Red Flag Laws
- Thread starter delcrossv
- Start date
Ya' ought to run for office Muss. I've never seen a better example of someone telling a long winded story to illustrate such a simple point - while still not directly answering the question.
That question was: Do you truly believe the courts get it wrong 1/3 of the time? Because that is what it sounded like you were saying in your previous post - that there are no false filings of ERPO petitions, only errors in interpretation of the law or of the evidence by the courts. To address your first "point", please find and post another example of my using the term "boss" in a post anywhere else - ever. My use of it in the previous post was a direct quote from a movie - Kevin Costner in Open Range to be exact, and it was meant to be humorous (at least to those who've seen and remember it in the movie). Sorry you didn't get it - must not have seen the movie. Come to think of it, I may have quoted that same line once before a couple of years ago in another thread...
Second, I have NO distain or distrust of the police, whatsoever. You've obviously got me confused with someone else. You've expressed far more disdain for at least one LEO around here than I ever have or will. I'm referring to your remarks directed at Mass Ayoob. I have the utmost respect for the police. My best friend happens to be a cop in Vancouver WA. I can PM you his name and the jurisdiction he works for if you like so you can check him out. The courts? Yes, it is true that I do have some distrust (though I wouldn't say distain) of the courts. Too many of them have misused their authority to violate too many people's 2nd Amendment rights. Too many are stacked with liberal judges attempting to legislate from the bench. As an all-knowing officer of the court I'm sorry if you find that offensive.
As for your signature, dismissive "duly noted" catch-all, it only serves to highlight instances where you can't directly answer the argument and are attempting to end the discussion by expressing your distain. Sorry, but it's such an obvious ploy that it doesn't fool people for a second.
Last edited:
Isn't it a standard policy in divorce proceeding to more or less ask for an "order of Protection" ? I believe it is often used as a bargaining chip to got something else from the other party. With red flag laws suddenly every divorce could entail losing your firearms.
Hopefully I am wrong on this
Hopefully I am wrong on this
I'm hoping so too - but I don't think you are.
Others apparently do.
Here's one for consideration. How long before filing for a "regular" Protection Order automatically morphs into an ERPO being issued - complete with gun confiscation?
All it would take is comparing the name on the PO to the names on the records for recent gun purchases.
OP
DB family law attorney + vindictive ex-spouse = [sarcasm]WIN[/sarcasm]
I think the odds would be pretty high for that.
As promised earlier, duly noted . . .
Ya' ought to run for office Muss. I've never seen a better example of someone telling a long winded story to illustrate such a simple point - while still not directly answering the question.
To address your first "point", please find and post another example of my using the term "boss" in a post anywhere else - ever. My use of it in the previous post was a direct quote from a movie - Kevin Costner in Open Range to be exact, and it was meant to be humorous (at least to those who've seen and remember it in the movie). Sorry you didn't get it - must not have seen the movie. Come to think of it, I may have quoted that same line once before a couple of years ago in another thread...
Second, I have NO distain or distrust of the police, whatsoever. You've obviously got me confused with someone else. You've expressed far more disdain for at least one LEO around here than I ever have or will. I'm referring to your remarks directed at Mass Ayoob. I have the utmost respect for the police. My best friend happens to be a cop in Vancouver WA. I can PM you his name and the jurisdiction he works for if you like so you can check him out. The courts? Yes, it is true that I do have some distrust (though I wouldn't say distain) of the courts. Too many of them have misused their authority to violate too many people's 2nd Amendment rights. Too many are stacked with liberal judges attempting to legislate from the bench. As an all-knowing officer of the court I'm sorry if you find that offensive.
As for your signature, dismissive "duly noted" catch-all, it only serves to highlight instances where you can't directly answer the argument and are attempting to end the discussion by expressing your distain. Sorry, but it's such an obvious ploy that it doesn't fool people for a second.
gman51
Member
Yep the latest report was a young man walked into a WalMart with an AK over his shoulder and supposedly had over 100 rounds of ammo. People freaked out and called 911 to report him. Yep people are going to freak out seeing anyone carrying a rifle or for that matter even probably a handgun.
The man gave up to police with his hands up. Yep it was a stupid thing to do even if he was legally carrying the rifle. The police arrested and charged him with several counts. He better have a real good lawyer.
Rifle-Carrying Man Causes Panic In Missouri Walmart, Faces Terrorism Charge : NPR
The man gave up to police with his hands up. Yep it was a stupid thing to do even if he was legally carrying the rifle. The police arrested and charged him with several counts. He better have a real good lawyer.
Rifle-Carrying Man Causes Panic In Missouri Walmart, Faces Terrorism Charge : NPR
Carrying a rifle slung on your shoulder is stupid, we have had that issue around here. But, it is lawful so long as you are not threatening anyone. The question is did he actually use the rifle in a threatening manner? If not, then he did not violate law. If he did not violate any laws, but ends up being charged with and convicted of making a terrorist threat, then precedent may be set for arresting anyone found to be carrying a firearm in a lawful manner.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I suspect the charges will be dropped, and the city will pay a settlement out of the tax payers pocket. This has happened several times when some depts in NC have used GATTOP to charge open carriers. Guessing the police feel the need to do something to legal behavior they object to, not caring that the tax payer will foot the bill.
gman51
Member
GOA Gun Owners of America are totally against red flag laws and I do believe they know more about the facts about red flag laws than the average citizens. GOA stated that politician's offices are being flooded with calls and letters by anti gun people to hopefully sway the politician's votes in favor of new federal red flag laws.
As far as the dead guy caused his own death..........he would be alive today if police hadn't come to his home enforcing a phony red flag accusation.
I just wonder how many here that have large collections with hundreds o f guns worth over $50,000 dollars would kindly give them up to red flag confiscation? And they take you to jail even though you did nothing to warrant this red flag injustice. Do you think you might never see your guns again or maybe many of the specialty guns won't get back to you? I am guessing an attorney for your case would be at least 10 grand just for starters.
GOA sees these red flag laws as being opportunity for very serious injustice that is bound to get worse not better. I do believe red flag laws are not about saving lives. Not by a long shot. They are just one more effort to tear another chunk off the Constitution going after the 2nd Amendment rights.
As far as the dead guy caused his own death..........he would be alive today if police hadn't come to his home enforcing a phony red flag accusation.
I just wonder how many here that have large collections with hundreds o f guns worth over $50,000 dollars would kindly give them up to red flag confiscation? And they take you to jail even though you did nothing to warrant this red flag injustice. Do you think you might never see your guns again or maybe many of the specialty guns won't get back to you? I am guessing an attorney for your case would be at least 10 grand just for starters.
GOA sees these red flag laws as being opportunity for very serious injustice that is bound to get worse not better. I do believe red flag laws are not about saving lives. Not by a long shot. They are just one more effort to tear another chunk off the Constitution going after the 2nd Amendment rights.
OP
So,
Are you calling your Senators and Representatives?
Are you calling your Senators and Representatives?
rednichols
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,745
- Reaction score
- 8,484
Yessir. But not to protect your right to have an AK but to get those bloody video games off the shelves. They're infecting the world, the NZ shooter was a gamer exported there from Australia.
Or to be more specific.... the problem is mentally ill people with easy access to guns. IDK maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the idea of background checks and red flag laws to get guns out of the hands of people who ARE mentally ill? People who are unfit to own/carry? I can't wrap my head around why that is a bad thing. Ok some of the wording needs to be fixed, but nobody is saying fix it...it's just a hard NO! You can't in one breath say "it's mentally ill people, not guns".... and in the same breath say no further "mentally ill people" gun regulations are needed. ( not trying to single you out). Everybody is so concerned about the "one poor innocent guy" who had his gun taken away, but nobody is looking at all the dead bodies strewn everywhere...in our schools for gods sake.
None of us can protect our families 24/7. So anything that will take a weapon out of a mentally ill/deranged/terrorists hands, while not infringing on my rights to own and carry a weapon, is ok by me, and should be by you too. I welcome being inconvenienced, inconvenience the hell out of me.... if it will help prevent one mass shooting....just one.
We need to sit at the table, exchange dialogue, and explain what makes sense ( mentally ill people NOT having guns), and what doesn't ( over regulating the over whelming, vast majority of law abiding gun owners). I'm sick and tired of the extreme views on both sides yelling at each other. All the while neither one speaks for me....and in the meantime whack jobs keep killing our kids.
JJEH
Member
We already EOD people. If we do that we should allow family members take possession of the firearms. Gov has no right to just take what's yours!
This is what I don't understand: if someone is a danger to themselves or others, why is "confiscate their guns" considered an effective measure?
rednichols said:
To start with, I'd point out that people don't need an X-Box to slaughter each other: Somalia, Nigeria, Bosnia, the Congo, Azerbaijan, etc. Offloading blame onto media, be it video games, movies, music, art, or books, makes no sense in light of history. It's a tactic employed to help people reconcile events with their complete inability to conceive of humans as violent creatures.
For another, regulating First Amendment expression is troubling. Who decides what qualifies as violent and harmful? Is Call of Duty bad because it's a first-person shooter, but Total War: Shogun 2 is okay because it's a historical strategy game? I mean, the body count in CoD is probably well under a hundred per level, but in Shogun, fifteen-minute battles can easily stack up a thousand dead on both sides. Which is more dehumanizing?
And I suppose that if I wanted to get super morally-ambiguous, is Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 bad because you're killing economically-disadvantaged South American and Middle-Eastern terrorists, but the original Call of Duty is okay because you're killing Nazis? Is Far Cry 5 bad because you're killing Americans, but Far Cry 3 is okay because you're killing South Pacific pirates? Ooh, but they're indigenous islanders...
Whoever gets to decide these things wields enormous power in a situation where there are no good choices. The dilemma itself is, in game parlance, the bad ending.
What's a little funny, for me, is that nobody here is in favor of the same regulation of their firearms--"evil" features and judgement of aesthetic choices. But many would consider applying the same to video games, because it's media they don't themselves consume. Just as we--rightfully so--criticize politicians and media magnates for questioning "why anyone needs a gun".
Don't fall for it. Blame the shooter.
Read what you typed and sit in your recliner and think a minute . . .
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
I didn't "fail to note" anything. My comment was incident-specific regarding Gary Willis being shot to death because of his irrational behavior when law enforcement officers were attempting to serve a warrant on him under Maryland's red flag law.
What does Prince George's County have to do with my comment? The incident I commented on happened in Anne Arundel County, not PG County. I'm sure there were other gun confiscations processed in other counties because of Maryland's red flag law, but they don't have a thing to do with what I said about the Gary Willis shooting.
Your use of the word "stolen", in my opinion, is simply your interpretation of a process that's now legal in the state of Maryland, whether you agree with its legality or not.
I'm not saying I agree with the legality of red flag laws, either. In Maryland or any other state. But until it's repealed or declared unconstitutional by the courts, it's the law. If people want to play the cold-dead-hands game with it, that's their business.
Guns have never been a necessary component of massacres.
Manhattan U-Haul Truck Attack:
Happy Land Night Club Arson:
Sagamihara Stabbings:
Last edited:
By that post, you’re advocating seizing rental trucks, gasoline, and knives from those who present a danger to themselves and others, so I’ll assume you’re good with seizing their guns as well . . .
Manhattan U-Haul Truck Attack:
Happy Land Night Club Arson:
Sagamihara Stabbings:
