking about murder.

@kmott

Man, I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty in general. I can't understand how freely you sentence people to death.

I know this much, you would be considered an extremist by many people in this conversation nationally. The things you say on this thread could very easily be used to stoke anger on the other side. Frankly I'm not surprised you're nervous someone might recommend you get your guns taken away.

it's not freely but if you can't take the punishment , don't do the crime! and I can not understand how you and most can't.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... no one and no government should have that sort of power.

It continues to disappoint me to realize the widespread notion that the "government" is this entity which somehow sprung from spontaneous combustion and is something we must oppose due to our opposition and lack of connectivity. Civics beginning in elementary school attempted to instill the notion of connection in our republic to this representative form of democracy which allows direct voting voice as individual citizens, as well as collective voting voice electing representatives (lawmakers). When asserting that the "government" should or should not do this or that, the acknowledgement "should be" that laws, policies, and regulations are formed as a result of citizens' votes, responsibilities, and nexus with the "government" ... that being the "power" which you assert it should not have.