Red flag confiscations are a bunch of bull for alot of reasons
@gaemboi, in theory it's not bad, should it be done correctly. And I'm a guy who really supports gun rights, but people who might be dangerous for a past record of felonies, war related PTSD(if they've been shown in the past that they are on edge mentally), etc., should not have firearms. For example, a couple years back were I live, an old Vietnam vet started to open fire on people who were passing by his house. When officers arrived he fired at them and SWAT teams had to be brought in. I think he was shot to death in the ensuing firefight and had injured officers.
@TheCoolestBean, i see that point. But from what I can tell if I don't like my neighbor who has guns I can pretty much say he did some crazy stuff and then its a 50/50 if a judge will give the order. Which would leave a law abiding citizen with no way to defend his right
@TheCoolestBean, not saying I disagree with the need but just the implementation of it
@gaemboi, like I said should it be done correctly, it would work. Evidence and proof must be presented before a person's firearms can be confiscated legally for this to work. Otherwise it's just like you said, accuse them of mental issues and they might lose their right to defend themselves.
@TheCoolestBean, I completely agree with you there, and I'm a veteran myself. I absolutely love my firearms and firearms in general. But I also believe that they should limit and check on those who display intent to harm themselves or others, not let felons carry firearms, or those with severe depression and PTSD. I have had friends who suffered from PTSD that I lost from none other than their own hand. Could it use some work and adjustments? Hell yeah. But in theory it's not bad at all. Support you 100%
@TheCoolestBean, an issue I notice is what if the mental disease in question is vague enough that it can be stretched for the scenario. Apparently there is such thing as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (you disagree with authority) and I could see a left leaning government using it as a means to confiscate law abiding citizens’ firearms. I agree that mentally deranged people shouldn’t have firearms, however we need a way to keep the state in check on this.
@gaemboi, I’d be interested to see how the issue fairs in the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It strikes me as similar in a sense to the legal issue surrounding prior restraint, wherein the Supreme Court decided long ago that the First Amendment does not permit the government to impose censorship before something is published, even though the government may be allowed to inflict punishment after it’s published. It’s kind of this idea that a constitutional right cannot be subverted on the mere supposition that an action that might be committed later on is not protected by that right. The thing is that there are a lot of actions which can be undertaken using a firearm that are illegal, but owning a firearm is not itself illegal (unless you’re a felon), so in theory infringing on the constitutional right to own a firearm on the basis of a supposition that it may at a later time be used to commit a crime could be considered a form of prior restraint, albeit on firearm possession.
@TheCoolestBean, problem is that a persons well beong or freedom depends entirely upon how the judge feels aka if she/hes on a good mood or not.
@Block1187, good. A lot of mentally I'll people shouldn't have guns.
@SirLordKraftDinner, just gotta ask why? I mean I love guns and all I have a few but they are for hunting. I mean most countries dont maintain the right to bear arms and yet the NRA forces it down their throats stating it's a right in every country and running smear campaigns. We dont need to regulate the state as much as the industry. Did you know Mexico has only one gun store? Something like 80% of the guns supplied to their population come from the US and are often bought through legal means including for the cartel. No one is trying to take away all the guns that's in power the left is primarily made up of people who just want more regulation. My advice stop watching conservative news only and diversify you info sources, dont use info wars. Many countries have found a balance in regulation. My thought has always been why not make it similar to a driver's license. Prove you can use it over time under supervision with some testing and background checks and once that's done keep it.
@SirLordKraftDinner, John Oliver has a fantastic show about the issue.
@Runnin with scissors, the problem is you may be a responsible gun owner but your insane kid isn’t to prevent shootings it would be best to have thorough checks on everyone living in the house
@Runnin with scissors, the problem is the left keeps trying to pass laws that lack due process. As in a teacher can call the cops if you got upset during a parent teacher conference and without any due process, the cops could take your guns and you would not get them back because there would be an automatic ban on you owning firearms for a set time. That's where the NRA and most conservatives have a problem with the laws liberals try to pass. Too much power to the government and to the cops. And I am a cop...
Background checks, mandatory training in use and safety, absolutely. You want my thumb print when I buy ammo? No. A waiting period to buy ammo? No. A waiting period when I already own 10 guns? Why? The ability to take my guns without any due process, court hearing, or way to give my side of the situation because of one complaint by a private citizen? Unconstitutional on multiple levels.
@Runnin with scissors, John Oliver's an idiot with a strong bias to the left.
I agree with you that people should get there news from multiple sources, but it can't all be from the left of the right.
@RogueKnight, no but that's what I'm saying he has a bias but he backs it with good facts that are easy to look up and verify at least in the most recent gun episode. Another good guy to look up is Rodger bregman especially his talk with tucker Carlson
@SirLordKraftDinner, I’ve been diagnosed with ODD. I can tell you first hand. Using ODD as an excuse to limit firearm ownership is an extremely slippery slope. It’s impossible to prove or disprove and easy to diagnose. It would be like using ADHD as a prohibitive diagnosis.
@TheCoolestBean, the problem is that the red flag orders do not follow due process. The first warning you have that somebody thinks you shouldn't have guns is when the cops are at your door to confiscate them. You do not have any chance to present your side in court before the confiscation order is issued.
It is blatantly against our legal system, our norms, and our constitution.
@gaemboi, if you’re doing a red flag, bring a body bag.
@Branth, I enjoy how left leaning individuals are generally anti firearm, but in order to enact a mass confiscation they send in a group of armed people to disarm people. Shjt. The left is more pro gun than I am.
Shhhhh shhhhh shhhhh shh
@WelI Obviously, damn this scene
@megamanx181x, I hear ya, up there with the Cliffhanger opening death scene for me
@WelI Obviously, 😭😭😭
@megamanx181x, damn this character too
This seems oddly specific.
As a law enforcement officer, I can say most police officers lean right and fully support gun rights and more than likely wouldn't enforce any ban (I said most, some would enforce, but they would be the minority)
That's pretty FUBAR
Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no
What is a red flag confiscation
@sgc6610, a violation of the 2nd amendment
@sgc6610, A law that allows the removal of firearms from those that are deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
@spences, understandable but if u try to take someone’s guns they get pissed and if they’re dangerous or prone to violence then it’s just like they’re looking for trouble
@sgc6610, Yes, but there's also a good chance the people they're trying to take the guns from would have "snapped" sooner or later. That's the reason for it. While some hate it (like Tsaltydog ^), if done properly, I think it's the proper move. If you have a felon or vet with severe PTSD, who is prone to violent outbursts, I don't think they should have access to weapons. That's my opinion, and I'm sure there are a million different ones.
@spences, I don’t chink it’s wrong I just think it’s a dangerous way to go about it but as for what is the right way idk and I’m sure most ppl don’t
@sgc6610, Yeah. I don't think there really is a non-dangerous way to do it.
@spences, Here's the issue I and other strong advocates of the 2nd have with red flag laws. There has to be proper due process. What exactly determines if someone is deemed a public danger or not? As pretty much every red flag proposal goes as of now, a neighbor calling in declaring they are "fearful" of their gun owning neighbor across the street is enough for the court to decide whether or not to issue a red flag order. That is completely unacceptable. For it to work and be acceptable by gun rights advocates, there has to be proper due process, and severe penalties for those who attempt to trigger a confiscation without valid reason (ie violation of someone's constitutionally protected rights). BUT, therein lies another issue. If someone is deemed truly a danger to public safety, shouldn't more be done to that individual than just taking his/her firearms away?
@MrJojo, I agree with you on those aspects. There should be due process. However, it seems that more and more people who should not have access to guns, or any other weapons, are getting easy access and using them. Vetting to receive the weapons should be as in-depth as vetting to remove them, in my opinion, but there seems to be a lack of either. While I agree that everyone has their own right, when you hear people like the NRA talking about "From my cold, dead hands" in response to the slightest inconvenience, it doesn't bode well for any form of reconciliation between the two sides. I'm not saying they're solely to blame, either, but I have gotten death threats because I once said a convicted murderer probably shouldn't have access to an assault rifle.
Edit: I don't remember which story it was, as it was a number of years ago. I just remember getting posts back saying things like, "Where do you live so I can use my 2nd ammendment and blow your fvcking brains out".
Ok, that was funny.