Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[1775usmc]

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.

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply anymore I guess….. Are we going to start arresting rappers who say they are gunna kill opposed gang members in their rap lyrics…. Or the black nationalists that support assault and killing of white people on facebook? Where does it start and where does it end. Cause I don't trust the government or the legal system that is fueled by a political agenda that I am not aligned with to make that choice.

 

[SpudBob]

Ever read a 4473?

I believe IIRC it asks if you are addicted to or a user of illegal substances. Those who have been prescribed the meds I was talking about would not fall under that criteria-though Benzodiazapines can be very addictive to some.. It further IIRC ask about being remanded to a Metal Health Facility. I dont believe that a 51/50 hold qualifies under that description. If after evaluation your are deemed a threat to yourself or others you will be remanded. This is what I believe is the flavor of those sections of the 4473.

 

[Knobgoblin]

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply anymore I guess….. Are we going to start arresting rappers who say they are gunna kill opposed gang members in their rap lyrics…. Or the black nationalists that support assault and killing of white people on facebook? Where does it start and where does it end. Cause I don't trust the government or the legal system that is fueled by a political agenda that I am not aligned with to make that choice.

Crazy, absolutely crazy that you mention the rap lyrics thing.
This is happening in New York I think. Maybe not an actual arrest but instant law enforcement attention for a rapper who had done time previously and then "freestyled" a murder threat. Cannot think of who it was, but it was on XM shade45 yesterday.

 

[1775usmc]

Crazy, absolutely crazy that you mention the rap lyrics thing.
This is happening in New York I think. Maybe not an actual arrest but instant law enforcement attention for a rapper who had done time previously and then "freestyled" a murder threat. Cannot think of who it was, but it was on XM shade45 yesterday.

Come on! They're just trying to make an honest dollar. Haha

 

[wired]

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.

So? A judge issues an extreme risk order typically because of a request from law enforcement. Occasionally by family members. Years ago when the cops would come to the house for a domestic call they'd ask if there were guns in the house and they'd take them. You'd have to go get them the next day. This just throws another check by a judge in there. Then you can have your day in court to plead your case.

 

[Cavedweller]

@arakboss

From the article you linked to:

"In just the last two months, she has taken away the firearm privileges of dozens of people

We don't know all the details about the "dozens of people" mentioned, but of those specific examples seem like totally legit, prime candidates for the responsible use of such laws... it also sounds like there are plenty of folks who have demonstrated clear danger to themselves or others who are being disarmed and I am generally supportive of that.

Do you believe that all of the specific folks referenced above should just continue to have free, open access to guns?

If you support such actions, then you are accepting the premise that firearms ownership is a "privilege" the government can revoke. Legally operating a motor vehicle on a public street is a privilege granted by the government. Firearms ownership is not. Firearms ownership is a right granted unconditionally by the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any laws infringing on that right are unconstitional and illegal.

If one feels that this needs to be changed, there is a process for changing the Constitution laid out in the document itself. The fact is that opponents of firearms ownership find this process too difficult, so they resort to incremental infringement through such mechanisms as red flag laws and other such "common sense" legislation.

Like it or not, we ignore the Constitution at our peril. If changes are needed, it is best to follow the process laid out in the founding documents.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Koda]

ERPO red flag laws are wide open for abuse but the problem is there will be way more times where they are used for legitimate reasons than any false accusations. I haven't even heard of any false cases yet but in just Florida alone judges have removed the guns of several thousands of people expressing harm to others.
Whats interesting to note is Florida's red flag law was championed by Republicans.

 

[wired]

If you support such actions, then you are accepting the premise that firearms ownership is a "privilege" the government can revoke. Legally operating a motor vehicle on a public street is a privilege granted by the government. Firearms ownership is not. Firearms ownership is a right granted unconditionally by the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any laws infringing on that right are unconstitional and illegal.

If one feels that this needs to be changed, there is a process for changing the Constitution laid out in the document itself. The fact is that opponents of firearms ownership find this process too difficult, so they resort to incremental infringement through such mechanisms as red flag laws and other such "common sense" legislation.

Like it or not, we ignore the Constitution at our peril. If changes are needed, it is best to follow the process laid out in the founding documents.

The constitutionality of laws is determined by the courts. It says as much in the constitution. The courts have ruled that firearm centric laws can be constitutional. You dont determine constitutionality. Neither do I . The courts do.

 

[Cavedweller]

The constitutionality of laws is determined by the courts. It says as much in the constitution. The couers have ruled that firearm centric laws can be constitutional.

What's a couer?

 

[Camelfilter]

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.

Interesting that you selectively CHOSE to leave out the Non-fallacious usage of Slippery Slope arguments.

Is it plausible you omitted such because "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur."

Consequences such as: guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Knobgoblin]

ERPO red flag laws are wide open for abuse but the problem is there will be way more times where they are used for legitimate reasons than any false accusations. I haven't even heard of any false cases yet but in just Florida alone judges have removed the guns of several thousands of people expressing harm to others.
Whats interesting to note is Florida's red flag law was championed by Republicans.

We could significantly reduce ALL crime by having everyone start out with a life sentence in prison at age 16 ,and then just convince a judge to let them out.

We could be generous and allow the subject to plead their case for freedom on their birthday every year.

 

[American123]

So? A judge issues an extreme risk order typically because of a request from law enforcement. Occasionally by family members. Years ago when the cops would come to the house for a domestic call they'd ask if there were guns in the house and they'd take them. You'd have to go get them the next day. This just throws another check by a judge in there. Then you can have your day in court to plead your case.

So? Either civil rights are real and they matter or they aren't and they don't.

You can't say people have civil rights while simultaneously having them be stripped away at a whim and if it may please the court (crown) be allowed to have them back.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Interesting that you selectively CHOSE to leave out the Non-fallacious usage of Slippery Slope arguments.

Is it plausible you omitted such because "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur."

Consequences such as: guilty until proven innocent?

Left it out because I don't believe "Red Flag Laws -> Banning Rope" is anything more than hyperbolic fear mongering and so no, I see no 'good evidence" that that chain of events are likely to occur. And the guilty until proven innocent doesn't stand up to scrutiny because as of today all Red Flag laws do require a presentation of facts / evidence / allegations to a judge before the Red Flag order is issued and that process is not fundamentally different than the one used for search or arrest warrants, a process that has stood the test of time and many court reviews

But I know some people are link adverse, so here is the nonapplicable Non-fallacious usage of Slippery Slope part

Non-fallacious usage[edit]

Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy[citation needed] but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences."[3]

If the conditional if p then … z is understood strictly then slippery slope arguments about the real world are likely to fall short of the standards required for sound deductive reasoning and might be dismissed as a fallacy but, as Walton points out, slippery slope arguments are not formal proofs, they are practical arguments about likely consequences.[23] Rizzo says, "first and foremost, slippery slopes are slopes of arguments: One practical argument tends to lead to another, which means that one justified action, often a decision, tends to lead to another. When we say that one argument (and its supported action) tends to lead to another, we mean that it makes the occurrence of the subsequent argument more likely, not that it necessarily makes it highly likely or, still less, inevitable. Hence the transition between arguments is not based on strict logical entailment."[2] Essentially, if accepting p raises the probability of z sufficiently that the risk of it happening passes a tolerable threshold the argument will be considered reasonable. There is, of course, considerable room for disagreement as to the likelihood of z occurring[21]: 255 and what would be a tolerable level of risk.

Kahane says, "The slippery slope fallacy is committed only when we accept without further justification or argument that once the first step is taken, the others are going to follow, or that whatever would justify the first step would in fact justify the rest."[9] The problem then arises as to how to evaluate the likelihood that certain steps would follow.

Volokh's article "The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope"[24] sets out to examine the various ways in which making one decision might render another decision more likely. He considers such things as implementing A making B more cost effective and implementing A changing attitudes such that acceptance of B will become more likely. He says, "If you are faced with the pragmatic question "Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might lead others to support B?," you should consider all the mechanisms through which A might lead to B, whether they are logical or psychological, judicial or legislative, gradual or sudden ... You should think about the entire range of possible ways that A can change the conditions—whether those conditions are public attitudes, political alignments, costs and benefits, or what have you—under which others will consider B."[24]: 1030–1031

Volokh concludes by claiming that the analysis in his article "implicitly rebuts the argument that slippery slope arguments are inherently logically fallacious: the claim that A's will inevitably lead to B's as a matter of logical compulsion might be mistaken, but the more modest claim that A's may make B's more likely seems plausible."[24]: 1134 A similar conclusion was reached by Corner et al., who after investigating the psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument say, "Despite their philosophical notoriety, SSAs are used (and seem to be accepted) in a wide variety of practical contexts. The experimental evidence reported in this paper suggests that in some circumstances, their practical acceptability can be justified, not just because the decision-theoretic framework renders them subjectively rational, but also because it is demonstrated how, objectively, the slippery slopes they claim do in fact exist.[25]: 14

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

We could significantly reduce ALL crime by having everyone start out with a life sentence in prison at age 16 ,and then just convince a judge to let them out.

We could be generous and allow the subject to plead their case for freedom on their birthday every year.

How do you get from a temporary removal of property after court review to mandatory imprisonment?

 

[Cavedweller]

The constitutionality of laws is determined by the courts. It says as much in the constitution.

Really? From the uscourts.gov website:

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[Knobgoblin]

How do you get from a temporary removal of property after court review to mandatory imprisonment?

Just an idea.

Think of the children.

What's fallacious argumentum for going over the top as an example of what's wrong in general?

 

[wired]

What's a couer?

See I got this new laptop with an unlighted keyboard and the lamp is on the other side of the room. Its called a typo.

 

[wired]

Really? From the uscourts.gov website:

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."...

www.uscourts.gov

True but still the status quo.

 

[American123]

Left it out because I don't believe "Red Flag Laws -> Banning Rope" is anything more than hyperbolic fear mongering and so no, I see no 'good evidence" that that chain of events are likely to occur. And the guilty until proven innocent doesn't stand up to scrutiny because as of today all Red Flag laws do require a presentation of facts / evidence / allegations to a judge before the Red Flag order is issued and that process is not fundamentally different than the one used for search or arrest warrants, a process that has stood the test of time and many court reviews

But I know some people are link adverse, so here is the nonapplicable Non-fallacious usage of Slippery Slope part

Non-fallacious usage[edit]

Logic and critical thinking textbooks typically discuss slippery slope arguments as a form of fallacy[citation needed] but usually acknowledge that "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur. The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences."[3]

If the conditional if p then … z is understood strictly then slippery slope arguments about the real world are likely to fall short of the standards required for sound deductive reasoning and might be dismissed as a fallacy but, as Walton points out, slippery slope arguments are not formal proofs, they are practical arguments about likely consequences.[23] Rizzo says, "first and foremost, slippery slopes are slopes of arguments: One practical argument tends to lead to another, which means that one justified action, often a decision, tends to lead to another. When we say that one argument (and its supported action) tends to lead to another, we mean that it makes the occurrence of the subsequent argument more likely, not that it necessarily makes it highly likely or, still less, inevitable. Hence the transition between arguments is not based on strict logical entailment."[2] Essentially, if accepting p raises the probability of z sufficiently that the risk of it happening passes a tolerable threshold the argument will be considered reasonable. There is, of course, considerable room for disagreement as to the likelihood of z occurring[21]: 255 and what would be a tolerable level of risk.

Kahane says, "The slippery slope fallacy is committed only when we accept without further justification or argument that once the first step is taken, the others are going to follow, or that whatever would justify the first step would in fact justify the rest."[9] The problem then arises as to how to evaluate the likelihood that certain steps would follow.

Volokh's article "The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope"[24] sets out to examine the various ways in which making one decision might render another decision more likely. He considers such things as implementing A making B more cost effective and implementing A changing attitudes such that acceptance of B will become more likely. He says, "If you are faced with the pragmatic question "Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might lead others to support B?," you should consider all the mechanisms through which A might lead to B, whether they are logical or psychological, judicial or legislative, gradual or sudden ... You should think about the entire range of possible ways that A can change the conditions—whether those conditions are public attitudes, political alignments, costs and benefits, or what have you—under which others will consider B."[24]: 1030–1031

Volokh concludes by claiming that the analysis in his article "implicitly rebuts the argument that slippery slope arguments are inherently logically fallacious: the claim that A's will inevitably lead to B's as a matter of logical compulsion might be mistaken, but the more modest claim that A's may make B's more likely seems plausible."[24]: 1134 A similar conclusion was reached by Corner et al., who after investigating the psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument say, "Despite their philosophical notoriety, SSAs are used (and seem to be accepted) in a wide variety of practical contexts. The experimental evidence reported in this paper suggests that in some circumstances, their practical acceptability can be justified, not just because the decision-theoretic framework renders them subjectively rational, but also because it is demonstrated how, objectively, the slippery slopes they claim do in fact exist.[25]: 14

I perceive that your entire, "it's not a big deal, it requires evidence" viewpoint is demonstrably incorrect with respect to how this can go wrong.

For example, there are plenty of courts, judges, lawyers, politicians who will all share their opinion that the 2nd amendment allows such things as high cap cagazine bans, "semi auto assault rifle bans," modern technology bans, etc.

So if the legal system can distort the second amendment as much as it already has, it is clearly obvious, by historical precedent, that something such as a "red flag order" could become distorted as such as well.


Link to Washington's version for reference:

Chapter 7.94 RCW Dispositions: EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

app.leg.wa.gov