-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
New laws, anyone?
- Thread starter 300_whisper
- Start date
see they are already hurting
You can't really take 'potential' criminals in with very little evidence. In fact if they are truly 'potential', then they haven't even committed a crime at all, so there won't be any evidence at all.
And while you can detain people for a very short time without a high standard of proof, when it comes time to charge them, set bail, etc. it's certainly going to take a higher standard or proof.
I know you are coming from a good place here, but these red flag laws aren't like a criminal arrest. There is no definition of what the standard of proof is, or any way for the 'victim' to fight the complaint before action is taken. As mentioned over and over, there's no due process involved here at all.
Someone makes a complaint, and the cops kick down a door and seize legally protected personal property with no evidence, no chance to face your accuser, no right to contest the initial action of holding the firearms for 30-90 days.
This is far more like legalized SWAT-ing than anything involving due process. It's the kind of thing that you would expect in a police state, and while I'm sure most cops have the right motives here, the cost to America isn't worth the illusion of safety these laws would provide.
I'll say it again, I am not in favor of Red Flag laws. I'm talking about the legal and effective alternative to them.
Maybe I used the wrong word when I said "potential". I'm talking about someone that is suspected of a crime, thus they are detained. "Possible" would have been a better word choice. They are possibly a criminal. Detaining and questioning them is part of the process of determining if the suspicion of them being a criminal is valid. If the same exact standard were applied to people that are possibly criminally insane we would have a lot fewer mass shootings.
The only difference is that the cops aren't doing the more in depth questioning after the person has been detained. A qualified mental health professional is.
Look folks, the current laws aren't getting the job done and something is going to change. There are three apparent choices available.
1) More gun laws (Aren't going to work)
2) Red Flag Laws (Flagrant violation of the 2A and due process. Also, not going to work)
3) New mental health laws that make it much easier for a suspected nut case to be taken off the streets for evaluation. (Will work a lot of the time.)
Take your pick.
1) More gun laws (Aren't going to work)
2) Red Flag Laws (Flagrant violation of the 2A and due process. Also, not going to work)
3) New mental health laws that make it much easier for a suspected nut case to be taken off the streets for evaluation. (Will work a lot of the time.)
Take your pick.
How about none of the above. You say your plan will work a lot how do u know.
2ndly if the same standard is applied that would be used for an arrest i would be ok with that. That is not what you were advocating for in your previous post.
I do see your point, but I also think it's almost impossible to make a valid prediction about who will or won't commit a particular crime. In fact I've seen a couple of articles lately showing that when they try it in a research setting, they are wrong over 95% of the time.
Trying to prevent a crime before it happens by targeting a specific individual or group only really works if that group of individuals already has a criminal history. That's very rare in these kinds of attacks.
As mental health advocates will tell you, the vast majority of mentally ill people are absolutely no danger to themselves or others. And again, the data bears them out.
My gut feel is that you either go full-on police state, and ban everyone who falls even slightly outside the norm, or you look for other ways to stop these kinds of crimes.
One of the only proven ways to deter a mass attack is to allow law abiding people to carry in that area. Dr, John Lott estimates that 94% of mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones (link below).
That is a powerful argument that these attackers are purposely avoiding 'gun rich zones', which not only passes the 'common sense test', but is backed up by the few that have survived to be interviewed.
Unfortunately the gun control industry loves the idea of taking people's 2A rights via 'mental health' because they own the medical community, and mental health can be essentially whatever they want it to be. Heck, it's been mentioned for years, by both sides, that merely wanting to own a gun could be taken as a sign of mental illness.
Again, pre-WWII Nazi Germany required people to be 'reliable and dependable' in order to get a firearms permit. Certain things like being Jewish or a member of the Communist Party automatically made you 'unreliable'.
People who were previously 'reliable', including Jewish soldiers who fought for Germany in WWI found themselves suddenly 'unreliable' not because of anything they did, but because the government changed the definition on the fly. They were stripped of their firearms and subjected to constant, invasive and destructive searches that culminated in Kristallnacht, which officially was a search of Jewish homes and businesses for 'illegal' guns.
I really don't think there's any way to 'fix' these types of laws because they all involve prior restraint and somehow knowing who is a risk and who isn't. Prior restraint is blatantly unConstitutional (although there are plenty of examples of it out there), and there is absolutely no evidence to show we have any way of predicting who the risks are.
Far better to keep our freedom, get rid of gun free zones, and simply protect ourselves. There have been mass murders all through history. The worst school attack took place in 1929 (Bath Township MI) and didn't even involve a gun.
To think that we can somehow 'stop' mass-murder before it happens is simply delusional. The best you can do is deter it as much as you can ny allowing people to protect themselves and others.
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/m...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
So just keep things as they are? That's not going to happen.
Um, Walmart... in Texas. Not a gun free zone. Not even close.
Well according to some members here they are ready to compromise with the left. AWB, high capacity mags, no private sales, (wimpy, wimpy). You never give in, you never compromise, never lower the flag. I f you are not willing to take a stand what do you stand for? Do you really think that this is just about guns? It's about disarming the right and some of the weaker minds here are playing right into their hands. Never compromise on your values, you will never get them back. What kind of world will you leave for your children and grandchildren. Where is the rage about the movie The Hunt coming out where liberals are hunting down conservative's.
