Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[American123]

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?

Good question, and it doesn't have a perfect answer.

My first question would be, "why?" And "what do you mean by that?" Because if someone feels comfortable enough to articulate that they want to kill a bunch of people, maybe they will also articulate any level of reasoning behind that claim, then a better assessment of the situation can be attainted. For example, I've heard children say, "I'm going to kill you!" When speaking to another student because they are expressing that they are angry. It's not an admission of intent to murder, it's an inappropriate expression of anger that a synonym can and should be replaced with.

I've personally been through the situation of mental health professionals asking me. "Do you have any thoughts of hurting yourself or others." Anyone who isn't a complete moron will answer those questions with a "no" regardless of what their actual thoughts may be because they know that an answer with any degree of "yes" relevant to those questions would result in being considered a threat to oneself or others.

I think the can of worms of shredding civil rights because of what people ''might do" is a lot bigger grenade of crap than people think.

For example, just looking at the recidivism rate of a lot of criminals, if we are purely going off of what they "might do" - we'd have most of them killed or locked up indefinitely.

If civil rights mean anything they have to mean something when a bigger group of people don't want you to have them, because if a mass of people can arbitrarily deprive people of their rights, that's not what the constitution intended.

 

[wired]

Good question, and it doesn't have a perfect answer.

My first question would be, "why?" And "what do you mean by that?" Because if someone feels comfortable enough to articulate that they want to kill a bunch of people, maybe they will also articulate any level of reasoning behind that claim, then a better assessment of the situation can be attainted. For example, I've heard children say, "I'm going to kill you!" When speaking to another student because they are expressing that they are angry. It's not an admission of intent to murder, it's an inappropriate expression of anger that a synonym can and should be replaced with.

I've personally been through the situation of mental health professionals asking me. "Do you have any thoughts of hurting yourself or others." Anyone who isn't a complete moron will answer those questions with a "no" regardless of what their actual thoughts may be because they know that an answer with any degree of "yes" relevant to those questions would result in being considered a threat to oneself or others.

I think the can of worms of shredding civil rights because of what people ''might do" is a lot bigger grenade of crap than people think.

For example, just looking at the recidivism rate of a lot of criminals, if we are purely going off of what they "might do" - we'd have most of them killed or locked up indefinitely.

If civil rights mean anything they have to mean something when a bigger group of people don't want you to have them, because if a mass of people can arbitrarily deprive people of their rights, that's not what the constitution intended.

That is where due process comes into play.

 

[SpudBob]

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.

Medical professionals, having been one for many years, are already required by law to report any such instances of these types of threats. As far as meds another slippery slope for sure. Do you limit people who are on SSRI's? What about people on, say, hormone replacements which can cause major mood alterations.What about benzo's, What about Alcohol? What about Cannabis? I tell you after a few cups of STRONG coffee things can get hinkey for some. That is a generalization that might disqualify 50% of the population. This could be a Pandora's Box!!!

 

[1775usmc]

You can give them the power to choose who has rights. Just don't ever expect them to give the power back to the people once it's time to do so. When have you ever seen a politician get power and voluntarily give it back. Left or right. It doesn't matter.

 

[American123]

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.

Legally what law has been broken if someone says, "I want to kill people?"

 

[SpudBob]

Legally what law has been broken if someone says, "I want to kill people?"

You CAN be 51/50'd for comments like that for a 72 hr hold!

 

[wired]

Legally what law has been broken if someone says, "I want to kill people?"

In a red flag law state...The red flag law.

 

[wired]

Medical professionals, having been one for many years, are already required by law to report any such instances of these types of threats. As far as meds another slippery slope for sure. Do you limit people who are on SSRI's? What about people on, say, hormone replacements which can cause major mood alterations.What about benzo's, What about Alcohol? What about Cannabis? I tell you after a few cups of STRONG coffee things can get hinkey for some. That is a generalization that might disqualify 50% of the population. This could be a Pandora's Box!!!

Ever read a 4473?

 

[ma96782]

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.

Well obviously. Someone who is in disagreement with the Govt (and it's ideas) must be a "Nut Job". Rrrrrrright......
YOU must accept and agree with me......or else. Yeah.....there IS SOMETHING WRONG with YOU.



Aloha, Mark

 

[American123]

In a red flag law state...The red flag law.

So would this person have a fine or see any jail time? Because actual laws that are broken result in those types of penalties. A red flag law isn't "a law" that is broken. It is a piece of legislation that says a government entity is able to confiscate the guns of a person until it is deemed they are not an imminent threat to society.

So again, what law?

 

[wired]

So would this person have a fine or see any jail time? Because actual laws that are broken result in those types of penalties. A red flag law isn't "a law" that is broken. It is a piece of legislation that says a government entity is able to confiscate the guns of a person until it is deemed they are not an imminent threat to society.

So again, what law?

Whatever is laid out in the law. A red flag law does not say " This is a red flag law" . It outlines for what reasons and circumstances and terms guns can be taken away from someone and gives legal redress and directions to judges so that there is a process in "due process" . More than likely dozens of pages of verbiage. You know that. Not all laws are penalty based. A law can dictate the type of stop sign a municipality will use.

 

[American123]

Whatever is laid out in the law. A red flag law does not say " This is a red flag law" . It outlines for what reasons and circumstances and terms guns can be taken away from someone and gives legal redress and directions to judges so that there is a process in "due process" . More than likely dozens of pages of verbiage. You know that. Not all laws are penalty based. A law can dictate the type of stop sign a municipality will use.

A law that dictates the allowable actions of an individual or stipulates what is not allowed, most definitely has a penalty involved otherwise it has no teeth.

 

[wired]

A law that dictates the allowable actions of an individual or stipulates what is not allowed, most definitely has a penalty involved otherwise it has no teeth.

The law just dictates to the executive and judicial what circumstances guns can be taken from someone who violates the provisions of the legislation. Bonafide threat to self and others etc. with the law stating what the provisions are. Now, if you were to go out and illegally acquire more firearms after yours were taken from you without judicial clearance to do so then yeah, you would be in violation and fined, jailed etc. if that is stipulated in the law, and it would be.

 

[American123]

You CAN be 51/50'd for comments like that for a 72 hr hold!

Not sure what 51/50'd refers to but for example in Washington state an attempt at suicide includes a 72hr hold and a mental health evaluation.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Not sure what 51/50'd refers to but for example in Washington state an attempt at suicide includes a 72hr hold and a mental health evaluation.

Not going lie, that made me laugh

https://ferc.org/uploads/docs/resources/5150_5250.pdf

 

[American123]

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.

Yep, that 4th amendment right is meaningless… those stupid founders.

 

[bradsteen]

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

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.

That's been going on for years. When I was in high school I was required to write a paper on a political position. I chose the war in Iraq, and my perspective was supportive based on the evidence and information that was available to the public at the time (~6 months after 9/11). I've always taken pride in writing and pour a lot of effort into it, so I was surprised and upset when I got an F on the paper. The teacher was very outspoken about her political views, and her justification for the grade was similar as described above. My parents were not happy and got a meeting with the teacher and principal. The teacher couldn't justify her actions, and the principal made her re-grade it, though I don't know if any disciplinary action was taken against her for that behavior. She still gave me a lower grade than it should have been, but at that point I was beyond caring. For the rest of the school year she was not pleasant to be around. Thankfully I only had another month of class before summer break.

There are bad apples and people who want to exert their will over others in every line of work. I don't think school systems are responsible for the actions of the individual teachers they employ, but I do think they should be held accountable for the actions they do or do not take when confronted by reports of these situations.

 

[wired]

Yep, that 4th amendment right is meaningless… those stupid founders.

You can argue it to the judge unless you just want to suicide by cop then yeah go ahead. Point your gun at them.

 

[American123]

Not going lie, that made me laugh

https://ferc.org/uploads/docs/resources/5150_5250.pdf

Yep, terminology is funny like that. In my profession I've had conversations with people who were frequently using acronyms and other profession specific jargon have conversations or impart instructions and I've at times asked them to stop using such acronyms or jargon until we all agreed on what exactly those terms meant because otherwise we could be understanding things very differently.

 

[American123]

You can argue it to the judge.

And that's the point isn't it! A red flag law presumes guilt and a person must argue their innocence after having already had their personal property confiscated.