Red flag warnings

[Rzrbck918]

I agree with the majority of what has been written here so far. Evil will always exist. Laws punish but dont necessarily prevent, etc.

My understanding of red flag laws is that there is due process involved, just not a complete judicial inquiry before a finding may be temporarily issued. I may not be completely informed. That said, I am for red flag laws that include the following: judicial findings of fact, no ex parte hearings, limited time frame for reevaluation and the opportunity for re-acquisition of 2A rights. Seeing some of the other concerns listed, a criminalized prohibition against malicious reporting might be in order.

I know the NRA has operated against these laws arguing they make no statistical difference in violent crimes. While not statistical, they may make a significant practical difference in the life/lives of potential victims. Id happily sign on to other suggestions that might work.

 

[LWC55]

I am leery of curtailing rights of unconvicted individuals but I am sickened beyond belief at child sized body bags being removed from anywhere as a result of gun violence. I know many think more laws wont solve the problem but I, for one, am ready to see some concrete actions taken with the intent of reducing access to firearms by people who are likely to be dangerous or nefarious in their purposes. Laws inevitably cast a large net and entangle some who are likely unintended. On balance, however, this is a price I am willing to pay. Many feel that is too great a surrender of rights and I respect that opinion; I just don't concur.

The problem with more laws is that they only affect the people that follow the laws, the law abiding citizen. Crazy murdering types won't care that the gun they want to use is illegal. Murder is already illegal and they don't follow that one. You can argue that laws will make it more difficult to get whatever type of gun. But it will be like making drugs illegal makes them more difficult to get. Any one of us could score illegal drugs in under an hour if we wanted. Guns are the same for people that want to skirt background checks and such. Law abiding citizens will be the ones affected and won't be as well armed to protect themselves. We all need to try and look at this rationally and take out the emotion. I know it is difficult because it is an emotional issue. But lets not just make laws that take away rights because "we just need to do something".

 

[Gila]

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

www.cdc.gov

Unless a citizen is adjudicated as a mental defective in a court of law there is no due process rights. Anything else is unqualified hearsay. A citizen found quilty of violating a TRO is another matter however due process is applied. I can't see where the Brady law has done much to reduce violent crime.

 

[Rzrbck918]

The problem with more laws is that they only affect the people that follow the laws, the law abiding citizen. Crazy murdering types won't care that the gun they want to use is illegal. Murder is already illegal and they don't follow that one. You can argue that laws will make it more difficult to get whatever type of gun. But it will be like making drugs illegal makes them more difficult to get. Any one of us could score illegal drugs in under an hour if we wanted. Guns are the same for people that want to skirt background checks and such. Law abiding citizens will be the ones affected and won't be as well armed to protect themselves. We all need to try and look at this rationally and take out the emotion. I know it is difficult because it is an emotional issue. But lets not just make laws that take away rights because "we just need to do something".

You're right, with regard to background checks etc. The benefit of RF laws is that they aren't concerned with how someone got the guns. They are there to identify people who may not need them and remove them from their possession. Someone can go after the RF hearing and buy another gun certainly but maybe it stops some.

 

[Tjay]

Red flag is just another step to disarming you. This law will not work and when it doesn't they will push more restrictive laws. 28 years as a LEO has shown me that no law works all the time and the gun grabbers will just keep pushing. Next will be registration so they know where to find them.

I believe on our founding fathers said something to the effect, choosing safety over liberty one deserves neither.

Some info.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
✔
@neiltyson
In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…

500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun

And how many die per 48 hours from heroin/fentanyl/meth overdoses? Drugs largely brought in through weak borders.





Over 260 per 48 hours

..……."Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids...………."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

 

[bushman13]

It's all about education and abandoning traditional media.

Aspirin kills 8000 ppl a year in the US.
Measles has killed 1 person in 20 years.

Which one does media focus on? The one that generates profit.

It's all a show

Red flag is just another step to disarming you. This law will not work and when it doesn't they will push more restrictive laws. 28 years as a LEO has shown me that no law works all the time and the gun grabbers will just keep pushing. Next will be registration so they know where to find them.

I believe on our founding fathers said something to the effect, choosing safety over liberty one deserves neither.

Some info.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
✔
@neiltyson
In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…

500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun

And how many die per 48 hours from heroin/fentanyl/meth overdoses? Drugs largely brought in through weak borders.





Over 260 per 48 hours

..……."Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids...………."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

 

[Jape]

This is a tough one. From a legal perspective, I actually think a red flag law would ultimately pass constitutional muster. It could be challenged under the seminal second amendment cases (Heller and McDonald), but even if successful that would take years.

From a practical perspective, laws can’t fix everything, but well-written laws can help. The ultimate responsibility is on each of us to advocate for responsible approaches that are multi-pronged (mental health, estranged individuals, access to weapons, etc...) and to reach out to those around us who may be struggling. Often it’s a friend, neighbor, brother, or acquaintance who can reach out to and help these individuals get past their demons. The article attached is one of the best discussions on this I have seen.

The role of masculinity and mental illness in mass shootings

As rampage shootings dominate media coverage and fuel the national debate over gun accessibility, mental illness has been broadly branded as the cause for these tragedies. Sociologists who study shootings say it's much more complicated.

www.deseretnews.com

 

[Chris76]

In most cases the evil people that can even think about killing a innocent human get their firearm the illegal way. I agree with you can’t fix evil. Why punish the good people in the world and take their 2A away. The focus should be on the purchase of getting firearms the wrong way. Everybody goes through hard times in their life in one way or another but the normal person doesn’t turn to a gun to fix it. Have to protect the 2A.

 

[Jape]

Exhibit A. This is not to suggest we can’t make some reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and not violate the second amendment.

This grandmother reportedly stopped grandson contemplating mass shooting. Here's how

Special agents of the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested a Lubbock, Texas, man for allegedly contemplating a mass shooting.

www.deseretnews.com

 

[Carlin59]

I don't follow the logic of, "you are a danger to yourself and others so we will remove guns from your (immediate) presence (as noted, someone bent on malfeasance will find alternative access to firearms through criminal means if they want to badly enough), but you can keep your car/knives/gasoline/blunt objects/etc/etc". In my mind, the person is either an immediate danger to society and should be temporarily removed from society (72 hour mental health hold or similar), or they aren't an immediate danger and should retain their rights.

 

[Jape]

I don't follow the logic of, "you are a danger to yourself and others so we will remove guns from your (immediate) presence (as noted, someone bent on malfeasance will find alternative access to firearms through criminal means if they want to badly enough), but you can keep your car/knives/gasoline/blunt objects/etc/etc". In my mind, the person is either an immediate danger to society and should be temporarily removed from society (72 hour mental health hold or similar), or they aren't an immediate danger and should retain their rights.

Well, there are already laws to involuntarily commit someone, but those laws are notoriously difficult to enforce and you run into all sorts of due process issues. I’m defending a hospital right now because a guy thought he was wrongly committed.

 

[MO Betta]

It's flying right in the face of the 5th and 14th amendments and as such is entirely unconstitutional. The conversation should end there.

 

[antelopedundee]

Cushman replied with pretty much what I was going to say. Similarly a TRO (temporary restraining order) is a great tool to protect someone, usually a spouse/girlfriend from an immediate volatile situation. With a TRO firearms are to be removed from the house, not necessarily seized. A relative or friend can take possession. Trouble is the lack of due process, guilty until proven innocent, and the amount of gray area in a he said/she said situation. Also, there are other current laws on the books like "making terrorist threats" which is an arrestable offense. Although some cases are very clear, it's generally a very difficult process to determine if a threat is credible with the means to be carried out or just words. Hopefully, any new "red flag warning" type law will be written with a clear threshold of the statement of violence with ability to carry it out. I'm not optimistic about this.
Personally, I believe encouraging strong male role models in the lives of boys and enforcing consequence for bad behavior will help far more than any new laws. In the end murder is still illegal and that isn't stopping these cowards.

You are never found innocent. You are always innocent by right and either found guilty or not guilty by judgement.

 

[antelopedundee]

I agree with the majority of what has been written here so far. Evil will always exist. Laws punish but dont necessarily prevent, etc.

My understanding of red flag laws is that there is due process involved, just not a complete judicial inquiry before a finding may be temporarily issued. I may not be completely informed. That said, I am for red flag laws that include the following: judicial findings of fact, no ex parte hearings, limited time frame for reevaluation and the opportunity for re-acquisition of 2A rights. Seeing some of the other concerns listed, a criminalized prohibition against malicious reporting might be in order.

I know the NRA has operated against these laws arguing they make no statistical difference in violent crimes. While not statistical, they may make a significant practical difference in the life/lives of potential victims. Id happily sign on to other suggestions that might work.

My understanding is that the NRA supports this kind of thing. Is that not correct?

 

[BuzzH]

Said it before and I'll say it again...this country has no stomach for taking away gun rights, has no stomach for funding mental health problems, as well as not forcing people to commit themselves for mental health reasons.

Since those are the only facts that matter in this discussion, the rest is just arguing a position for the sake of arguing.

The logical response is to invest in mortuaries and casket companies and hope that its not you, your family, or friends that have to pay the price for freedom.

There isn't anything else to do.

 

[antelopedundee]

Red flag is just another step to disarming you. This law will not work and when it doesn't they will push more restrictive laws. 28 years as a LEO has shown me that no law works all the time and the gun grabbers will just keep pushing. Next will be registration so they know where to find them.

I believe on our founding fathers said something to the effect, choosing safety over liberty one deserves neither.

Some info.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
✔
@neiltyson
In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.

On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…

500 to Medical errors
300 to the Flu
250 to Suicide
200 to Car Accidents
40 to Homicide via Handgun

And how many die per 48 hours from heroin/fentanyl/meth overdoses? Drugs largely brought in through weak borders.





Over 260 per 48 hours

..……."Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids...………."

https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis

How many young children have died after being left in hot cars so far this summer? A lot I believe. FWIW I was recently reading an article in a Milwaukee paper about some rural shootings and there happened to be another article wherein 14 people had died from drug OD in less than a 48 hour weekend.

 

[Carlin59]

Well, there are already laws to involuntarily commit someone, but those laws are notoriously difficult to enforce and you run into all sorts of due process issues. I’m defending a hospital right now because a guy thought he was wrongly committed.

They are hard to enforce (in part) because removing someone's rights should carry a high due process threshold. I'm don't see how or why the 5th and 2nd would be different in that regard.

 

[kylemcintyre67]

I am quite the opposite. I have severe PTSD and social anxiety as well as bi-polar depression due to combat. I see my shrink every other month and my social worker therapist every other week. We have all talked at great length about my fears about having my guns taken away from me, and both told me there's no chance of that happening with me because I follow my medications and therapy requirements to the T. So, if veterans aren't seeking treatment, then it's their own faults when something happens and it's found out they have PTSD or something related from combat and aren't seeking treatment and the situation becomes worse for them. My doctor and therapist make sure to add in my notes that I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else.

Something along these lines happened to me last year, but in a child custody issue, not gun related. When my ex wife took off, out of spite she contacted my youngest son's mother and filled her full of a bunch of BS and lies, so in turn his mother withheld my summer visitation due to my 'mental health issues'. Well, a letter from my social worker and a court hearing discredited her as well as my ex's claims and in turn ended up doubling my visitation and giving his mother a hefty fine and contempt of court charge.

In a way I can see how the red flag laws could be useful, when not used for spite. But, I think it should be a professional of some sort...doctor, social worker, police, ambulance crew...who determines the need to remove the guns. If someone voices a concern, then have a professional step in to make the determination of if the guns need to be removed or not. Don't let some random person make an accusation and in turn have someone's house raided and guns removed without due process because of a grudge. Leave it up to a professional, not someone pissed off at someone.

You have great docs, congrats most don't.

The thing with your kids was lost visitation time, and legal expense that you shouldn't have had to incur based on the word of someone with a vendetta. That is how these red flag laws are designed to work. Someone with a vendetta makes an accusation, then the victim has to go to the time and expense of proving their innocence. That is the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.

As for trusting "professionals" none of those you listed other than some doctors are mental health experts. Police are all ready out of control and unaccountable, and you want them to have the power to just disarm anyone they feel like? These things become circular, the more one protests their innocence the less they are believed. Trying to police thought crime is always going to lead to severe abuses. Innocent until proven guilty of a crime by a jury of ones peers. Depriving people of their liberty because of what they might do is evil.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

As for trusting "professionals" none of those you listed other than some doctors are mental health experts. Police are all ready out of control and unaccountable, and you want them to have the power to just disarm anyone they feel like? These things become circular, the more one protests their innocence the less they are believed.

In the defense of cops, doctors are typically over 30 with a decade of education and training including hours and hours of practical training in sensitivity and communication with patients with actors (and there still are tons of shitty ones). Often LEOs are 20 year olds with little comparative training, who are given a gun and a badge and asked to do a very stressful and often dangerous job.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am quite the opposite. I have severe PTSD and social anxiety as well as bi-polar depression due to combat. I see my shrink every other month and my social worker therapist every other week. We have all talked at great length about my fears about having my guns taken away from me, and both told me there's no chance of that happening with me because I follow my medications and therapy requirements to the T. So, if veterans aren't seeking treatment, then it's their own faults when something happens and it's found out they have PTSD or something related from combat and aren't seeking treatment and the situation becomes worse for them. My doctor and therapist make sure to add in my notes that I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else.

Something along these lines happened to me last year, but in a child custody issue, not gun related. When my ex wife took off, out of spite she contacted my youngest son's mother and filled her full of a bunch of BS and lies, so in turn his mother withheld my summer visitation due to my 'mental health issues'. Well, a letter from my social worker and a court hearing discredited her as well as my ex's claims and in turn ended up doubling my visitation and giving his mother a hefty fine and contempt of court charge.

In a way I can see how the red flag laws could be useful, when not used for spite. But, I think it should be a professional of some sort...doctor, social worker, police, ambulance crew...who determines the need to remove the guns. If someone voices a concern, then have a professional step in to make the determination of if the guns need to be removed or not. Don't let some random person make an accusation and in turn have someone's house raided and guns removed without due process because of a grudge. Leave it up to a professional, not someone pissed off at someone.

First, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

Second, thank you for being transparent with your challenges - I hope your willingness to be open will encourage others with similar challenges to seek help, and to realize they are not alone.

Third, what a great thread, @BigFin should be proud of how his HTers can discuss these difficult issues with civility - not sure you can find anything else like this on the “interweb”.