The real danger of red flag laws...

[crapsguy]

Just thinking out loud here, not saying I'm a proponent of red flag laws.

Red flag laws that had a very precise list of things that indicate a threat, like posting on social media or making verbal threats of mass violence, and the ability to carry out the act.
Isn't that close to what assault is? A threat and the ability to carry it out? (not a lawyer).

If the threat doesn't say "shooting", but something like 'I'm going to hurt a bunch of kids at school', does that mean we take away all tools of violence? Knives, vehicles, hammers? What if there are no firearms in the home? If the firearms are properly locked up do they take all the family firearms?

What if the threat is only made against one person; "Billy is mean to me so I'm going to hurt him", does that get a red flag?

If a red flag order is issued should it come with mandatory counseling and inspection of the family and home by state DHS? To insure a healthy home life?
If the person is dangerous enough to have his weapons taken away then they obviously need serious help.

People making a false red flag claim should suffer some consequences.

There are a lot of people now that think all republicans are evil and have blood on their hands for gun violence; these people should not be able to just say "Johnny said some scary stuff and his dad has guns" and be able to start red flag proceedings.

I agree with much of what you said -- I am very conservative - own a bunch of guns - shoot regularly and live in a neighborhood full of liberal idiots - but - I like and welcome the idea of a well crafted red flag law
IMO the current problem is nit-wits with guns and that is what must be addressed - another BIG problem is we closed most if not all the facilities across the country to house and care for nit-wits - leaving only jails or prisons to deal with them - that is wrong. twitter can find a conservative questioning the 2020 election and cancel them so they can easily find the nit-wit posting anything sounding threatening and flag them to be watched for further action -- all this sky is falling bs about over-reach does nothing to help/solve the situation

 

[Gunbuffer]

Great post

 

[jakeman]

Isn't already possible to get law enforcement involved in cases where someone is a legitimate threat to themselves or others without red flag laws?

And take appropriate action after an investigation is completed?

If it isn’t, it should be.

Truth is, I don’t know.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think everyone wants to come up with a solution, but I don't think RF laws are a part of that solution. If one were to draft a RF law that actually protected and preserved the rights of the targeted individuals, the left side of the aisle would have collective aneurysms before voting to approve it.

That's because they're not seeking an actual solution. They're seeking control over the populace, disguised as a "solution". They don't want to use the current system because the burden of proof is on them. They want to put the burden of proof on the accused. When you're talking about a constitutional right, that's not how our constitutional republic was designed to work.

 

[RockHopper]

I think everyone wants to come up with a solution, but I don't think RF laws are a part of that solution. If one were to draft a RF law that actually protected and preserved the rights of the targeted individuals, the left side of the aisle would have collective aneurysms before voting to approve it.

That's because they're not seeking an actual solution. They're seeking control over the populace, disguised as a "solution". They don't want to use the current system because the burden of proof is on them. They want to put the burden of proof on the accused. When you're talking about a constitutional right, that's not how our constitutional republic was designed to work.

+10000000000000000

You're right on the money Sir.