According to the organization (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ) that STARTED all this illegal cr*p, “red flag” is a term that jeopardizes the policy’s impact. Really? Maybe ask the poor individual that had their constitutional rights violated?

"But as these laws have become more mainstream, the question of what to call them has become more important — and the term “red flag law” has become more troubling. Over time — especially after many conversations with our allies in the mental health community — it has become clear that the term “red flag law” is not just a memorable, innocuous nickname. It is a term that has the potential to alienate marginalized groups. And by mischaracterizing the way these laws operate, “red flag” is a term that jeopardizes the policy’s impact. "

Last edited by a moderator:
Sure seems to be gettin' that way...I wouldn't say in general as is the case with some of Washington's new laws , like the 1639 gun law...its pretty specific and asinine ...but I digress....

Asinine isn't limited to 1639, as we can go back a couple of years and pull up some of the crap in 1491 (which pertains more to the article than 1639):
Like becoming a prohibited person and/or having your guns confiscated just for owning a gun, wanting to buy a gun and/or having just bought a gun...................
RCW 7.94.040 said:
(2) Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.​
(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:​
(h) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;​
(m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.​

So, I would have to, at a minimum, say all firearm laws in general.

Well again..I will not say in general , 'cause I ain't familiar with every firearm law....
However I will say that most firearm laws , bans and restrictions do little to nothing in preventing crime or stopping criminals in getting guns or using them in a crime...

But gun laws , bans and restrictions do a wonderful job in making it more difficult for those of us who are not criminals to legally obtain a gun and making more "criminals" through non-compliance of said laws etc...


There was a study looking back at the effects of the red flag law in Connecticut. (warning, it is a 30 page paper)

There were a large number of suicides that still occurred after the guns were taken. This tells me that the gun part is all anyone cares about, not actually getting people help they need

61%(IIRC) of the people never got their guns back after they were taken. It appears that many people didnt know they could go to court and get them back.

Author estimates 1 suicide prevented for every 20 guns confiscated (I dont think he included the people who then went on to kill themselves another way).
so that's the number that proponents will use to support red flag laws. So that's what we get out of laws without due process


It boils down to, oh my god. A person could be blamed instead of the gun. We have to do "something". If we hold a person accountable the argument that guns in themselves are not evil, could be made.


This is entertaining, gun bigots worrying about discrimination against people with mental health issues.

But who cares about discriminating against gun owners right? What a bunch of gun bullies.

And you know what, many in the camp that you marginalize and discriminate against have already come up with a new term.

It's not a "red flag law" it's a "gun confiscation order". Rebranding it something else doesn't make it more palletable for people with half a brain to recognize it for what it is.


So, the article showcases their “Intersectional Politics” yet again by droning on about “being inclusive” of, and not “stigmatizing” those with mental illnesses... worried about reviving the “historical attitudes” of mental illness, etc, etc....

Labels, labels, labels..... it’s the only thing progressives are actually good at.

But it’s A-OK to attempt to stigmatize gun owners exercising their civil rights.... and as far as “historical attitudes” towards the mentally ill and institutionalizing them, what was more compassionate? Letting them wander the streets wearing filthy rags? Intimidating and assaulting people? Getting abused by human vermin? Crapping in the streets? Becoming a blight to neighborhoods and randomly setting things on fire?

You progressives can keep your “progress” and go eat a bag of Richards... o_O:rolleyes:
The more I thought about this cr*p, the more I decided to go to the source. To that end, I wrote to the wing-nuts that are doing the whining..

[email protected]
Per..this article & Julia Bascom...."“When we say ‘red flag laws,’ we reinforce existing prejudice against people with mental health disabilities,” says Julia Bascom, Executive Director of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network."
^^^What a line of crap! ^^^

Followed by..."As the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their allies consistently use mental illness as a scapegoat for gun violence, the term “red flag laws” gives the gun lobby yet another opportunity to change the subject from guns to mental illness — and convince the public that people living with mental illness are the real problem."
^^^More crap by Julia Bascom! ^^^

Nutcase comments like Ms. Bascom made create and help perpetuate misnomers like 'gun-violence. Show me or anyone where any gun was ever violent. It's an OBJECT! A tool. Anyone that would ever believe people shooting other people for whatever reason, other then self defense or war, aren't crazy, mentally impaired, mentally ill or worse is living in a fantasy world.

If one was to rely on the falsehood of gun-violence as being accurate, then why aren't auto accidents named auto-violence? Why aren't abortions called abortion-violence.

Those/these 'red flag laws' are nothing more then a violation of an individuals constitutional rights! They were instituted as such by anti-gun organizers and organizations. Plain & simple! Any attempts to mislead the public otherwise, as Ms. Bascoms & Ron Honbergs comments do, is utterly disgusting and extremely disingenuous!

The real problem here is Ms. Bascoms and Ron Honbergs (NAMI) inability to recognize mental health issues are the sole issue and cause of indiscriminate killing by people with mental health issues!



And here I thought that "Red Flag Laws" were wrong , because most of them are vaguely written and are subject to a very loose and open interpretation ...which makes them easy to abuse.

In HI there are even entire organizations that are there (sometimes using Govt funding) to help the
"victims" to file the paperwork.

IMHO....the law was meant to be that way.

Because to a one would ever abuse a "good law".

Rrrright cause in their one would ever commit Murder with a gun if that person was unable to pass a BGC. They would rather blame an object(s) vs. a person for the Murder. And, "If an AW were unavailable then, there would be no mass killings."

Aloha, Mark

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors August 2-Day Show
Hillsboro, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top