If the community at large is armed, the problem should take care of itself.
You can't pick and choose. 2A infringements affect everyone, not just the crazies.
My 2 cents.
You can't pick and choose. 2A infringements affect everyone, not just the crazies.
My 2 cents.
And that is a very legitimate POV, one that is worthy of great respect. I, however, don't look on the disarming of a dangerous person as an infringement. As long as stringent safeguards are in the law, I think they at least deserve a good look.If the community at large is armed, the problem should take care of itself.
You can't pick and choose. 2A infringements affect everyone, not just the crazies.
My 2 cents.
I understand your POV as well.
It's just an incredibly slippery slope. And, while they shouldn't be, laws are still subject to interpretation by local authorities. I'm sure that any such protection laws won't be interpreted the same in NY and CA as they might be in OK.
Again, just my 2 cents.
That is the problem, as I see it... not only is there no due process, but all it takes is one person wanting revenge on you to make your life miserable. Will there be cases where one party in a divorce reports a "potential danger" where none exists? I've seen things like that happen, and it would be a great and very effective way to "pay back" an estranged spouse. I would BET it will happen.
What if the police show up and announce "We're here to take your guns" and the response is "I don't own any guns." They will either have to search your property, or another proposal that is inevitable is "we need registration so we know if they have guns or not."
I agree, we can be willing to look at anything, but these laws are loaded with potential for abuse. And keep in mind that for some of these people, the ultimate goal is not to prevent crime, but to get to a point where no one can own a gun legally. Baby steps.
What if the police show up and announce "We're here to take your guns" and the response is "I don't own any guns." They will either have to search your property, or another proposal that is inevitable is "we need registration so we know if they have guns or not."
I agree, we can be willing to look at anything, but these laws are loaded with potential for abuse. And keep in mind that for some of these people, the ultimate goal is not to prevent crime, but to get to a point where no one can own a gun legally. Baby steps.
I certainly hope that you're not waiting for me to agree with you, as I do already. The law that I would envision would provide for due process and severe criminal and civil penalties for abusing the system.
The idea just came to me that the person making the allegation or the state could post a bond as a condition of filing that the gun owner could collect if the red flag law is ever invoked maliciously.
Also no anonymous filing, and if the complaint is determined to be non-meritorious, ALL records of any guns owned are destroyed
Agree about the slippery slope. There would need to be 'dis-incentives' for false or malicious reports.I understand your POV as well.
It's just an incredibly slippery slope. And, while they shouldn't be, laws are still subject to interpretation by local authorities. I'm sure that any such protection laws won't be interpreted the same in NY and CA as they might be in OK.
Again, just my 2 cents.
I appreciate that your intentions are good, but these laws in particular have way more potential for bad than good. They put people and law enforcement in a position of trying to guess what someone is THINKING, and take legal action based solely on that. So how will you ever know if the complaint was meritorious or not? The police took your guns before you committed a crime. Would you have committed a crime if they hadn't? Who knows, maybe not. There won't be any way to know, unless there is other evidence that you were planning something, which is probably already illegal.
But they are being implemented NOW as flawed, so we have the guy described above in Vermont because his nephews made some ill-advised statements that he didn't even know about... and a dead man in Maryland who probably made some mistakes in how he reacted but hadn't violated any laws. He had one family member saying they thought he was potentially a danger, and one who said he was not a danger to anyone, so there is disagreement over whether there was any concern.
BTW, if you impose penalties for falsely reporting, you would have to prove that they knew it was false. If you penalize someone because it just turned out they were wrong, you basically gut the intention of the law, because anyone with any sense will be hesitant to report someone.
And isn't that kind of ironic? You'd have to prove that they knowingly made a false report, but you can take a guys guns without having to prove anything.
Again, we can look at them... in fact I hope this is a healthy discussion... but just in the short history of these laws we have seen big problems, and we have no way of knowing if they have prevented a single crime. We do know that even if they get their guns back, it takes time and money.
But they are being implemented NOW as flawed, so we have the guy described above in Vermont because his nephews made some ill-advised statements that he didn't even know about... and a dead man in Maryland who probably made some mistakes in how he reacted but hadn't violated any laws. He had one family member saying they thought he was potentially a danger, and one who said he was not a danger to anyone, so there is disagreement over whether there was any concern.
BTW, if you impose penalties for falsely reporting, you would have to prove that they knew it was false. If you penalize someone because it just turned out they were wrong, you basically gut the intention of the law, because anyone with any sense will be hesitant to report someone.
And isn't that kind of ironic? You'd have to prove that they knowingly made a false report, but you can take a guys guns without having to prove anything.
Again, we can look at them... in fact I hope this is a healthy discussion... but just in the short history of these laws we have seen big problems, and we have no way of knowing if they have prevented a single crime. We do know that even if they get their guns back, it takes time and money.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
There's really no other argument. Anything else is baby steps for gun grabbers. Give an inch, lose a mile. Do not entertain these "common sense" stabs at your 2A rights. Any more than you would entertain similar stabs at your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights. These are not rights the government gives you, they are rights God gave you, and the government is not allowed to touch. Period. End of Story.
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
There's really no other argument. Anything else is baby steps for gun grabbers. Give an inch, lose a mile. Do not entertain these "common sense" stabs at your 2A rights. Any more than you would entertain similar stabs at your 1st, 4th or 5th amendment rights. These are not rights the government gives you, they are rights God gave you, and the government is not allowed to touch. Period. End of Story.
Do you believe that an ERPO law (Extreme Risk Protection Order) written by the New York legislature and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo will have sufficient protections and Due Process for the subject of an ERPO?
Do you believe an ERPO law written and signed into law by any predominantly Democrat "blue" state with onerous anti-gun laws will include sufficient protections?
Because I don't. As a matter of fact, I would expect them to actively resist including sufficient protections for gun owners. It would be wholly inconsistent with their platform.
Agreed, and I never said they would. I don't trust the Democrats to guard 2A rights any further than I can throw them.Do you believe that an ERPO law (Extreme Risk Protection Order) written by the New York legislature and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo will have sufficient protections and Due Process for the subject of an ERPO?
Do you believe an ERPO law written and signed into law by any predominantly Democrat "blue" state with onerous anti-gun laws will include sufficient protections?
Because I don't. As a matter of fact, I would expect them to actively resist including sufficient protections for gun owners. It would be wholly inconsistent with their platform.
Similar threads
