"Red Flag" Gun Removal in NY, signed into law

[gerhard1]

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.

Let me ask you something, if I could. Can any rights be taken away under any circumstances?

 

[gerhard1]

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.

That's the general idea. I want to discourage frivolous reports, and make ERPO type of actions as rare as I can.

 

[MacFromOK]

I'm going to stay on the side of no property confiscation (guns or otherwise) unless a crime has been committed.

If they take someone's guns, why not take their driver's license and vehicles? Or their ability to buy gasoline & propane? If someone is bent on mass killing, vehicles and flammable fuels have been proven very effective.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Again, just my 2 cents.

 

[RugersGR8]

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.

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.

Yes indeed, it is a very slippery slope. As with any new legislation, it needs to be put under a microscope. It needs to be examined to see if it will fulfill it's intended purpose it was written for AND it needs to be examined to see if it can be abused to advance agendas/run roughshod over an individual's Constitutional rights/laws.

 

[Aries]

Yes indeed, it is a very slippery slope. As with any new legislation, it needs to be put under a microscope. It needs to be examined to see if it will fulfill it's intended purpose it was written for AND it needs to be examined to see if it can be abused to advance agendas/run roughshod over an individual's Constitutional rights/laws.

In the case of these red flag laws, we already have a few examples where they have run roughshod.

 

[PantyRaid]

Let me ask you something, if I could. Can any rights be taken away under any circumstances?

2 points I'd like to make:

1. I would put second amendment rights at the top of the list of importance. It's what keeps a citizen from being a subject.
2. Yes obviously if a citizen is convicted by a jury of his peers in concordance with his other rights, he can be incarcerated/killed (which is losing a lot of rights)

I think the spirit of your question, is how to do we limit the rights of the dangerous? And my answer is you don't. And while this may seem wildly dangerous to society, it's not nearly as dangerous as taking away people's rights based on hearsay. Heart disease and traffic accidents still kill far more people annually. Once you start trying to legislate to this level, all you really do is create a side-industry for lawyers to argue with lawyers, clog up our justice system, and waste my tax money.

I need to ask a lawyer about paying some off-shore software firm for a way to submit red flag complaints on NY democrats on an hourly basis, every day. Until they have to review 50,000 cases a day or more. I wonder if it's false accusation if an Indian does it. Either way they are flooded with cases to review.

 

[avtomatkalashnikov47]

this is exactly the reason why we need a second amendments protection act passed that prevents the ban and confiscation of already legal firearms now EVEN IF federal law is passed we could make a state law that would conflict with federal law.

so we could essentially make a law that over-rides federal law and lets say "assault weapons" or any modern sporting firearms like ar-15s are nationally made banned, with a state protection law they would still be legal in our state. WE NEED to get something like this going and talk about it.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

This will not stand up in a higher court.

I don’t agree with this statement. We have seen time and time again the Supreme Court refuse to hear 2A cases. They won’t stop this. Nobody will but us. But as I always say, no one cares enough to do anything. We just sit here and watch as the tyrants rip up the constitution.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

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.

Two words: due process. They are missing from the "red flag" laws.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

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

Good luck with the bond thing, and "ALL records of any guns owned are destroyed" is a pipe dream, especially in NY.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk