• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

yep the BGCs could be expanded to include the mentally unstable, Red Flag laws are a stop gap currently and so far have seemed to work as designed. I read something somewhere that mentioned the police have acted on less than 5% of complaints made that fall under the red flag laws. They verify that the complaints are not made in ways that are more aligned with "SWATTING" and actually have substance to them.
 
daeler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm... is our choice now between accepting incremental reductions of constitutional rights and totally ignoring them?
 
daeler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Placate the ignorant masses, or succumb to them?
 
KevinKohler said:
Placate the ignorant masses, or succumb to them?
Click to expand...

Compromise would be a better word, the problem is fear. and the media pushing that fear. I do firmly believe BGCs would save some lives, but i would also use it as political clout to prevent bans.
 
daeler said:
yep the BGCs could be expanded to include the mentally unstable, Red Flag laws are a stop gap currently and so far have seemed to work as designed. I read something somewhere that mentioned the police have acted on less than 5% of complaints made that fall under the red flag laws. They verify that the complaints are not made in ways that are more aligned with "SWATTING" and actually have substance to them.
Click to expand...

Hmm... since 95% of such "red flag" complaints have been found to be total BS in advance of any confiscation action then those 5% were likely valid? What we need to see is how many of those 5% of "red flag" gun grabs were actually upheld and/or extended after the "due process" was completed. What ever happened to - better to let 10 guilty men go free than to hang one innocent man?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is our choice now between accepting incremental reductions of constitutional rights and totally ignoring them?
Click to expand...

Not quite yet, but it is getting there. It is a sad fact of life in the US. Fear wins out.
 
daeler said:
Compromise would be a better word, the problem is fear. and the media pushing that fear. I do firmly believe BGCs would save some lives, but i would also use it as political clout to prevent bans.
Click to expand...

Or address the media pushing fear.
 
daeler said:
Not quite yet, but it is getting there. It is a sad fact of life in the US. Fear wins out.
Click to expand...

IMHO, the fear of losing our individual constitutional rights will win out.
 
daeler said:
Compromise would be a better word, the problem is fear. and the media pushing that fear. I do firmly believe BGCs would save some lives, but i would also use it as political clout to prevent bans.
Click to expand...

Why not lock up anyone who fails a BGC (which can be done under current law) since you know that they are a prohibited person actively trying to get a gun?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, the fear of losing our individual constitutional rights will win out.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can say to that is the Patriot act is still there violating your constitutional rights.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why not lock up anyone who fails a BGC (which can be done under current law) since you know that they are a prohibited person actively trying to get a gun?
Click to expand...

They haven't committed a crime?
 
daeler said:
The only thing I can say to that is the Patriot act is still there violating your constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Hmm... since we have accepted some laws in violation of individual constitutional rights then we should accept adding even more of them?
 
daeler said:
They haven't committed a crime?
Click to expand...

If you fill out a 4473, you only go through a background check if you answer the questions of whether you are a fugitive, felon etc IN the NEGATIVE. If you are properly denied, you have committed federal perjury
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... since 95% of such "red flag" complaints have been found to be total BS in advance of any confiscation action then those 5% were likely valid? What we need to see is how many of those 5% of "red flag" gun grabs were actually upheld and/or extended after the "due process" was completed. What ever happened to - better to let 10 guilty men go free than to hang one innocent man?
Click to expand...

I would be interested in the research on that as well. I am still on the fence on whether or not red flag laws are a good thing. I do know some of the 5% were domestic violence disputes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The biggest unknown is: who decides that a person is "dangerous" even if the "danger signs" are well enumerated? Does judge A take officer B's word that a tip from friend, neighbor or family member C saw (or herd of?) "danger signs"? What makes person(s) C immune from prosecution for slander if (when?) criminal actions/intent is asserted? This seems very close to legally SWATting a person.

The second tricky part is allowing due process. Informing the suspected "dangerous" person in advance of the "red flag" hearing and/or police raid (allowing them ample time to prepare a defense) is bound to give them ample opportunity to hide any existing gun(s), eliminate possible witnesses against them, carry out some mass shooting attack sooner than otherwise planned and/or to buy some new gun(s).
Click to expand...
You forgot the third part: When does the flag elapse? Who determines when the suspected dangerous person (SDP) is fit to resume weapon ownership? What criteria will he have to meet?

These laws seem like a disaster waiting to happen. Either an SDP is genuinely "on the edge" and capable of homicidal violence, or he isn't. If he isn't, you're confiscating his weapons for nothing. If he is, unless you storm into his house SWAT-style and confiscate all his arms (you hope) before he has any chance to react, you're basically advertising, "Hey, enemy of the state. We're coming for your guns in short order, so if you want to carry out that massacre and make your mark, better do it ASAP."

Heaven help the police when SDPs start setting up early warning systems to prevent ambushes. Or when foaming-at-the-mouth progressives demand to know why police aren't responding to the 2,000 red flag calls inside gang-infested inner city neighbourhoods. (Racism!)

The laws wouldn't last a year, federally.
 
COTO said:
You forgot the third part: When does the flag elapse? Who determines when the suspected dangerous person (SDP) is fit to resume weapon ownership? What criteria will he have to meet?

These laws seem like a disaster waiting to happen. Either an SDP is genuinely "on the edge" and capable of homicidal violence, or he isn't. If he isn't, you're confiscating his weapons for nothing. If he is, unless you storm into his house SWAT-style and confiscate all his arms (you hope) before he has any chance to react, you're basically advertising, "Hey, enemy of the state. We're coming for your guns in short order, so if you want to carry out that massacre and make your mark, better do it ASAP."

Heaven help the police when SDPs start setting up early warning systems to prevent ambushes. Or when foaming-at-the-mouth progressives demand to know why police aren't responding to the 2,000 red flag calls inside gang-infested inner city neighbourhoods. (Racism!)

The laws won't last a year, federally.
Click to expand...

The "red flag" laws will never be passed federally mostly because they "lack resources" to even pretend to try to enforce them. If passed the FBI/BATFE would be likely be receiving many thousands of "hot tips" daily.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... since we have accepted some laws in violation of individual constitutional rights then we should accept adding even more of them?
Click to expand...

Nope not saying that, was just pointing out your optimism might be misplaced.
 
daeler said:
hmm I was not aware of that. Makes sense though. Some of that would need to be rewritten if they expand it to include mentally excepted people.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that we should not lock up prohibited persons known to be attempting to buy guns? That seems counter to your "let's be as safe as possible" reason for supporting "red flag" laws.
 
daeler said:
Nope not saying that, was just pointing out your optimism might be misplaced.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the "red flag" laws are not federal or even existing (for the most part).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you saying that we should not lock up prohibited persons known to be attempting to buy guns? That seems counter to your "let's be as safe as possible" reason for supporting "red flag" laws.
Click to expand...

Ahh I see the misunderstanding there, Currently I don't support red flag laws, I think they could be abused too easily. I am willing to have an open mind about them.

I do support BGCs and I think there needs to be a provision included to allow those who are unaware of the restriction to not be arrested for perjury.

If you are trying to lie on said form and know that you are lying I have no problem with that person getting arrested.
 
daeler said:
Ahh I see the misunderstanding there, Currently I don't support red flag laws, I think they could be abused too easily. I am willing to have an open mind about them.

I do support BGCs and I think there needs to be a provision included to allow those who are unaware of the restriction to not be arrested for perjury.

If you are trying to lie on said form and know that you are lying I have no problem with that person getting arrested.
Click to expand...

My point is that you know a prohibited person is actively seeking to buy a gun. Their desire to buy a gun did not just automagically go away because they (now officially) realize that they are a prohibited person. It would take a total moron to say yep, I'm a really dumb bad guy and intentionally lied to try to get a gun.
 
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...

Ahh, hmm. So the same people who are triggered by what you may have posted in social media, report it to the platform and get you suspended, are going to be the same people who will report you for 'Red Flag Laws' if they find out you have any firearms in your possession, upon which you have your second amendment rights restricted or abolished.

Yeah, this is really going to work out well.
 
eohrnberger said:
Ahh, hmm. So the same people who are triggered by what you may have posted in social media, report it to the platform and get you suspended, are going to be the same people who will report you for 'Red Flag Laws' if they find out you have any firearms in your possession, upon which you have your second amendment rights restricted or abolished.

Yeah, this is really going to work out well.
Click to expand...

Yep, unless you can prove (by spending loads of cash on a legal defense?) that they were not "properly" triggered by your words or actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom