Red Flag laws.

[crippen]

Yeah, but say there's "due process" and they still don't find a crime has been committed, but decide this guy is weird. Should they take the guns?

Your guns could be taken on your avatar choices alone.

 

[Lionheart]

I started a thread back in February when these red flag laws were beginning to be passed all over the country.

The link below is long but worth every minute of your time:

https://redflag-news.com/an-open-letter-to-our-legislators-judges-and-lawmen/

 

[Lionheart]

Your guns could be take down on your avatar choices alone.

yup.
And there are those on this forum that would actually do it. That's the sad part.

 

[spencer60]

I've mentioned before that while going through my divorce the ex filed a false police report and a PFA, protection from abuse, order was issued against me.
I had to surrender my guns to the sheriff's office and it cost me over $1000 in attorneys fees to get them back.
It's the only instance I know of where you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

I can only imagine how misused any red flag laws will be.
This AM I walked out onto my front porch with a pistol because 3 dogs were there trying to get my cat.
If my neighbors now feel unsafe can they call and have my guns taken away?

Depends on the state but if you look at the Bloomberg-sponsored boilerplate they use for all these Red Flag laws, guns can be taken almost at will. Most states have limited reporting to family, but the boilerplate allows teachers, social workers, and even 'friends' to seek an EPO.

You are not told of this of course, and have no way to fight it's issuance since the first you know of it is when the cops kick down your door.

And just like protective orders in a divorce, judges will issue these 'just to be safe'. No judge wants to NOT issue a protective order then have it come back and bite them. The standard of 'proof' is so low that even if you were allowed to contest it, you would still probably lose... again, 'just to be safe'.

 

[Red Dawn]

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

For an example of a person who was weird, but who violated no laws and DIDN'T make any terroristic threats regarding specific people or institutions, see this article about Kim Gill Singh, a "goth" young man from Canada whose morbid fascination with death and frequent glorification of violence and grizzly murders & the macabre had a bunch of his friends and acquaintances wondering about him.

But nobody could do anything because he hadn't made a specific death threat to a specific victim.

He was obviously mentally unstable, and should've been barred from owning any sort of weapon, but the legal system didn't have any "red flag laws" in place at the time.

He later bought guns, posed with his guns (aiming them into the camera in a menacing way) all over social media, joined a shooting club to practice with the guns, and then went to his local university and murdered a bunch of people there before killing himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/americas/15canada.html

IF YOU SAY that unless and until a person actually commits a crime that would disqualify him from owning guns, the government should stay out of his life and let him do what he pleases ... you're saying Mr. Gill has a license to commit a murder-suicide any time he wants and without any interference.

 

[Jambo]

For an example of a person who was weird, but who violated no laws and DIDN'T make any terroristic threats regarding specific people or institutions, see this article about Kim Gill Singh, a "goth" young man from Canada whose morbid fascination with death and frequent glorification of violence and grizzly murders & the macabre had a bunch of his friends and acquaintances wondering about him.

But nobody could do anything because he hadn't made a specific death threat to a specific victim.

He was obviously mentally unstable, and should've been barred from owning any sort of weapon, but the legal system didn't have any "red flag laws" in place at the time.

He later bought guns, posed with his guns (aiming them into the camera in a menacing way) all over social media, joined a shooting club to practice with the guns, and then went to his local university and murdered a bunch of people there before killing himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/americas/15canada.html

IF YOU SAY that unless and until a person actually commits a crime that would disqualify him from owning guns, the government should stay out of his life and let him do what he pleases ... you're saying Mr. Gill has a license to commit a murder-suicide any time he wants and without any interference.

I'm not saying it's OK for him to commit a murder suicide. I'm saying a Red Flag law is a slippery slope. After all, Mike Pence has been called crazy because he said he prays:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-calls-crazy-think-jesus-talks-him/353088002/

Next up: Mike Pence has all his firearms seized under Red Flag law because he believes in God. This is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who is 'crazy'?

Freedom is dangerous, my friend.

 

[JDS556762]

like when 8 women wrongfully accuse you of rape from back in your college days and you’re trying to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

There's always that one guy.

 

[Mister Heavyhand]

So here is how it works. Investigating officer believes he has probable cause for domestic violence. Open season on anything in your house. No warrant, you are cuffed and stuffed.

Be a nice boy, and you might get your toys back.