Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[slimmer13]

Care to show when that has happened when it shouldnt have?

Care to show when power given hasn't been abused?

 

[ma96782]

So using these laws to take firearms away from ANYONE, even those that have articulated a desire / plan to harm people or have a record of actually harming people is "abuse"?

Got to tell you, that's going be a hard sell

Really?

He said
and
She said.

But, a lot of times.....it depends on who complains, FIRST.

Then........
In many cases the woman gets the nod. Why? Because........we're talking possible abuse/violence. Yeah........protection. Err on the said of "saving a life".

Rrrright........ever been through a messy divorce or child custody battle?

BUT, But, but........what do I know about it?

Well, I wasn't exactly slapped with a RED FLAG but I was slapped with a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order). Believe me.......the process is NOT about FAIRNESS. Yup.....for me, a child custody case. And, I won. So, did you also notice what some other poster said about "Ex-Parte"?

Yeah......and even after the order expires (or if overturned).......it's difficult to get back your gun collection and ammo. Hummmm.......the police came to pick up my collection and ammo but when it was over.......guess who was responsible to go and get it all back? And......you better have a signed Judge's Order too.

Aloha, Mark

 

[slimmer13]

You know what, I'm convinced. Let's go ahead and give them the power to decide whether Americans that haven't been convicted of any crime get access to the BOR on a whim

But only if they super duper pinky swear to only use it responsibly.

 

[American123]

Care to show when that has happened when it shouldnt have?

You mean do I have private medical records of complete strangers from conversations that took place in confidence between patients and their medical care providers?

Did you think about your question before asking it?

All a red flag law, as it is intended, requires is for a person to claim that said (other person) is an imminent danger to society and that the other person's firearms should be removed from their possession until it is determined, according to the opinions of a judge, that they aren't, in fact, a threat to society.

When "should" someone's firearms be taken away when they haven't broken any laws?

Where do rights enumerated by the constitution fall into play regarding these red flag laws?

If it is legally acceptable to deprive someone of their constitutional rights because of a concern of what they might do, then I see no reason why Americans can't simply be jailed anytime another person is concerned either.

You might think that is an extreme exaggeration, but there are already other countries where "wrong think" or speaking in a manner contrary to what the government allows does get (at least) jail time.

 

[American123]

There are cases where it makes sense, I will give them that.

But whats to say in the future that extremist views or domestic terrorism won't be on the list. With extremist views meaning anything the left left considers misinformation (which is basically everything conservative) or domestic terrorism meaning you attended a Trump rally.

And whats to stop my pissed off girlfriend from falsely reporting me? Then fighting an uphill battle to get my guns back.

In a fair and responsible world, Red Flag laws would make sense. But in today's world, I think it is just a step towards the ultimate goal.

Future:

You misgendered a person and deny that they are a female cat-human transpecies person, your bigotry is a threat to society. No guns for you.

 

[slimmer13]

Future:

You misgendered a person and deny that they are a female cat-human transpecies person, your bigotry is a threat to society. No guns for you.

What, no Ukraine flag in your social media profile. Must be an extremist....

 

[wired]

You mean do I have private medical records of complete strangers from conversations that took place in confidence between patients and their medical care providers?

Did you think about your question before asking it?

All a red flag law, as it is intended, requires is for a person to claim that said (other person) is an imminent danger to society and that the other person's firearms should be removed from their possession until it is determined, according to the opinions of a judge, that they aren't, in fact, a threat to society.

When "should" someone's firearms be taken away when they haven't broken any laws?

Where do rights enumerated by the constitution fall into play regarding these red flag laws?

If it is legally acceptable to deprive someone of their constitutional rights because of a concern of what they might do, then I see no reason why Americans can't simply be jailed anytime another person is concerned either.

You might think that is an extreme exaggeration, but there are already other countries where "wrong think" or speaking in a manner contrary to what the government allows does get (at least) jail time.

Lets say you are a health care professional and someone says to you in a session that they want to kill a bunch of people. Should that person continue to have access to firearms?
Lets say the person in session tells you they wants to kill themself. Guns?

 

[bkroger86]

Sounds like our millionaire Republican Senators found common ground with their millionaire Democratic colleagues on this topic.

 

[JO JO]

speaking in a manner contrary to what the government allows does get (at least) jail time

I am not sure we are that far away from this ,
A friend of my Son's had to write an essay on Covid for school and even though he wrote this with few grammar errors the teacher gave him a big F for the grade and when he asked why he got an F the teacher said his view/opinion was not acceptable so he failed that assignment due to his opposing opinion not his grammar.
If you speak out against the ongoing liberal / woke movement then you are labeled a racist or worse.
the system is very one sided
It really does not take much for someone to go down to the courthouse and file an restraining order stating they feel threatened or made threatening gestures towards them and believe you are dangerous , no proof is needed to file a report requesting an order towards you, then the berdin would be on you to prove your innocence.
you would need a lawyer to help you not to lose in court and keep your rights intact.
RED FLAG LAWS are dangerous when people lie

 

[American123]

I am not sure we are that far away from this ,

A friend of my Son's had to write an essay on Covid for school and even though he wrote this with few grammar errors the teacher gave him a big F for the grade and when he asked why he got an F the teacher said his view/opinion was not acceptable so he failed that assignment due to his opposing opinion not his grammar.
If you speak out against the ongoing liberal / woke movement then you are labeled a racist or worse.
the system is very one sided

The school system is full of wannabe tyrannical marxists. As a teacher (who isn't one of those) it's a tough battle but fighting that super bias grade and that teacher is necessary and warranted. That teacher's grade would have never stood up to scrutiny because any writing assignment that was opinion based can have no correct answer and it can only be graded on the merit of the argument supplied and how well any supporting evidence was used to justify such an argument.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You mean do I have private medical records of complete strangers from conversations that took place in confidence between patients and their medical care providers?

Did you think about your question before asking it?

lolz, or a story in the news would work.

 

[American123]

lolz, or a story in the news would work.

Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man

Police say the man opened the door holding his gun and "became irate" over the order; a struggle for the gun ensued

www.cbsnews.com

I grow tired of helping (seemingly) idiots have links to things that are readily available through their own internet access with minimal effort.

Summary: a family member initiated the red flag order against the man. 61 years old. He refused to give up his guns. He was shot dead. The reason for the red flag order was confidential according to the court who it was filed through. AKA they must present zero proof for why a guy was murdered because he wouldn't go along with an unconstitutional law.

Another example:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/16/nyregion/shooting-buffalo

Red flag law didn't work. Kid lied and claimed it was a joke.

 

[wired]

Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man

Police say the man opened the door holding his gun and "became irate" over the order; a struggle for the gun ensued

www.cbsnews.com

I grow tired of helping (seemingly) idiots have links to things that are readily available through their own internet access with minimal effort.

Summary: a family member initiated the red flag order against the man. 61 years old. He refused to give up his guns. He was shot dead. The reason for the red flag order was confidential according to the court who it was filed through. AKA they must present zero proof for why a guy was murdered because he wouldn't go along with an unconstitutional law.

Another example:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/16/nyregion/shooting-buffalo

Red flag law didn't work. Kid lied and claimed it was a joke.

I dont care who you are. Cops bust in and you dont put the gun down you are going to get ventilated. Go to court and plea your case. Dont be a moron.

 

[SpudBob]

Lets say you are a health care professional and someone says to you in a session that they want to kill a bunch of people. Should that person continue to have access to firearms?
Lets say the person in session tells you they wants to kill themself. Guns?

Where does it end??? Should they have access to matches? Rope? Cars? Gasoiline/glass bottles and rags? There are many ways to hurt yourself/others. Thats not what we, here, are addressing IMO. Were talking about your neighbor who you might have a beef with, an Ex that is pissed becauseyou moved on to greener pastures, somebody on your block that doesn't like your Lets Go Brandon flag, somebody who just doesnt like the color of your skin..... Etc, Etc, Etc that calls the authorities because you "might' have something THEY deem as illegal or that you might be a threat. Its a slippery slope at best!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Maryland officers serving "red flag" gun removal order fatally shoot armed man

Police say the man opened the door holding his gun and "became irate" over the order; a struggle for the gun ensued

www.cbsnews.com

I grow tired of helping (seemingly) idiots have links to things that are readily available through their own internet access with minimal effort.

Summary: a family member initiated the red flag order against the man. 61 years old. He refused to give up his guns. He was shot dead. The reason for the red flag order was confidential according to the court who it was filed through. AKA they must present zero proof for why a guy was murdered because he wouldn't go along with an unconstitutional law.

Another example:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/16/nyregion/shooting-buffalo

Red flag law didn't work. Kid lied and claimed it was a joke.

The 2nd link is behind a paywall, but I'll try and look into it, as for the first one "The reason for the red flag order was confidential" doesn't mean, as you suggest, that the presiding judge who issued the order wasn't told the reason, it only means that they aren't going tell US, kind of like the confidential medical records you mentioned in a previous post

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I dont care who you are. Cops bust in and you dont put the gun down you are going to get ventilated. Go to court and plea your case. Dont be a moron.

"He should have just complied with the officers orders"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Its a slippery slope at best!

Nailed it!

Slippery slope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. However, differentiation is necessary, since, in other cases, it might be demonstrable that the small step is likely to lead to an effect.

The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome. Other idioms for the slippery slope argument are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the camel's nose in the tent, or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.

 

[wired]

Where does it end??? Should they have access to matches? Rope? Cars? Gasoiline/glass bottles and rags? There are many ways to hurt yourself/others. Thats not what we, here, are addressing IMO. Were talking about your neighbor who you might have a beef with, an Ex that is pissed becauseyou moved on to greener pastures, somebody on your block that doesn't like your Lets Go Brandon flag, somebody who just doesnt like the color of your skin..... Etc, Etc, Etc that calls the authorities because you "might' have something THEY deem as illegal or that you might be a threat. Its a slippery slope at best!

So you are OK with allowing someone who has stated they want to kill others or themself to continue to have access to their firearms? I'm not. They can go to court and have a hearing in front of a judge. Until you show that abuses in the system that doesnt exist as of yet are widesread and capricious I'll still with my opinion. I dont even think people who are on psychoactive drugs such as SSRI's should be allowed to possess firearms.

 

[wired]

"He should have just complied with the officers orders"

Heard that before, huh. Take it to the judge . The cops job is to stop you if you do not follow orders and threaten him with a firearm , or knife, whatever.

 

[wired]

The 2nd link is behind a paywall, but I'll try and look into it, as for the first one "The reason for the red flag order was confidential" doesn't mean, as you suggest, that the presiding judge who issued the order wasn't told the reason, it only means that they aren't going tell US, kind of like the confidential medical records you mentioned in a previous post

You would have people complaining. They can talk about their own cases.