So, you're saying we need to come up with laws that infringe on our rights that we find tolerable to prevent the other side from passing laws that we would find intolerable?

Strawman. I am saying we come up with a different approach that doesn't involve unconstitutional infringement on our rights.

Strawman. I am saying we come up with a different approach that doesn't involve unconstitutional infringement on our rights.

That solution does not exist.  If it did, someone would have proposed it already.

Maybe you know more than the rest of the country?  What's your plan that doesn't involve unconstitutional infringement?  I know you've posted proposals, but they all had unconstitutional aspects.  That tells me you have no clue WHAT solution can impact the problem without diminishing rights.

That solution does not exist.  If it did, someone would have proposed it already.

People used to say we couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound either. Good thing some people didn't give up so easily.

Maybe you know more than the rest of the country?  What's your plan that doesn't involve unconstitutional infringement?  I know you've posted proposals, but they all had unconstitutional aspects.  That tells me you have no clue WHAT solution can impact the problem without diminishing rights.

The ideas I came up with were in line with other constitutionally accepted revocation of people's rights. Regardless, brainstorming would seem to be the first step. You may not like my idea but at least I am coming up with something to consider. All other ideas can be brought to the table and discussed for pros and cons.

People used to say we couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound either. Good thing some people didn't give up so easily.

The ideas I came up with were in line with other constitutionally accepted revocation of people's rights. Regardless, brainstorming would seem to be the first step. You may not like my idea but at least I am coming up with something to consider. All other ideas can be brought to the table and discussed for pros and cons.

Totally unrelated.  Laws of physics and current technology do not correlate with Constitutional law.

Talk about deflecting.

Totally unrelated.  Laws of physics and current technology do not correlate with Constitutional law.

Talk about deflecting.

Irrelevant, I wasn't making a direct comparisons. Substitute any analogy you wish, the point is you are just giving up instead of coming up with any sort of idea.

Yes, deflecting... stop doing it please.

Strawman. I am saying we come up with a different approach that doesn't involve unconstitutional infringement on our rights.

This is the million dollar question that doesnt exist yet. Every law infringes on the 2a.

We should try less laws and see what happens. But thats not the long term plan now is it?.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is the million dollar question that doesnt exist yet.

So lets brainstorm.

Every law infringes on the 2a.

I disagree.

We should try less laws and see what happens. But thats not the long term plan now is it?.

It certainly isn't the trend.

That is a reactionary way to address the problem, one I am all for. The thing is what they are trying to address is a preventative measure before it happens. I think it is good to both try to prevent a problem as well as have an answer for if it happens anyway. So CCW is great but it only addresses half of the equation.

What's wrong with the laws we currently have in place that red flag law will help with?

Any Hawaii examples of a past incident that had occurred where a red flag law could have made a difference?

So lets brainstorm.


I disagree.



It certainly isn't the trend.

I misspoke.  Majority of laws on the books infringe on the 2a.

I would like to see CCW/OC legal and see what happens over a 10 year period.  WHen Florida turned "shall issue" to CCW, they planned on doing a 10 year study on it's effects.  Prior to becoming law, crime was rising every year.  Not 1% or a few %, but a good amount.  Over a 6 year period, crime went down exponentially every year.  So much that they stopped the study after 6 years or so.  And remember, prior to CCW, it was always rising for years.

This is in response to deep concerns that law abiding gun owners have with red flag laws, particularly the one that recently went into effect in Hawaii (was in the "and here we go" thread).

Admittedly need more details and facts, but upon first impression this article is an example of damage that can be done by the "system" if there aren't checks and balances, as well as consequences for those that either made accusations/claims or those that perhaps didn't go through the proper processes.  My assumptions of course, but that's my opinion. . .

EDIT: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/01/05/answers-sought-after-state-authorities-take-child-without-court-order/

On the radio they mention how this happens all the time in the mainland.

This is in response to deep concerns that law abiding gun owners have with red flag laws, particularly the one that recently went into effect in Hawaii (was in the "and here we go" thread).

Admittedly need more details and facts, but upon first impression this article is an example of damage that can be done by the "system" if there aren't checks and balances, as well as consequences for those that either made accusations/claims or those that perhaps didn't go through the proper processes.  My assumptions of course, but that's my opinion. . .

EDIT: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/01/05/answers-sought-after-state-authorities-take-child-without-court-order/

The headline is misleading.  "Answers sought after state authorities take a child without a court order" is putting it mildly.  The mother has 100% legal custody of the child.  The father SIGNED HIS RIGHTS AWAY, and he was court-ordered to not have contact with the family.

Basically, the "state authorities" that abducted the child from school with no notice to the legal custodial parent is guilty of facilitating kidnapping and violating an existing court order.  it's much more egregious than failing to get a judge to approve removing the child from one parent reported to be unstable.  The state broke the law.

The headline is misleading.  "Answers sought after state authorities take a child without a court order" is putting it mildly.  The mother has 100% legal custody of the child.  The father SIGNED HIS RIGHTS AWAY, and he was court-ordered to not have contact with the family.

Basically, the "state authorities" that abducted the child from school with no notice to the legal custodial parent is guilty of facilitating kidnapping and violating an existing court order.  it's much more egregious than failing to get a judge to approve removing the child from one parent reported to be unstable.  The state broke the law.

But they did something.  Must be good, right? 

[sarcasm\]

The headline is misleading.  "Answers sought after state authorities take a child without a court order" is putting it mildly.  The mother has 100% legal custody of the child.  The father SIGNED HIS RIGHTS AWAY, and he was court-ordered to not have contact with the family.

Basically, the "state authorities" that abducted the child from school with no notice to the legal custodial parent is guilty of facilitating kidnapping and violating an existing court order.  it's much more egregious than failing to get a judge to approve removing the child from one parent reported to be unstable.  The state broke the law.

The radio said this morning that the court order wasn't signed by the judge.  A clerical error maybe?  I could be mistaken what I heard while driving to work.

So in this case, it's incomplete like the impeachment of Trump, well depending what process you read on how impeachment works.

The radio said this morning that the court order wasn't signed by the judge.  A clerical error maybe?  I could be mistaken what I heard while driving to work.

So in this case, it's incomplete like the impeachment of Trump, well depending what process you read on how impeachment works.

You said the "court order" wasn't signed by a judge.

By definition, that makes it NOT A COURT ORDER.  if it was typed up in the format of a court order but never signed, it's possible someone ASSUMED it was signed when they were told to execute it.

Someone AT A MINIMUM needs to lose their job/s over this.  No excuse for "ripping a child from their mother's arms" without proper authorization.

What's wrong with the laws we currently have in place that red flag law will help with?

Any Hawaii examples of a past incident that had occurred where a red flag law could have made a difference?

Prior to the red flag law was there anyway that you could address the issue of someone you see who is mentally unstable and armed? Lets say your relative was diagnosed with brain cancer, spoke to invisible people, and started to become aggressive but refused to go see the doctor anymore. Prior to red flag laws would there have been any avenue by which you could have gotten the government to step in and do something?

I would have to dig a bit to see if there were any Hawaii shooters who exhibited serious red flags. I think in the Xerox shooting there were some but cannot recall the details. There were some instances in the mainland where there were numerous warning signs ahead of time but no one reported it. Near impossible to say whether the red flag would have prevented it however I do think there were times when it could have prevented it. Depends on the issue with the individual as well, someone suffering a temporary illness is a different case with a different way to address the problem than say someone wanting to go on a shooting spree, etc.

Prior to the red flag law was there anyway that you could address the issue of someone you see who is mentally unstable and armed? Lets say your relative was diagnosed with brain cancer, spoke to invisible people, and started to become aggressive but refused to go see the doctor anymore. Prior to red flag laws would there have been any avenue by which you could have gotten the government to step in and do something?

I would have to dig a bit to see if there were any Hawaii shooters who exhibited serious red flags. I think in the Xerox shooting there were some but cannot recall the details. There were some instances in the mainland where there were numerous warning signs ahead of time but no one reported it. Near impossible to say whether the red flag would have prevented it however I do think there were times when it could have prevented it. Depends on the issue with the individual as well, someone suffering a temporary illness is a different case with a different way to address the problem than say someone wanting to go on a shooting spree, etc.

So is it worth it to remove thousands peoples rights to protect a few?  The answer is no.  Because if that were the case, tobacco would be 100% illegal, so would alcohol and many other items that cause way more death and injuries than firearms.  And smokes/booze isn't in the bill of rights.

The 2a is always specifically attacked by the left.  And so does having this new form of a law.  There is no way to tell the future with 100% accuracy what someone might do.  See above examples again as proof.  Someone buys alcohol and owns a car or has a drivers license.  Red flag them and take their car away and booze because they might drink and drive and injure someone.  Going to a restaurant tonight and having wine with dinner.  Looks like you will have to uber or get a ride there and back.  Because you might drink enough to be impaired.

So is it worth it to remove thousands peoples rights to protect a few?  The answer is no.  Because if that were the case, tobacco would be 100% illegal, so would alcohol and many other items that cause way more death and injuries than firearms.  And smokes/booze isn't in the bill of rights.

No, you don't remove rights en mass. Instead you narrowly target specific individuals who for various reasons can/should/must lose their rights. Each instance of revocation of rights must be justified on its own.

The 2a is always specifically attacked by the left.  And so does having this new form of a law.  There is no way to tell the future with 100% accuracy what someone might do.  See above examples again as proof.  Someone buys alcohol and owns a car or has a drivers license.  Red flag them and take their car away and booze because they might drink and drive and injure someone.  Going to a restaurant tonight and having wine with dinner.  Looks like you will have to uber or get a ride there and back.  Because you might drink enough to be impaired.

Are you against the sex offender registry because there is no way to prove they will reoffend. Now I know that isn't the best analogy because you have to be convicted of a crime before you can be required to register but there is still an element of punitive action based on prediction.

Don't get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head here in terms of the difficulty in justifying the revocation of rights. Thats why I think in order to take someone's guns away a court should have to find proof that the accused is too dangerous to own firearms. I think preponderance of the evidence is too low a standard and it should be raised to clear and convincing evidence in accordance with case precedent on locking people up for mental health reasons.

No, you don't remove rights en mass. Instead you narrowly target specific individuals who for various reasons can/should/must lose their rights. Each instance of revocation of rights must be justified on its own.

Are you against the sex offender registry because there is no way to prove they will reoffend. Now I know that isn't the best analogy because you have to be convicted of a crime before you can be required to register but there is still an element of punitive action based on prediction.

Don't get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head here in terms of the difficulty in justifying the revocation of rights. Thats why I think in order to take someone's guns away a court should have to find proof that the accused is too dangerous to own firearms. I think preponderance of the evidence is too low a standard and it should be raised to clear and convincing evidence in accordance with case precedent on locking people up for mental health reasons.

Wrong.

The Sex Offender registry is not a punitive device.  It is also not a preventative device.  It's a public service.

We as law abiding citizens deserve to know who among us in our neighborhoods has been convicted of sexual offenses and whether the charges involved minors.

The rate of recidivism among sexual predators is very high.  One study says 56.6%.  Given that, it's reasonable for parents, teachers and children to be informed if there are people with risky behaviors in their past nearby.

Many say sexual predators are unable to help themselves and need intensive mental health treatment.  Some are so untreatable they opt for chemical castration.

So, stop defending the criminals' rights.  The law abiding have rights, too, which includes access to publicly available law enforcement & court data.

No, you don't remove rights en mass. Instead you narrowly target specific individuals who for various reasons can/should/must lose their rights. Each instance of revocation of rights must be justified on its own.

Are you against the sex offender registry because there is no way to prove they will reoffend. Now I know that isn't the best analogy because you have to be convicted of a crime before you can be required to register but there is still an element of punitive action based on prediction.

Don't get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head here in terms of the difficulty in justifying the revocation of rights. Thats why I think in order to take someone's guns away a court should have to find proof that the accused is too dangerous to own firearms. I think preponderance of the evidence is too low a standard and it should be raised to clear and convincing evidence in accordance with case precedent on locking people up for mental health reasons.

How about instead of taking the guns away without any notice, move the initial court date to 1 week from the complaint. Give the (up to this point) life time law abiding citizen a chance to address the allegations and have a mental examiner there to so do an onsite exam to see if the person is crazy.

We have seen in every state how this law is abused. See my previous post about true examples.

So red flag is not the answer and is not better than "doing something".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk