• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Red Flag laws.

No crime committed, take the guns anyway?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
I think crazy, paranoid, irrationally angry, or delusional people should lose their gun rights. Very quickly, although perhaps temporarily, pending further mental health evaluation and the work-up of a case history on the person. There should be some elements of due process upfront before the deprivation of gun rights, but the rest of the due process package or rights could be handled later (within a few days or weeks) after the guns are seized and the person is but on a "no guns for you" list.
Nope, due process first and foremost.
 
Q: Why do we need a New Red Flag law? Someone can already call the law on someone for being a threat to ones self or others, and that person can be held and evaluated for up to 72 hours.
http://www.askferc.org/uploads/docs/resources/5150_5250.pdf

A: this isn’t about protecting people, it’s about property theft and disarming people with no right to defend themselves up front.
That law is only for instances of immediate threat to themselves or others. Doesn’t do squat for long term. Also doesn’t take into account who pays for it. Family can’t, and the hospitals don’t have incentive to keep them as they don’t get payed for this service.
That is why we need new laws that work, just gonna be hard to work out a process that most people like.
 
I'll bet any lawyer who advocates these red flag laws would still take money from a defendant and claim to represent them honestly. I suppose some lawyers like more laws because they believe it will create more business for them. Especially a lawyer who has his own booklet on the subject at hand. I can only speak for myself, but I know who I won't be calling if I ever get flagged.
 
If they are “clearly mentally unstable” they can be hospitalized against their will. Every state has such laws. Follow the current laws. Once a state commits you based on your “clearly mentally unstable” situation, why wouldn’t the federal laws kick in? If you are not mentally unstable, you should not have your constitutional rights thrown in the toilet.
States don’t pay for this anymore, that’s what has to change.
 
And I am not sure what federal law you are referring to when you say you have to be found mentally insane. The ATF forms refer to prohibiting sales to those adjudicated mentally defective OR those committed to a mental institution.

Follow the laws in place instead of creating an over-broad power that gives the government the ability to target virtually anyone.


And I am not sure what federal law you are referring to when you say you have to be found mentally insane. The ATF forms refer to prohibiting sales to those adjudicated mentally defective OR those committed to a mental institution. Current laws address both criteria.

Follow the laws in place instead of creating an over-broad power that gives the government the ability to target virtually anyone. I am shocked that you are an attorney (unless you simply have an agenda) if this is what you are advocating. I am also an attorney and would never even suggest such unfettered power which would almost certainly lead to horrible abuses by those in “power”.

Whether someone is a leftist antra person, a right wing wacko, or just a keyboard warrior on a gun forum, no one should be subject to what you are proposing.
Under current law, that person has to adjudicated insane... that’s is different from unstable but able to take care of themselves.
I dealt with this as LE for a long while. In its current form the law does not work. Probably could be expanded to fix it, but it’s a joke of a law now.
And remember the law says “up to 72 hours” that usually equates to about 1.5 hours before LE is getting a call from the hospital and we would have to return the subject home.
Where soon enough we get another call, usually resulting in an arrest that is too weak to stand up, but calms the situation down enough too keep the family safe for a week or so...
 
Now there you go being pesky, talking all that constitution ****.

So far the vote tally has 1 vote for yes, tread on them, and 71 votes for no. Anybody want to take a wild guess as to who voted yes?
No and doing so would be a slippery slope to a call out.
 
Would you support a law that gives the state the authority to take guns from someone who hasn't committed a crime?
Give government a hammer, and to them, everything looks like a nail.
Should have a third check in the poll "not only no, but hell no"
 
Back
Top Bottom