• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Red Flag Laws

vegas giants said:
If a doctor has a patient who he feels would be dangerous to.own guns he can report that to the background check system. I would like to see background checks on ammo purchases as well
Click to expand...

This only affects those getting treatment, which I think you and I will both agree, is a problem.

Unsure how I feel about violating hippa to report potentially dangerous folks. It all reminds me of "pre-crime" from minority report.
 
KevinKohler said:
This only affects those getting treatment, which I think you and I will both agree, is a problem.

Unsure how I feel about violating hippa to report potentially dangerous folks. It all reminds me of "pre-crime" from minority report.
Click to expand...

We cant have a perfect system...but we need a better system.

Doctors can currently lock you up for a precrime assessment using your term
 
Moon said:
There has to be due process involved. Targets of these complaints must have the ability to defend themselves in a court of law.

There also needs to be stiff penalties for false claims to prevent misuse.
Click to expand...

OK, but unless that is before any sentence has been imposed and after formal charges have been made then it is not due process.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yeah, on reflection, bad thread title.

We can tackle both...I guess. Maybe I will petition the MODs to change the title...

Either way, what I'm curious about is, who wields that power? Psychiatrists? Does that mean we all have to take a psych eval to buy a gun? And what of our kids? What if they have, say, aspergers? Sandy Hook, anyone?

What of our neighbors, and their kids?
Click to expand...

At the moment I don't believe there are any laws out yet that deal with most cases. I have no problem with implementing background checks as a norm, I think it is something that will be difficult to bring about but it could be possible. If they are brought about I would believe that whatever department that controls those checks would have psychiatrists on hand to determine those factors. It all kind of depends on what laws come out.
 
vegas giants said:
In exactly the same way it is done for a legal commitment. The onus is on the state to prove dangerousness
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Legal commitment requires the state to offer care to the person - not simply take away their personal property and say have a nice rest of your life.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is nonsense. Legal commitment requires the state to offer care to the person - not simply take away their personal property and say have a nice rest of your life.
Click to expand...

It requires the state to lock you up against your will.

I am referring to temporary psychiatric hospitalizations
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Accusation = obvious guilt so pass the (life?) sentence immediately?
Click to expand...

It would be easy to implement some form of appeals process. You are right, there would have to be some form of check and balance system to prevent a doctor that is angry with a patient and abusing a power.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
When does the alleged "dangerous" person get to prepare and present their "evidence" or defense? How exactly, does one go about proving a negative? After all, the alleged "dangerous" person has not been charged with any crime thus is not allowed 5A or 6A protections (supposedly basic constitutional rights).
Click to expand...
They could have a process that allows for the subject to present a “defence” to the accusations I guess but equally they could have a process much like that for search warrants, where a positive case would have to be presented that the judge balances against the legal rights of the subject.

Again, I don’t think the technical details are the problem; if this isn’t a legitimate decision for the judge to make, why would any other decision with a similar potential impact, be?
 
What about my children? If I have a kid diagnosed with aspergers, should I be allowed to have guns?

What if they have schizophrenia?

What about my neighbors?
To what lengths are we prepared to go to keep potentially "dangerous" people from having fire arms?
 
I find it interesting that while "red flag laws" seems to be the new cool buzzword, we have the legitimacy of watch lists being hammered in court.

Terrorism Watch List is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules | The Crime Report

Reopening the legal debate about a key national security tool used by thousands of U.S. and international government agencies, a federal judge has declared that a terrorism watch list created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is unconstitutional.


It opens a rather large can of legal worms.
 
KevinKohler said:
What about my children? If I have a kid diagnosed with aspergers, should I be allowed to have guns?

What if they have schizophrenia?

What about my neighbors?
To what lengths are we prepared to go to keep potentially "dangerous" people from having fire arms?
Click to expand...

These are good questions. Family members should be able to make a appeal to police if they feel that a family member is in danger from guns being in the home. Guns can be removed and a judge can make the ruling
 
KevinKohler said:
Lets chat.

We don't want crazies getting fire arms...of any kind.

But what kind of crazies? Autism? What level? Autism is a sliding scale. Bi-polar? ADD, ADHD?

What if its just my kids who have it? How about my neighbor, who comes over to the house, etc?
Click to expand...

If someone is too dangerous to possess a firearm legally because of a mental disorder, perhaps they're too dangerous to be in public unsupervised.
 
daeler said:
It would be easy to implement some form of appeals process. You are right, there would have to be some form of check and balance system to prevent a doctor that is angry with a patient and abusing a power.
Click to expand...

Nope, the appeals process is too late. There should be no way to pass a sentence before due process is involved.
 
vegas giants said:
These are good questions. Family members should be able to make a appeal to police if they feel that a family member is in danger from guns being in the home. Guns can be removed and a judge can make the ruling
Click to expand...

And my neighbors?

What if someone potentially dangerous lives next door?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, the appeals process is too late. There should be no way to pass a sentence before due process is involved.
Click to expand...

Only if you are closed minded about the process. Appeal is a way to bring about the due process, The doctor says you should not be able to own a gun because of X, you appeal his decision and a judge looks at both sides and makes a decision based on the facts presented.
 
HonestJoe said:
They could have a process that allows for the subject to present a “defence” to the accusations I guess but equally they could have a process much like that for search warrants, where a positive case would have to be presented that the judge balances against the legal rights of the subject.

Again, I don’t think the technical details are the problem; if this isn’t a legitimate decision for the judge to make, why would any other decision with a similar potential impact, be?
Click to expand...

My point is that the "accuser" (concerned citizen?) gets the full power of the state at their disposal while the "accused" (poor slob who is going to be SWATted?) is offered nothing at all from the state since they have not been charged with any crime.
 
daeler said:
Only if you are closed minded about the process. Appeal is a way to bring about the due process, The doctor says you should not be able to own a gun because of X, you appeal his decision and a judge looks at both sides and makes a decision based on the facts presented.
Click to expand...

Hmm... so the judge is going to offer equal weight to the "expert" opinion of the doctor and the "that is not so" assertion of the patient and make an unbiased call. BTW, if X is not a criminal allegation or reason to declare the person mentally incapacitated then once that "decision" is made then does the "accused" simply lose the right to keep and bear arms for life or as long as that judge sees fit?

We seem to be treating the 2A right much as if it was a state issued privilege like driving a car. When what one tells a doctor can be used to remove their 2A rights (for life?) then the reluctance to seek treatment for mental problems will likely decrease (further than it already is) - reducing overall public safety.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... so the judge is going to offer equal weight to the "expert" opinion of the doctor and the "that is not so" assertion of the patient and make an unbiased call. BTW, if X is not a criminal allegation or reason to declare the person mentally incapacitated then once that "decision" is made then does the "accused" simply lose the right to keep and bear arms for life or as long as that judge sees fit?

We seem to be treating the 2A right much as if it was a state issued privilege like driving a car. When what one tells a doctor can be used to remove their 2A rights (for life?) then the reluctance to seek treatment for mental problems will likely decrease (further than it already is) - reducing overall public safety.
Click to expand...

So you have no idea how a court room works? You go before a judge with yourself as a client then your lawyer is a fool. Get a lawyer, talk to an opposing expert present your evidence. Sue the doctor for court costs and libel. Again unless you have a complete closed mind most objections can easily be worked so there is less of a problem.
 
daeler said:
So you have no idea how a court room works? You go before a judge with yourself as a client then your lawyer is a fool. Get a lawyer, talk to an opposing expert present your evidence. Sue the doctor for court costs and libel. Again unless you have a complete closed mind most objections can easily be worked so there is less of a problem.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of ideas about how court rooms work. My objections are to the lack of any criminal charges which removes any 5A or 6A protections. Do you have any idea how much "get a lawyer" costs? Why did the accuser not have to pay to "get a lawyer" or "just file a civil action"?
 
KevinKohler said:
This only affects those getting treatment, which I think you and I will both agree, is a problem.

Unsure how I feel about violating hippa to report potentially dangerous folks. It all reminds me of "pre-crime" from minority report.
Click to expand...

Allow the government to strip you of your rights on the day so of one person, with no opportunity to defend yourself? Hard pass.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have plenty of ideas about how court rooms work. My objections are to the lack of any criminal charges which removes any 5A or 6A protections. Do you have any idea how much "get a lawyer" costs? Why did the accuser not have to pay to "get a lawyer" or "just file a civil action"?
Click to expand...

See that is where the "sue for court costs and libel" comes in. People are less likely to file a lie if it will come back and cost them.

We need some form of check to deal with the problems we are having. humans won't police themselves so you need some type of system to deal with this. Having some form of a universal background check would provide some relief. The problem lies with implementing it. Are there problems with this? yep. Can we find a way to make it work? maybe. It would require a lot of work to get to some form of a workable system.
 
daeler said:
See that is where the "sue for court costs and libel" comes in. People are less likely to file a lie if it will come back and cost them.

We need some form of check to deal with the problems we are having. humans won't police themselves so you need some type of system to deal with this. Having some form of a universal background check would provide some relief. The problem lies with implementing it. Are there problems with this? yep. Can we find a way to make it work? maybe. It would require a lot of work to get to some form of a workable system.
Click to expand...

So we can save the....what, less than 1,000 lives per year taken by mass shootings?
 
daeler said:
See that is where the "sue for court costs and libel" comes in. People are less likely to file a lie if it will come back and cost them.

We need some form of check to deal with the problems we are having. humans won't police themselves so you need some type of system to deal with this. Having some form of a universal background check would provide some relief. The problem lies with implementing it. Are there problems with this? yep. Can we find a way to make it work? maybe. It would require a lot of work to get to some form of a workable system.
Click to expand...

BGCs and "red flag" laws differ in one very important aspect - BGCs are based on past criminal convictions or open arrest/fugitive warrants while "red flag" laws are not.
 
KevinKohler said:
So we can save the....what, less than 1,000 lives per year taken by mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Maybe, depends on what your definition of mass shooting is. It could save less it could save more. It could help to prevent suicides as well. It may save more or less than that number but I believe that it would be a start that could help without causing much of a inconvenience to the law abiding gun owners.

We could continue in the fashion we have been and sooner or later public outcry will be loud enough that gun bans will start to happen.

People have already allowed due process to be thrown out the window with the Patriot act, I am sure that if nothing is done the 1st and 2nd will be close to getting destroyed as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom