as a physician I can do this now.  Just call up the firearm division and tell them a name and they will at least cancel the persons firearm permit and potentially confiscate their firearms.   Or at least that is what they told me they will do if I called them on someone.  They did not need proof or documentation or anything else actually.   I was a bit in shock that Hawaii felt I should have that much power.   (I called them to just see how bad it was)

Also, lawsuits take 20-30 years to get to the supreme court so they are useless for short term unconstitutionality.  Politicians know this. 

It is perfectly on topic.

So say my brother walks into a gun store and purchases a firearm. I call police and tell them that he has the mental capacity of a 13 year old. They can't just go and take his gun away. He is an adult so I can't making him go see a psychologist if he doesn't want to. I guess I could apply for a conservatorship and pay out of pocket to go to court and ask a judge to make me his guardian and that might be a workaround but I am not a lawyer and I am not sure if that would be effective. I might also then be liable for anything he does... needless to say it is not an easy or even obvious solution.

And to clarify, he lives in Washington State.

I have noticed that a lot of the resistance to a red flag laws seems to be based on the worst case scenario. They imagine a situation where someone simply says another is crazy and bam, there goes someone's rights but this is not inherently the case. A properly designed red flag law would require a certain level of proof just as any other police investigation and there would be systems in place to protect a person's rights as well. Imagine a police investigation, they can stop someone based on reasonable suspicion and that is already taking away someone's constitutional rights (temporarily). If police establish probable cause they can arrest a person and can hold them for 48 hours while they investigate further, again someone is losing their constitutional rights.

I think that we could use that same reasoning when applying to red flag laws. Take the person and/or their guns for up to 48 hours upon establishing probable cause. If the investigation doesn't show further proof then release their firearms immediately. Police regularly take away someone's constitutional rights but is has to be based on just cause. Taking away guns based on a third party rumor (for example) would absolutely be an abuse and unconstitutional but we can't assume that every form of red flag law will be that worst case scenario. Again, this is why I say I support it conditionally. I support it on the condition that the revocation of constitutional rights is based upon good evidence, that it is as minimal as necessary and that there are strong protections for the accused. This seems to be the standard when a constitutional right is taken away by police in other areas.

It allows the courts to order a person to take medication if they’re proven to be an imminent danger to themselves or others.

The problem: That threshold is so high the majority of Hawaii’s homeless suffering from mental illness don’t reach it, despite advocates and family members petitioning the court in a number of cases."

We know dentist are not, they only know gums and teeth.

dental school is 2 weeks
4 days class, 1 day final- teeth
4 days class, 1 day final- gums

heads

Wow. You picked a tough school... Ivy League?

Most dental schools are one week:
2 days teeth, 2 days gums, 1 half-day final.

That means you're twice as good as the average dentist! 

those schools include a weekend course
"use of nitrous oxide for fun and profit"

those schools include a weekend course
"use of nitrous oxide for fun and profit"

Mental retardation carries a documented and recognizable disqualification for many things, like applying for a drivers license or joining the military. Most people would pick up on his 13-yr-old mentality anyway and refuse the gun sale.

Red flag laws would not PREVENT your brother from buying a gun unless you knew about it beforehand.

You don't understand the term "red flag" if you think evidence is going to be required. in court, a person's statement is considered evidence. If there was tangible evidence, they wouldn't NEED red flags -- the evidence would be sufficient to file a report and arrest him/confiscate.

Red flags are for people who don't have actual evidence, but simply believe (feel) someone is a risk. "I saw EEF screaming at the sky and calling Trump every name in the book. Then I saw him online asking about airline tickets to DC and where to buy body armor. He never threatened to do anything, but I have a feeling he's going to do something violent."

That's a "red flag". It alerts police your behavior is concerning and might indicate violent intent. Nobody needs "probable cause". That's why most red flag laws limit who can report under them: relatives and co-workers, maybe close friends.  Even so, anyone can claim to be a friend. You love to imagine how things should work.  As many times as TRO reports are abusively filed, it's naive to think red flag gun laws won't be abused as well.

Maybe, but maybe not. If my brother didn't say too much he could probably swing a gun purchase. I guess the question I would have here is do we want to put our trust in public and private gun sales to effectively recognize people in his condition?

No but a red flag law might  be a means of taking it away if he did manage to get his hands on one.

Again, that all depends on how the actual law is written. You can't make a blanket statement about how it would be implemented.


When the 9/11 terrorist was concerned with how to take off and remove auto-pilot in flight school but had no concern about how to land, do you think the instructor should have said something to someone in law enforcement? Or should he have disregarded his feelings and waited for actual evidence?

I have no belief that false reports will never be filed or that they will not be abused just like TROs. Again, I said my support was conditional upon stronger protections for the accused. I would require a higher level of proof to deny the person's constitutional rights and I would require a speedy hearing so the individual could appeal. The fed flag is as you say an alert, it is just something to let police know there might be something to look into. From then on more evidence would be required (ideally) and if necessary the person's rights be restricted.

Let me present to you this scenario. Say an adult relative of yours who owns firearms develops a mental condition that seriously affects their cognitive abilities and behaviors to the point where you believe this relative cannot safely own a firearm. What steps would you take? As the person is an adult you know you cannot force them to seek medical help. Do you know what steps to take to in order to have this person be required to seek medical help and have his firearms or even his freedom revoked if necessary?

You left out a massive detail.

Has the relative been seeing a physician who shares your opinion? Has the doctor notified authorities of the patient's cognitive issues?

There are plenty of "scenarios" that allow health professionals to report mental illness of gun owners, not some "relative" who has no experience in behavioral medicine.

You're trusting a "feeling" on my part, but don't trust actual medical professionals in the process.

Not very imaginative of you.

You missed an important aspect of my question. I am talking about a person who is not seeing a doctor of mental health professional and who refuses to do so. How would you go about getting help to this person? I am talking about situations where people don't seek help.

I never said that your non-medical opinion should supersede that of a medical professional.

Now I believe I have already laid this out but just to be absolutely clear, a regular person can be the way an investigation starts but taking away their firearms cannot and should not be based only on a regular person's opinion. I never suggested feelings alone should be the basis of taking away firearms. Lets avoid the strawmen please.

Let me present to you this scenario. Say an adult relative of yours who owns firearms develops a mental condition that seriously affects their cognitive abilities and behaviors to the point where you believe this relative cannot safely own a firearm. What steps would you take? As the person is an adult you know you cannot force them to seek medical help. Do you know what steps to take to in order to have this person be required to seek medical help and have his firearms or even his freedom revoked if necessary?