Red Flag Laws

[Wise_A]

Or maybe that if someone is shown to be a danger to themselves and others, putting them in a hospital so they can get better?

If we're going to argue that protecting the public is more important than individual rights, we should at least do something constructive when we take those individual rights away, instead of half-measures that don't make anybody any safer.

PS--mass killings are so rare, I really don't think we should be bothering to do anything.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Involuntarily? Like prison? So they can’t leave? Sit back down and think about that . . .

Or maybe that if someone is shown to be a danger to themselves and others, putting them in a hospital so they can get better?

 

[Wise_A]

Precisely my point: Anti-gunners want to give the government more power to restrict firearms. Some want to give the government the power to regulate what kinds of media people can consume, so long as it's not the media that they like. Others want to give the government the power to imprison individuals for indefinite periods, without due process, so long as it only happens to "crazy" people. The last one is kind've funny, because there's a lot of folks that would say collecting firearms is a sign of mental illness.

All over incidents that are incredibly uncommon. You're more likely to win the lottery than die in a mass shooting.

 

[rednichols]

You don’t have a Senator or Representative germane to this discussion . . .

Well, sure I do. Let's see, who do I write to who are Senators and Representatives germane to this discussion. Well, I started higher up with President Donald Trump and with the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. But, OK, my senators for California are Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris. My congressman for San Diego county, Scott Peters.

Lessee. Have written for years to all of the above. OK, also Wayne Lapierre of NRA. Then the editors of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Washington Post. Aha, to not-my-congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Oh, didn't you know I vote absentee in California and have for two decades? And I get to vote here, too .

How am I doing on my list? Well, thank you for asking: pick which two of the above has taken up the connection between the immersion of psychopathic personalities in first-person video games and mass random murders with firearms -- since Doom and the Columbine High School shootings? I'd say I'm doing pretty well with my irrelevant correspondents.

You? How is your letter-writing campaign going?

 

[stansdds]

So,
Are you calling your Senators and Representatives?

Yes, and neither of my senators nor my representative are interested in my views on any matter involving firearms. They tow the DNC party line. They no longer take the common courtesy to have one of their aids send me a form letter or form e-mail acknowledging my efforts to contact them.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I understand that you might do all that, but really, the only thing the people you're writing can do to impact your lifestyle is change tax law for expatriates. What you're doing is akin to somebody who's left my county twenty years but still somehow votes here trying to tell us who the county commissioners should be and what they should do. I'd see the return address and all them funny postmarks, give the letter its due attention, and toss it . . .

Well, sure I do. Let's see, who do I write to who are Senators and Representatives germane to this discussion. Well, I started higher up with President Donald Trump and with the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. But, OK, my senators for California are Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris. My congressman for San Diego county, Scott Peters.

Lessee. Have written for years to all of the above. OK, also Wayne Lapierre of NRA. Then the editors of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Washington Post. Aha, to not-my-congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Oh, didn't you know I vote absentee in California and have for two decades? And I get to vote here, too .

How am I doing on my list? Well, thank you for asking: pick which two of the above has taken up the connection between the immersion of psychopathic personalities in first-person video games and mass random murders with firearms -- since Doom and the Columbine High School shootings? I'd say I'm doing pretty well with my irrelevant correspondents.

You? How is your letter-writing campaign going?

 

[s&wchad]

I'm surprised at those in favor of this proposal. Virtually every State already has a process to evaluate a person suspected of having a mental illness (see link below). Due process and innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) are the cornerstones of our legal system.

https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.../Emergency_Hospitalization_for_Evaluation.pdf

In Michigan, involuntary commitment requires evaluation by a mental health professional and includes multiple safeguards.

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Forms/courtforms/pcm201.pdf

An LEO can have the person evaluated for up to 72 hours to determine their state of mind. The laws are already in place, the problem is funding. When an LEO takes a person in for evaluation, the first thing the hospital wants to know is "who's paying". The cost issue gets much worse if the person is deemed a danger and requires involuntary commitment. A person involuntarily committed already loses their firearms rights, but the funding isn't there to back it up.

Additional mental health funding is part of the answer. These "Red Flag" laws are certainly cheaper, but they scare the heck out of me and have the potential for serious abuse. Judges and LEO's are not mental health professionals and having a persons property seized without allowing them representation is not the American way.

Red flag laws and gun bans will not stop these mass shootings and only chip away at our rights. School shooting are the most abhorrent, but children still aren't protected the way politicians, courtrooms and celebrities are.

 

[Rule3]

Baker acts are already used.
"Red Flag" laws pretty much are a way to skirt the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Amendments 2,4,5 probably 6 and 8.

Will the Red Flag Laws be misused? Of Course they will, much like the False Reports made to Children and Families which are used in all kinds of family disputes.

In those cases (civil) it is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is preponderance of the evidence.
Are Red Flag laws "criminal or Civil" if the suspect has not yet actually committed a crime??

 

[johngalt]

Here is an idea. Who ever reports someone under a red flag law bears all of the costs: inventory, storage, legal fees resulting from the inevitable court battles, any mental health evaluations and treatment, etc.

After all, if they are concerned enough to strip someone of their civil rights without due process, they should be willing to pay for it.

 

[brjr51]

Perhaps a slippery slope, but would the ability to allow the unsealing of juvenile health and court records and allow them to be used for NICS checks help in identifying some of these “deeply troubled “ young adults?
Yes, hard to tell where to draw the line, if Johnny stole a pack of gum when he was 14 and got nabbed for shoplifting is probably not something that he should be punished for the rest of his life with, but if he liked to set the neighbors cats on fire, spent considerable time in a psychiatrists office, taking some heavy meds, or was enough to cause serious concerns with adults, should he get a fresh start at 18?

 

[WCCPHD]

Red flag laws are basically worthless. Someone goes into court, without the subject of the hearing being present or even notified. A judge issues an order to seize that person's weapons. I get this.

What stops the person, who based on ex parte testimony, is not competent to possess guns, from doing similar harm to him/herself or others with some other type of weapon (car, hammer, knife, etc, etc) OR stealing or buying a gun?

Seems like it would be simpler to just use the mental health laws already in force to seize the person and have him/her evaluated instead of taking their guns. I believe that once a person is evaluated another hearing is required. IF, the person needs help or involuntary commitment there is nothing stopping the judge from then issuing an order to take weapons until the person is found sane OR permanently removing them, after due process is followed, if the person should not be allowed to possess firearms.

Common sense would point to there being an ulterior motive to these proposals.

 

[delcrossv]

....

Common sense would point to there being an ulterior motive to these proposals.

Exactly. You'd be hard pressed to find a better way to quell political speech, for example.
The more I contemplate the ramifications, the more worrisome it gets.

 

[Rule3]

Perhaps a slippery slope, but would the ability to allow the unsealing of juvenile health and court records and allow them to be used for NICS checks help in identifying some of these “deeply troubled “ young adults?
Yes, hard to tell where to draw the line, if Johnny stole a pack of gum when he was 14 and got nabbed for shoplifting is probably not something that he should be punished for the rest of his life with, but if he liked to set the neighbors cats on fire, spent considerable time in a psychiatrists office, taking some heavy meds, or was enough to cause serious concerns with adults, should he get a fresh start at 18?

You "now enter into the HIPPA ZONE"

HIPPA is so confusing and convoluted it is is hard to get an answer on what is "protected" It's easy when working in a Medical Filed but as far as access by others it confusing. Which is why they want Red Flag Laws they can then bypass all the convoluted laws the set up in the first place!..If the person is not dead, missing or committed some crime, I do not see how under HIPPA they can access medical information.??

But with Red Flags they get what they want.

Law Enforcement Access | Electronic Frontier Foundation


Health Information Privacy | HHS.gov

 

[Gamecock]

Assume every adult who is not locked up has a gun.

What does 'gun control' get you?

 

[s&wchad]

Assume every adult who is not locked up has a gun.

I know you’re not disagreeing with me, but I want to take your point a bit further.
Assume everyone You meet is armed. I do...

Who do you think will turn their’s in if gun bans become law?

 

[sigp220.45]

Hell, I can’t even find all my guns. How are the cops supposed to?

 

[BC38]

What does 'gun control' get you?

For me? More inconvenience and hassle.
For those proposing it? More CONTROL.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Y

I lost all my guns and accessories in a very tragic boating accident at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers during flood season. It’s lucky I’m still alive. What a poor set of decisions on my part . . .

Hell, I can’t even find all my guns. How are the cops supposed to?

 

[Muss Muggins]

It would be difficult post a more comprehensive evaluation of these laws.

I'm surprised at those in favor of this proposal. Virtually every State already has a process to evaluate a person suspected of having a mental illness (see link below). Due process and innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) are the cornerstones of our legal system.

https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.../Emergency_Hospitalization_for_Evaluation.pdf

In Michigan, involuntary commitment requires evaluation by a mental health professional and includes multiple safeguards.

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Forms/courtforms/pcm201.pdf

An LEO can have the person evaluated for up to 72 hours to determine their state of mind. The laws are already in place, the problem is funding. When an LEO takes a person in for evaluation, the first thing the hospital wants to know is "who's paying". The cost issue gets much worse if the person is deemed a danger and requires involuntary commitment. A person involuntarily committed already loses their firearms rights, but the funding isn't there to back it up.

Additional mental health funding is part of the answer. These "Red Flag" laws are certainly cheaper, but they scare the heck out of me and have the potential for serious abuse. Judges and LEO's are not mental health professionals and having a persons property seized without allowing them representation is not the American way.

Red flag laws and gun bans will not stop these mass shootings and only chip away at our rights. School shooting are the most abhorrent, but children still aren't protected the way politicians, courtrooms and celebrities are.

 

[Gamecock]

My point is that gun control is based on a juvenile premise, that it is possible to keep an adult from getting a gun. In a nation with more guns than people. It is stupid on its face.