The Real "Info" on so called Red Flag Laws?

[jnc36rcpd]

[QUOTE=AZgunguy;918022]I am familiar with the way things work, having done it enough times. I just feel a lot of people are putting their trust into something that is not going to stop any mass shootings, but it'll make people feel better. Obviously, there are a ton of people here who disagree with that. Just remember this discussion when the cops show up at your door with a court order to take your guns because someone thinks you aren't right in the head.


While I don't think red flag laws are the panacea that some feel they will be, I'm not sure your argument that they "are not going to stop any mass shootings" has any basis. Some people are too mentally ill to own firearms, fly aircraft, practice medicine or dentistry, or serve as police officers. While most responsible gun stores will not sell firearms to the clearly unbalanced, the dangerous mentally ill are unlikely to trigger alarms when they show up at a LGS. Moreover, they often lack the contacts and social skills to purchase a firearm illegally. Are you suggesting that everyone of those potential active shooters will somehow be able to obtain firearms?

Should any mentally ill person in society be allowed to own firearms? While most mentally ill people are not dangerous, some clearly are. Since institutionalization is clearly not an option, is there any level of mental illness in which a person should not possess firearms?

[RJflyer]

I am familiar with the way things work, having done it enough times. I just feel a lot of people are putting their trust into something that is not going to stop any mass shootings, but it'll make people feel better. Obviously, there are a ton of people here who disagree with that. Just remember this discussion when the cops show up at your door with a court order to take your guns because someone thinks you aren't right in the head.

This is a bright red line issue that once the line is crossed, you are going to have a ton of pissed off people in the United States who are going to completely rebel against this. The people deciding who gets to keep their guns and who doesn't aren't people I would be inclined to trust implicitly, which is what is required for anything like this to work. And since there are no people to trust to do this properly, there is no way this is going to work. You can disregard the article, but the fact is a guy is dead simply because the cops wanted to take his guns. If it's happened once already, it'll happen more once the red flag laws are passed. Is that the America you want to have?

It sounds like you've made up your mind to believe what you want to believe. But you're here posting on a forum dedicated to LEO perspectives...so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're looking to hear the perspective of current LEOs.

Bottom line: the precedent already exists in American society for the state to seize people and property under court orders (including ex parte orders). People are arrested and taken to jail every day in this country because judges determined there was sufficient probable cause to believe they committed offenses and subsequently issued arrest warrants. Items of property (including guns) are searched and seized every day in this country because judges determined there was sufficient probable cause to believe evidence exists to support a charge. Just because you found a heavily-politicized and emotional article online doesn't change the definition of "due process" as it is interpreted in US courts.

You can disregard the article, but the fact is a guy is dead simply because the cops wanted to take his guns.

Seriously? I'm going to disregard the article, because its based on hyperbole and an agenda to provoke the kind of emotional reaction you've displayed here.

[WobblyPossum]

You can disregard the article, but the fact is a guy is dead simply because the cops wanted to take his guns.

You’re making it sound like the police simple came over to the decedent’s house, gunned him down, and stole his firearms. “A guy is dead simply because” he tried to murder two police officers who were attempting to lawfully serve a court order that was issued by a judge in accordance with state law.

[BehindBlueI's]

I am familiar with the way things work, having done it enough times. I just feel a lot of people are putting their trust into something that is not going to stop any mass shootings, but it'll make people feel better. Obviously, there are a ton of people here who disagree with that. Just remember this discussion when the cops show up at your door with a court order to take your guns because someone thinks you aren't right in the head.

This is a bright red line issue that once the line is crossed, you are going to have a ton of pissed off people in the United States who are going to completely rebel against this. The people deciding who gets to keep their guns and who doesn't aren't people I would be inclined to trust implicitly, which is what is required for anything like this to work. And since there are no people to trust to do this properly, there is no way this is going to work. You can disregard the article, but the fact is a guy is dead simply because the cops wanted to take his guns. If it's happened once already, it'll happen more once the red flag laws are passed. Is that the America you want to have?

I haven't noticed any rebellions in Indiana.

A guy is dead because he picked up a gun and threatened police.

If you want to be against it, that's absolutely you're right. Be against what it actually is, not your fantasy version of what it is. Not that article's fantasy version of what it is. Not the bullshit facebook post about what it is.

[wasserpistole]

I think the root issue is the massive distrust, I and many other, feel towards the legal system in general. When we see such crooked things happening with and to important people, imagine how easily "the system" can destroy a nobody like me (thankfully there usually isn't much upside to destroying a nobody). The majority of judges are honest (I like to tell myself at least) but there are some who make rulings based on political ideals, rather than the actual law, every day.

The thing that becomes concerning is who determines what defines the mental states worthy of gun confiscation. When we hear from the media and directly from many democrat lawmakers that Trump supporters are insane, white supremacists, radicals, etc. the natural thought progression is that wow, if I'm publicly described as unhinged and insane just because of who I voted for, if the same people are writing the laws, this could end badly for me.

I don't necessarily think the law would be abused today, but in the future perhaps. We do know that politicians WILL exploit any legal loophole or grey area to achieve their nefarious goals. I don't want it to get any easier.

[willie]

Privacy laws pertaining to medical records restrain government intrusion. There has been at least one young mass shooter previously known as a nut to teachers and counselors. We ask why they did not do something. Perhaps there was nothing they could have done under current law.

When I submitted paperwork for a Texas carry license over 20 years ago, I signed affidavits giving the state continued access to medical records, employment records, juvenile criminal history, and so on. Renewing the license requires the license holder to continue to agree to keeping these affidavits active. At any time the state of Texas can intrude into my life. At gun shops I hear license holders fret about red flag laws, and oddly each has given up any and all rights to privacy. Super conservative Texas has a super state computer system compiling data from hunting licenses, driver's licenses, handgun carry licenses, and about any encounter one has with the criminal justice system. Medical records, especially Medicare and Medicaid records are computerized. As my retired physician friend remarked after having a few drinks, don't tell your doctor anything that you wish not to be floating around the ethernet. Big Brother has been here a very long time.

[BehindBlueI's]

The thing that becomes concerning is who determines what defines the mental states worthy of gun confiscation. When we hear from the media and directly from many democrat lawmakers that Trump supporters are insane, white supremacists, radicals, etc. the natural thought progression is that wow, if I'm publicly described as unhinged and insane just because of who I voted for, if the same people are writing the laws, this could end badly for me.

Then argue against that law when it is proposed, as it isn't what is actually in place in several states or being proposed in others. There are defined criteria and even being "crazy" is insufficient. Might as well argue that we can't have a law against Treason because people constantly complain that "the other side" aren't "real Americans" or are "trying to destroy the country", etc. A women who believed her landlord was poisoning her through her electrical outlets isn't sufficient. A woman that believes the same thing and is making credible threats is sufficient.


With that, this thread has obviously run it's course for any sort of technical discussion and is outside the scope of the mission statement for this subforum and will be locked. If anyone has a legitimate question on the laws or how they work, PM me and I'll post the question and do my best to answer it and for general commentary We've already got a few threads on the topic that are more suited for the political aspects, and if you feel they are insufficient feel free to start a new one in General Discussion.