2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on August 06, 2025, 02:25:14 AM
-
Red Flag push inbound, and it's written by an activist so you know it's part of a larger plan.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/08/hawaii-rarely-takes-guns-from-people-in-crisis-despite-red-flag-law/
My favorite highlight:
The example they used of a service member who committed suicide didn't even use a gun. He got rid of his gun and still killed himself. It totally undermines the entire point of the article.
Plenty more head slappers where that came from.
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/JiejlbCTknsAAAAd/slap-the-head-oh-no.gif)
-
Wow, must be a slow news day at CB.
(https://i.postimg.cc/05LMhF4s/SMH.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
But the results are not a clear overall win in Connecticut,
While there were fewer gun suicides than might be expected,
people may have turned to other ways to kill themselves.
Kivisto estimated that law prevented 128 firearms suicides
and might be "attributed" to 140 non-gun suicides.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/19/creigh-deeds/do-red-flag-laws-reduce-gun-suicides-creigh-deeds-/
-
I wouldn't really look at this news as negative. We have 10 applications against 6 people and only 2 of them had their firearms taken away which means that they aren't being all granted upon any type of request. One more of them might have been granted because the cop didn't show to court but that means in at least half the cases, the courts must not have found enough cause to justify the order. However the small sample size may mean we can't use this to understand what kind of results we may have going forward.
The scary thing is the description of the case that wasn't granted because the cop didn't show up for court. That guy sounded like it was a justifiable use of this law.
-
No laws are going to stop people from doing bad things.
I think the writer of the article knows this but he needs to submit something to attract attention. $$
-
The reason the sample size is so small is likely due to what I predicted in other threads. HI has a "no make stink" culture, meaning "live and let live." Unless the person submitting the petition or their family member was threatened, it's unlikely anyone would file that petition ESPECIALLY if the would-be-petitioner is a close friend or relative. Nobody wants to put someone already having a rough time through the hassles of having their guns confiscated for at least 2 weeks, having to attend mental health evals, defend themself in court, and then jump through the HPD hoops to try and have their guns returned. That process alone could be what pushes them over the edge.
People just don't trust the system, so relying on people outside the system to feed them red-flagged individuals is not going to catch the numbers they pretend it will. If over half the petitioned individuals were released and guns returned, it shows how one person's opinion of another's behavior is not a great indicator of the individual's tendency to commit violence. Even trained and experienced psychologists and psychiatrists can't make those predictions with any better accuracy, so why pin a petition to the subjective and untrained opinion of a person who just happens to make contact?
-
I wouldn't really look at this news as negative. We have 10 applications against 6 people and only 2 of them had their firearms taken away which means that they aren't being all granted upon any type of request. One more of them might have been granted because the cop didn't show to court but that means in at least half the cases, the courts must not have found enough cause to justify the order. However the small sample size may mean we can't use this to understand what kind of results we may have going forward.
The scary thing is the description of the case that wasn't granted because the cop didn't show up for court. That guy sounded like it was a justifiable use of this law.
This is somewhat good news that shows the state isn't using a rubber stamp.
1 red flag was against a pastor who ran a half way house for released criminals who used drugs. IDK what ever happened to him after he got his guns confiscated.
-
Red flag laws can be abused. If a family member, or anybody for that matter doesn't like you for any reason, they can mess you up big time if they know you own firearms.
That's why I don't advertise. And I tell my immediate family the same thing.
Too many karens running around with too much time on their hands. There should be a karen red flag law.
-
Red flag laws can be abused. If a family member, or anybody for that matter doesn't like you for any reason, they can mess you up big time if they know you own firearms.
That's why I don't advertise. And I tell my immediate family the same thing.
Too many karens running around with too much time on their hands. There should be a karen red flag law.
It's also unconstitutional.
-
...so why pin a petition to the subjective and untrained opinion of a person who just happens to make contact?
Because it is those everyday regular people who see the most. They can't diagnose a mental illness but they can see rapid changes in behavior, they see someone in private when their guard is not up, etc.
Bad guys are caught, terrorist attacks are thwarted because regular people report things that don't seem right. They aren't always correct of course but if we place an expectation that they must be perfect then no one is going to report that suspicious bag, that unknown person looking into a neighbors garage, etc.
-
Red flag laws can be abused. If a family member, or anybody for that matter doesn't like you for any reason, they can mess you up big time if they know you own firearms.
That's why I don't advertise. And I tell my immediate family the same thing.
Too many karens running around with too much time on their hands. There should be a karen red flag law.
Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed :crazy:, that the person assaulted them.
I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?
-
Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed :crazy:, that the person assaulted them.
I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?
Lets go down this "what if" hole.
What if said person didnt own any firearms but a vehicle. A knife? a gallon of gas?
-
Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed :crazy:, that the person assaulted them.
I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?
What if there really were assassins trying to kill him? What if he did have to assassinate someone to save the world? Like say someone wanted to assassinate Hitler, but instead had their guns taken away?
See, "what ifs" can be plaid from both sides.
-
What if there really were assassins trying to kill him? What if he did have to assassinate someone to save the world? Like say someone wanted to assassinate Hitler, but instead had their guns taken away?
See, "what ifs" can be plaid from both sides.
We've answered this question a million times, but he still doesn't get it.
If someone displays signs they are a danger to themselves or others, don't confiscate their firearms leaving them free to experience their mental health crisis around others. LOCK THE PERSON UP. Do as many mental evaluations as needed and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to anyone.
Letting the person stay in their home is ridiculous. And if you just put then on a new prescription to see iff it helps, again ... letting them return to their home is ridiculous.
Either the person is a threat of they or not. If they are, why let them remain free? Taking their guns doesn't make them safe. It only put them through a process to confiscate their property before they've done anything to be locked up for. That alone can piss someone off to where they do violence.
And if you think someone who had their guns taken is suddenly rendered not dangerous, then you don't understand the actual problem. They don't need a gun to do violence.
-
Lets go down this "what if" hole.
What if said person didnt own any firearms but a vehicle. A knife? a gallon of gas?
The same problem exists, what recourse is there for a person in such a medical condition? For police to grab someone and take them to the hospital for a psych eval they need evidence of an immediate danger.
-
What if there really were assassins trying to kill him? What if he did have to assassinate someone to save the world? Like say someone wanted to assassinate Hitler, but instead had their guns taken away?
See, "what ifs" can be plaid from both sides.
These aren't crazy hypotheticals for the sake of some extreme argument here, they are real life examples and they aren't that rare either. Look at BJ Penn, he is in the system now because he actually harmed a family member, but I doubt he just woke up crazy one day, there would have been red flags.
Chances are significantly higher that your relative is suffering a dangerous delusion than he is being hunted by assassins. So what do you propose better than this type of red flag law?
-
We've answered this question a million times, but he still doesn't get it.
If someone displays signs they are a danger to themselves or others, don't confiscate their firearms leaving them free to experience their mental health crisis around others. LOCK THE PERSON UP. Do as many mental evaluations as needed and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to anyone.
Letting the person stay in their home is ridiculous. And if you just put then on a new prescription to see iff it helps, again ... letting them return to their home is ridiculous.
Either the person is a threat of they or not. If they are, why let them remain free? Taking their guns doesn't make them safe. It only put them through a process to confiscate their property before they've done anything to be locked up for. That alone can piss someone off to where they do violence.
And if you think someone who had their guns taken is suddenly rendered not dangerous, then you don't understand the actual problem. They don't need a gun to do violence.
Wrong, I have told you numerous times I agreed with your belief that such a person should not only have their firearm taken but should also be mandated into a mental health oriented detention so don't spread lies. Problem is we don't have that type of system in place. Obviously taking only their firearm doesn't make them no longer dangerous but it makes them less dangerous all things equal. Is it not better to have a program that doesn't go far enough than one that doesn't do anything at all?
Do you really even support such a red flag law involving detention though? All the concerns you raise about red flag laws involving firearms would still be relevant if this type of reporting were put in place to have someone detained.
Not only that, it is a greater restriction of rights as taking a possession from you is lesser than taking your freedom.
-
The same problem exists, what recourse is there for a person in such a medical condition? For police to grab someone and take them to the hospital for a psych eval they need evidence of an immediate danger.
Why do red flag laws target gun owners?
-
Why do red flag laws target gun owners?
I would say because firearms are one of the top ways that humans hurt themselves and each other, including in cases involving mental health. On top of that banning other items commonly used like knives isn't feasible which explains why firearms are the targets of extra control.
-
Wrong, I have told you numerous times I agreed with your belief that such a person should not only have their firearm taken but should also be mandated into a mental health oriented detention so don't spread lies. Problem is we don't have that type of system in place. Obviously taking only their firearm doesn't make them no longer dangerous but it makes them less dangerous all things equal. Is it not better to have a program that doesn't go far enough than one that doesn't do anything at all?
Do you really even support such a red flag law involving detention though? All the concerns you raise about red flag laws involving firearms would still be relevant if this type of reporting were put in place to have someone detained.
Not only that, it is a greater restriction of rights as taking a possession from you is lesser than taking your freedom.
Why put someone through the hassle of confiscating their firearms? If the person is locked up, they are separated from their guns. Having to jump through the hoops to have them returned would be additional punishment. From what people posted here, when you ask for gun back that hpd was holding for you, you have to apply for permits and go through the same background checks and waiting period. Then there's the real question of whether or not you being red flagged is going to slow down the process while you have to get letters from doctors before you permit is issued. All because guns frighten people. There's no logical reason to remove the person from the place they keep guns and also remove the guns.
Why would i say LOCK THE PERSON UP if i didn't support it? Are you trying to start another argument?
if the laws on the books don't support a mental health evaluation and detention of someone who might be violent, then the laws need changing. it's a lot more of a solution than leaving the person to roam fee while believing taking away his gun or guns makes us any safer.
We detain people all the time for various things: investigations, DUI holding, psychiatric episodes ... unless you're locking them up and throwing away the key without due process, no rights are being violated. Or didn't they teach you that in the academy?
-
I would say because firearms are one of the top ways that humans hurt themselves and each other, including in cases involving mental health. On top of that banning other items commonly used like knives isn't feasible which explains why firearms are the targets of extra control.
false
-
false
Exactly. Stats show in some areas with red flag laws the confiscation of guns MAY have prevented some suicidal people from killing themselves with guns, yet the overall suicide rate has gone up there. Until someone can talk to the dead to ask if they would have used a gun instead of the means they used, i don't think anyone can make the statement that fewer gun suicides means those people didn't poison, drown, suffocate, hang themselves or jump from a high building or overpass (always during rush hour!).
It's no different than trying to argue gun murders instead of all murders. Murder rates can be going up even when the rate of murder from firearms is trending downward. Focusing on gun deaths is not the way to a solution. It only serves to press an anti-gun agenda.
-
false
You are entitled to your opinion/speculation :thumbsup:
-
Why put someone through the hassle of confiscating their firearms? If the person is locked up, they are separated from their guns. Having to jump through the hoops to have them returned would be additional punishment. From what people posted here, when you ask for gun back that hpd was holding for you, you have to apply for permits and go through the same background checks and waiting period. Then there's the real question of whether or not you being red flagged is going to slow down the process while you have to get letters from doctors before you permit is issued. All because guns frighten people. There's no logical reason to remove the person from the place they keep guns and also remove the guns.
Why would i say LOCK THE PERSON UP if i didn't support it? Are you trying to start another argument?
if the laws on the books don't support a mental health evaluation and detention of someone who might be violent, then the laws need changing. it's a lot more of a solution than leaving the person to roam fee while believing taking away his gun or guns makes us any safer.
We detain people all the time for various things: investigations, DUI holding, psychiatric episodes ... unless you're locking them up and throwing away the key without due process, no rights are being violated. Or didn't they teach you that in the academy?
The greater the level where the government takes away/suspends someone's rights the higher level of evidence needed to justify it. That is why a detention requires less than an arrest which requires less than charging someone and less than putting them in jail. Locking someone up is at a different level than removing some of their property.
If someone were suspected of suffering pedophilia would you let them remain in a teaching position or would you remove them from the position while they were evaluated? Obviously they could still go to a park and harm someone but they would reasonably be placed on leave from the school where they would have direct access to children.
The having to get a permit to get your own gun bad is completely ridiculous but it is not a function of the red flag laws, it is their own stupid interpretation of the permit to acquire law.
Why would you say lock the person up if you didn't support it? Because it conflicted with most of the concerns of red flag laws. If I was trying to start an argument I wouldn't have asked you a clarifying question.
-
i don't think anyone can make the statement that fewer gun suicides means those people didn't poison, drown, suffocate, hang themselves or jump from a high building or overpass (always during rush hour!).
There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.
-
There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.
Do you bother to read the words that are spilling out of your gourd?
"There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods ..."
Suicide attempts are not going to gain you any debate points. Those are simply people may not have truly intended to kill themselves (proverbial "shout for help").
Until you can predict who is going to attempt suicide and who isn't, then confiscating guns over red flag petitions would be an affront to freedom for all the people you took guns from but never attempted, nor thought about attempting, suicide.
Red flag laws are not just intended to stop suicides. Can you cite the number of people who intended to commit violence but was 100% prevented by having their guns confiscated and then left to roam freely? If not, then you're basically relegating red flag laws to a suicide prevention program.
There's an argument to be made as to whether we have the right to stop someone of sound mind and age of majority from committing suicide. That's what the whole assisted suicide issue is about. If Alan wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, there's suicide by Cop, rental guns at ranges, and now 3D printable ones.
Yeah, when you get better stats than the ones I found from CT, let me know. There's no causal relationship between confiscating guns under a red flag petition and the rate of suicides.
-
You are entitled to your opinion/speculation :thumbsup:
no shit
-
Any law can be abused though. Using that Karen example, I have seen many videos where a Karen claimed, while being filmed :crazy:, that the person assaulted them.
I understand the fear of red flag laws being abused but let me ask you this question, if you had a close family member who had firearms and you saw clear signs of a dangerous mental health problem which made you fear that this person was going to hurt themselves or someone else, what would your recourse be if there were no red flag type law? Imagine this person is paranoid, thinks his family has been replaced by assassins trying to kill him, believes he needs to assassinate someone to save the world, etc. You have no legal power to take away his firearm, he can't be arrested by the police since he has not threatened anyone, he refuses to see a psychologist. What do you do?
What would I do? Handle it in-house. Nobody else's business. Is it the perfect solution?
Answer: Is and was there ever such a thing?
-
There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.
Where is this data you speak of?
Just saying it exists is not a valid argument. Where is it? Who compiled and analyzed it? What does it include? When were the time periods studied? What was the statistical method used to come to the conclusions you are posting as if they are fact?
You have your words and nothing more so far. It's been that way in all the previous red flag laws. You regurgitate your talking points over and over, and to what end? You have nothing to convince anyone else you're opinion resembles a solution.
-
This is what happens when you pin your hopes on government functions to keep everyone safe.
No matter how completely you try to shape an ADMINISTRATIVE process to identify and disarm individuals, it always comes back to government failures.
If a government official hands you a parachute and says it was packed by someone he doesn't know and checked by a government employee, would you then use it in your next jump?
The #1 thing about background checks, mental health organizations, red flag laws, firearm bans and so on is -- until the government gets their crap together and can guarantee the public's safety, people should be allowed to defend themselves. When all else fails, you have a right to meet a threat with lethal force if necessary.
Imagine if new York allowed concealed carry with minimal licensing requirements.
What are US ‘red flag’ gun laws?
Why didn’t they stop New York shooter?
Law enforcement officials said Shane Tamura, the Las Vegas man
suspected of killing four people on July 28 in a Manhattan office building,
had a documented mental health history, raising questions about why
he had access to guns.
Police said Tamura, 27, fired an M4 rifle in the building that houses the
NFL headquarters, killing four people, including a police officer working
a corporate security detail, and then himself. News reports said Tamura,
a former high school football player, had a note that said he had CTE,
or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is associated with head injury.
News reports, citing unnamed law enforcement sources, said Tamura had
two mental health crisis “holds”, which allow someone to be held involuntarily
for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 hours, in Nevada in 2022 and 2024.
Tisch said Tamura had a Nevada gun licence and used an AR-15 style
assault rifle. Tamura legally purchased a revolver in June using his concealed
carry permit, Tisch said. CBS and CNN published a photo of Tamura’s 2022
permit issued by Las Vegas police.
“Red flag” laws are intended to remove weapons from unstable people before
a violent act occurs. Sometimes the laws have different names, such as “extreme
risk protection orders” or, in Nevada, “high risk protection orders”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/1/what-are-us-red-flag-gun-laws-why-didnt-they-stop-new-york-shooter
Additionally, another article says he did NOT pass the NICS background check. it was flagged as having inconsistencies and placed in a HOLD status, but after 3 days waiting, the FFL was required to complete the transfer. Another example of how a government-run program that supposedly keeps guns out of the wrong hands could not figure out this guy should have been denied the purchase. Funny how we can find this out after the fact, but not when it could have done some good.
You can't rely on government agents to prevent dangerous people from getting guns when they have never met the people they run background checks on. The results are only going to be as accurate as the information they have access to.
NICS is a broken system, which is why there has been a FIX NICS project for many years. Piling on another program like red flag laws isn't going to improve things until they can get the existing programs working. They are just piling more work and administrative overhead on top of the already bloated government agencies.
Even Vice President Biden once said, "Passing more laws when you can't enforce the ones we have doesn't solve anything." One of his last lucid moments IMO.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
-
Red flag laws …
Hate speech laws …
Hate crime laws …
Laws banning semiautomatic firearms …
Laws banning standard capacity magazines …
On and on …
All spring from the same totalitarian seed in our society, and all are put in place by one venomous body politic that has insinuated itself into the institutions of a free people to systematically make them unfree.
They are advocated for using one-sided logic ostensibly relating to the “public good.”
Their purpose in all cases is to be selectively applied by the authorities as weapons against those most in the way of the tyrant’s agenda.
As an added bonus, by their very enactment, they indict those they target as being deserving of the slander.
Here’s a tidbit from The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), U.K., which shared a video on X warning people about using social media, stating:
“Think before you post! Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”
80 years after WWII, the Nazi’s are back in control of Germany, and now run the U.K.!
We are at war - seems more people are waking up to that reality.
-
Red flag laws …
Hate speech laws …
Hate crime laws …
Laws banning semiautomatic firearms …
Laws banning standard capacity magazines …
On and on …
All spring from the same totalitarian seed in our society, and all are put in place by one venomous body politic that has insinuated itself into the institutions of a free people to systematically make them unfree.
They are advocated for using one-sided logic ostensibly relating to the “public good.”
Their purpose in all cases is to be selectively applied by the authorities as weapons against those most in the way of the tyrant’s agenda.
As an added bonus, by their very enactment, they indict those they target as being deserving of the slander.
Here’s a tidbit from The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), U.K., which shared a video on X warning people about using social media, stating:
“Think before you post! Content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful — it can be illegal. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.”
80 years after WWII, the Nazi’s are back in control of Germany, and now run the U.K.!
We are at war - seems more people are waking up to that reality.
It's not just Nazis. Listen to the hatred being spewed from the so-called tolerant Left against Jews and the state of Israel.
If anybody needs to be compared to Hitler or a Nazi, it's not Trump or his supporters.
I watched a video of some on-the-spot interviews with DNC attendees. They were approached and asked if the Democrat Party was the party of tolerance, love and inclusion. The respondents all said, "Of course we are. We welcome everyone whether you are Gay, Lesbian, Trans, Black, or whatever else." Then they were asked, "What about MAGA Republicans? Would you welcome them into the party?" They all said things like, "No, certainly not! We don't need people like them in our party." It took many moments of the interviewer coaxing them to realize the hypocrisy in their statements.
Leftists/Democrats/Socialists have not changed. They can't see the irrational contradiction between what they are and what they accuse others of being.
It's another reason we don't need government deciding who gets to have guns when they get to decide the criteria and sit on the bench deciding the cases for red flagged citizens. Trump supporter? No guns for YOU!! You'll just start another insurrection!!
-
Yes, they are characterized by an implacable craving to assert control over others - purely for its own sake - from the most weak, twisted, Quasimodo among them, to their so-called elites. All are the same. You can just smell it coming off them.
This is why no reasoned debate, no phalanx of indisputable facts, no appeal to the repeated lessons of human history - nothing you can ever point out, ever “clicks,” and opens the lock of reason, understanding, and the value of human liberty, in their minds.
These things stand in the way of their pursuit of raw power, and can never be allowed, ever, and so they do not stop - until they are stopped.
They truly are the de-evolution branch of our species, and man does it show!
There is no coexistence with us, in their world, which is why no quarter can be given them, ever.
-
Yes, they are characterized by an implacable craving to assert control over others - purely for its own sake - from the most weak, twisted, Quasimodo among them, to their so-called elites. All are the same. You can just smell it coming off them.
This is why no reasoned debate, no phalanx of indisputable facts, no appeal to the repeated lessons of human history - nothing you can ever point out, ever “clicks,” and opens the lock of reason, understanding, and the value of human liberty, in their minds.
These things stand in the way of their pursuit of raw power, and can never be allowed, ever, and so they do not stop - until they are stopped.
They truly are the de-evolution branch of our species, and man does it show!
There is no coexistence with us, in their world, which is why no quarter can be given them, ever.
When people say they only want to keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them for illegal purposes, I accept their objective.
What i reject is the fantasy that such a thing is possible to any significant degree. We already have laws on top of laws to do the same thing. why are they not working as promised? Why add more laws that don't actually solve the problems? The test would be whether or not the proposed law would have stopped any specific crime that was committed using a gun. I've never seen one that would have.
Our system does a so-so job in identifying dangerous people, What's the percentage of success? There's no way to know -- BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE DANGEROUS.
-
Do you bother to read the words that are spilling out of your gourd?
"There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods ..."
Suicide attempts are not going to gain you any debate points. Those are simply people may not have truly intended to kill themselves (proverbial "shout for help").
Until you can predict who is going to attempt suicide and who isn't, then confiscating guns over red flag petitions would be an affront to freedom for all the people you took guns from but never attempted, nor thought about attempting, suicide.
Red flag laws are not just intended to stop suicides. Can you cite the number of people who intended to commit violence but was 100% prevented by having their guns confiscated and then left to roam freely? If not, then you're basically relegating red flag laws to a suicide prevention program.
There's an argument to be made as to whether we have the right to stop someone of sound mind and age of majority from committing suicide. That's what the whole assisted suicide issue is about. If Alan wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, there's suicide by Cop, rental guns at ranges, and now 3D printable ones.
Yeah, when you get better stats than the ones I found from CT, let me know. There's no causal relationship between confiscating guns under a red flag petition and the rate of suicides.
But but but maybe they were just pretend committing suicide. Go ahead and find data to support that theory.
You set an impossible bar then act like it is proof of your argument. You ask for violence which was 100% preventing because they no longer had their firearm but if I gave you an example you would claim that this meant they didn't really have it in them. I gave you an example previously of a person who planned to commit a mass shooting and you said that doesn't count because if he were really going to murder a bunch of people he would have actually done it. You aren't looking for evidence to answer a question here, you are looking to confirm your conclusion. We have had this discussion before, I have posted the data before, I don't see the point of doing it again. If a red flag reporting system were proven to reduce suicides by firearm owners by 25% would you change your mind? What about 50%?
I am pretty sure I have mentioned this before but I wouldn't support any sort of red flag law merely to reduce suicides. We have discussed before evidence that shows higher suicide rates in places with higher firearm ownership.
-
But but but maybe they were just pretend committing suicide. Go ahead and find data to support that theory.
You set an impossible bar then act like it is proof of your argument. You ask for violence which was 100% preventing because they no longer had their firearm but if I gave you an example you would claim that this meant they didn't really have it in them. I gave you an example previously of a person who planned to commit a mass shooting and you said that doesn't count because if he were really going to murder a bunch of people he would have actually done it. You aren't looking for evidence to answer a question here, you are looking to confirm your conclusion. We have had this discussion before, I have posted the data before, I don't see the point of doing it again. If a red flag reporting system were proven to reduce suicides by firearm owners by 25% would you change your mind? What about 50%?
I am pretty sure I have mentioned this before but I wouldn't support any sort of red flag law merely to reduce suicides. We have discussed before evidence that shows higher suicide rates in places with higher firearm ownership.
It's only impossible because reality dictates that it is impossible. it's not my bar. The laws are sold to us as ways to make us safer. They do not.
You keep tryhing to focus exclusively on suicides. Fewer "successful suicides" does not make the public safer. Suicides by definition have one victim ... the perpetrator. If my neighbor kills himself, how is that making me less safe? Unless he uses explosives near others or a mass shooting followed by suicide (just examples), he's causing no violence to others.
I don't know how many ways to explain it to you. it's not government's job to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. If it was, Prohibition would not have been repealed and sugary sodas would require quantity limits and age restrictions.
The whole reason people are asking for red flag laws is because the people who are closest to the subject are not taking steps to make sure they are unable to cause violence under current law. We would not need new laws if government wan't viewed as the answer to every problem. It only takes the people whom red flag laws allow to petition for gun removal to actually take steps to solve the real problem -- what makes them unsafe to have guns?
it's another case of demanding government solve a problem that can only be solved by the people closest to the problem individual. Guns are NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is we need better laws for having people who appear mentally unhealthy detained for evaluation and treatment. I don't have anything more to add, since you can't seem to find anything of value in the 50 times I've said it. All you want to do is argue and play like there's a solution if we only let government confiscate more guns before due process is applied.
DONE.
:closed:
-
The end state of “red flag laws” is the Gestapo, is the Stasi.
On the way there, they sweep up dissidents, critics, and people who informers point out, for whatever reason, etc.
It is all very legal.
-
The end state of “red flag laws” is the Gestapo, is the Stasi.
On the way there, they sweep up dissidents, critics, and people who informers point out, for whatever reason, etc.
It is all very legal.
There are people today who hide their very real mental health issues even though they may want to seek treatment. They don't want to risk their 2A rights, so they talk themselves into thinking they can handle whatever the problem is -- or they self-medicate with illegal drugs and/or alcohol.
Imagine how much more carefully one might try to hide their problems under red flag laws -- to prevent even their closest friends and relatives from finding out. The more power you give the state to take away individual rights, the more people will refuse to seek professional help.
-
There are people today who hide their very real mental health issues even though they may want to seek treatment. They don't want to risk their 2A rights, so they talk themselves into thinking they can handle whatever the problem is -- or they self-medicate with illegal drugs and/or alcohol.
Imagine how much more carefully one might try to hide their problems under red flag laws -- to prevent even their closest friends and relatives from finding out. The more power you give the state to take away individual rights, the more people will refuse to seek professional help.
I just always begin with the hard-earned knowledge that literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell.
Everything.
So people allow the passage of such a law, carefully spelling out mental / social / association criteria for triggering the law to void the 2A rights of the individual.
Then along comes an apparatchik who labels traditional Catholics (those say, fighting to keep the Latin Mass alive, etc.) as an extremist group (actually happened already), and interestingly, it seems that association with extremist groups is a criteria for triggering said red flag law against any so-designated individual.
Boom traditional Catholics are targeted for firearm confiscation.
That’s how it ALL works, for everything they do, in one way or another.
Example
Step 1. They scream for years that Marriage is discriminatory. The system (preposterously) capitulates to them.
Step X. Now trannies in full drag are demanding to read stories at the public library to tiny children. Biological males labeling themselves as “female” are beating the shit out of your daughters figuratively AND literally. Those who speak out are called “haters.”
So I repeat, as it can’t be said enough:
Literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell. EVERYTHING.
-
I just always begin with the hard-earned knowledge that literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell.
Everything.
So people allow the passage of such a law, carefully spelling out mental / social / association criteria for triggering the law to void the 2A rights of the individual.
Then along comes an apparatchik who labels traditional Catholics (those say, fighting to keep the Latin Mass alive, etc.) as an extremist group (actually happened already), and interestingly, it seems that association with extremist groups is a criteria for triggering said red flag law against any so-designated individual.
Boom traditional Catholics are targeted for firearm confiscation.
That’s how it ALL works, for everything they do, in one way or another.
Example
Step 1. They scream for years that Marriage is discriminatory. The system (preposterously) capitulates to them.
Step X. Now trannies in full drag are demanding to read stories at the public library to tiny children. Biological males labeling themselves as “female” are beating the shit out of your daughters figuratively AND literally. Those who speak out are called “haters.”
So I repeat, as it can’t be said enough:
Literally everything they propose is designed to open a wormhole to hell. EVERYTHING.
Not exclusively Catholics ....
Labeling Republicans, Christian Conservative Groups
As Terrorists Is ‘Appalling,’ Hageman says
June 5, 2023
President Joe Biden’s administration is doling out taxpayer money through
an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that hosted a
conference where the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative
groups, were lumped in with terrorist groups.
The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, obtained
documents through public records requests that show a Department of
Homeland Security program meant to fight terrorism is funding a university
that has targeted the American political right.
During a 2021 "Extremism, Rhetoric, and Democratic Precarity" seminar held
at Dayton University of Ohio, a "Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization" chart was
shown that lumps groups like The Heritage Foundation, Fox News, the
National Rifle Association, the Make America Great Again movement, the pro-police
Blue Lives Matter movement and Republican National Committee together with
various pro-Nazi and terrorism groups.
U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, found the characterization disturbing.
“This chart is appalling!” she tweeted in response.
The MRC described its findings in a letter sent to U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio,
chairman of both the House Judiciary Committee and the newly established
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, of which
Hageman is a member.
The letter calls for an investigation and "criminal prosecution" while asking to
meet with Jordan to discuss the DHS documents.
Under former President Donald Trump’s administration, the “Targeted Violence &
Terrorism Prevention Grant Program” was used to target terrorism, but it was
expanded under the Biden administration and renamed to provide money at the
local level to combat “all forms of terrorism and targeted violence.”
https://hageman.house.gov/media/in-the-news/labeling-republicans-christian-conservative-groups-terrorists-appalling-hageman
Here are the media Research Center docs:
https://cdn.mrc.org/2023-05/DHSTVTPReport.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/AY4BFd1.jpeg)
-
Not exclusively Catholics ....
Labeling Republicans, Christian Conservative Groups
As Terrorists Is ‘Appalling,’ Hageman says
June 5, 2023
https://hageman.house.gov/media/in-the-news/labeling-republicans-christian-conservative-groups-terrorists-appalling-hageman
Here are the media Research Center docs:
https://cdn.mrc.org/2023-05/DHSTVTPReport.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/AY4BFd1.jpeg)
Exactly right!
To complete the circle, below is a post from 4/25/25, showing that red flag laws were an explicit weapon to be used against citizens so identified as extremists in Biden’s (the Party’s) covert Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.
There is absolutely NO DEBATE as to the genesis and intent of so called red flag laws. They are exactly what they appear to be: Yet another example of the endless weaponization of government by these monsters.
************************************************
About a week ago DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified Biden’s (the Party’s) Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism, link is below. BTW, the Party defines YOU as a domestic terrorist. On page 14 you will find these words:
o (Ut/L 5 C 5) Action 4.1.la: Rein in the proliferation of"ghost guns"; encourage state
adoption of extreme risk protection orders; and drive other executive and legislative
action. including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. (Lead:
DPC)
************************************************
P.S. In today's world, you have a choice: Your either become Snake Plissken, or worm food. War is being waged against the citizens of this country - for a very long time now.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.looper.com%2Fimg%2Fgallery%2Fthe-real-reason-kurt-russell-will-likely-never-play-snake-plissken-again%2Fl-intro-1702765671.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=246041bb04bda49f117ea576b6b61beb677c77766255ed8594c616e4e83f5d2f)
-
It's only impossible because reality dictates that it is impossible. it's not my bar. The laws are sold to us as ways to make us safer. They do not.
You keep tryhing to focus exclusively on suicides. Fewer "successful suicides" does not make the public safer. Suicides by definition have one victim ... the perpetrator. If my neighbor kills himself, how is that making me less safe? Unless he uses explosives near others or a mass shooting followed by suicide (just examples), he's causing no violence to others.
I don't know how many ways to explain it to you. it's not government's job to protect people FROM THEMSELVES. If it was, Prohibition would not have been repealed and sugary sodas would require quantity limits and age restrictions.
The whole reason people are asking for red flag laws is because the people who are closest to the subject are not taking steps to make sure they are unable to cause violence under current law. We would not need new laws if government wan't viewed as the answer to every problem. It only takes the people whom red flag laws allow to petition for gun removal to actually take steps to solve the real problem -- what makes them unsafe to have guns?
it's another case of demanding government solve a problem that can only be solved by the people closest to the problem individual. Guns are NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is we need better laws for having people who appear mentally unhealthy detained for evaluation and treatment. I don't have anything more to add, since you can't seem to find anything of value in the 50 times I've said it. All you want to do is argue and play like there's a solution if we only let government confiscate more guns before due process is applied.
DONE.
:closed:
"Laws do not make us safer"
That is demonstrably false in so many ways, even if you limit to only firearm related laws.
I didn't focus on suicides. You made a comment about suicide and I added a single point of data that related to your comment. I do not think suicides justify this type of law nor did I try to make a case that suicides justify this law. I pointed out lower rates of suicide are higher where firearm ownership is higher. (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?action=post;quote=505699;topic=57193.20) Some people may think this justifies a red flag system, other's don't (us), but this is just data on the subject. It is ok to concede that there is a data based argument for red flag laws and disagree that it justifies red flag laws.
"The whole reason people are asking for red flag laws is because the people who are closest to the subject are not taking steps to make sure they are unable to cause violence under current law"
The whole point of these types of red flag laws is to give those who are closest to the subject (family/friends) a tool to take those steps. Absent this type of law, what recourse do they have? If your father were suffering from serious age related dementia making him dangerous to possess a firearm, you could physically go into his room and take his firearms but you could not do so legally and if you did do so you could face criminal charges. You could call the cops but they aren't going to take your father unless he is dangerous at that point in time.
Given that you have made many arguments questioning the constitutionality of red flag laws, how do you reconcile those concerns with the type of system you propose, like a red flag law which takes away your freedom instead of just your firearms?
-
"Laws do not make us safer"
That is demonstrably false in so many ways, even if you limit to only firearm related laws.
I didn't focus on suicides. You made a comment about suicide and I added a single point of data that related to your comment. I do not think suicides justify this type of law nor did I try to make a case that suicides justify this law. I pointed out lower rates of suicide are higher where firearm ownership is higher. (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?action=post;quote=505699;topic=57193.20) Some people may think this justifies a red flag system, other's don't (us), but this is just data on the subject. It is ok to concede that there is a data based argument for red flag laws and disagree that it justifies red flag laws.
"The whole reason people are asking for red flag laws is because the people who are closest to the subject are not taking steps to make sure they are unable to cause violence under current law"
The whole point of these types of red flag laws is to give those who are closest to the subject (family/friends) a tool to take those steps. Absent this type of law, what recourse do they have? If your father were suffering from serious age related dementia making him dangerous to possess a firearm, you could physically go into his room and take his firearms but you could not do so legally and if you did do so you could face criminal charges. You could call the cops but they aren't going to take your father unless he is dangerous at that point in time.
Given that you have made many arguments questioning the constitutionality of red flag laws, how do you reconcile those concerns with the type of system you propose, like a red flag law which takes away your freedom instead of just your firearms?
Please Google the definition for the word, "Done."
:closed:
-
there is data.....
-
These aren't crazy hypotheticals for the sake of some extreme argument here, they are real life examples and they aren't that rare either. Look at BJ Penn, he is in the system now because he actually harmed a family member, but I doubt he just woke up crazy one day, there would have been red flags.
Chances are significantly higher that your relative is suffering a dangerous delusion than he is being hunted by assassins. So what do you propose better than this type of red flag law?
Once again, you think my hpotheticals aren't good enough. Are you the Hypotethical Master?
What I propose is no red flag law and we've gone over the why. I do not have a solid solution, but taking someones rights away (gun, property, and due process) isn't the answer.
What I think we should do, is anyone having an episode like this, have a professional who is on call to evaluate on site. Then if the person is a danger, they can be detained. If the anti 2A lobby was serious about preventing gun harm, they could easily fund this. So could the city/state. But they aren't serious. They just want to disarm the people. And if it's an anger thing, then like Flapp said, they shouldn't be released. Expedite a hearing so the accused can answer for any threats made, like next day type. Again, nothing is perfect, but protecting someone's rights is.
-
Damn, I left on Friday and this thread was only 1 page. I come back after the weekend and it's 3 pages now. I assumed why and I assumed correctly. lol.
-
Just like frivolous lawsuits and a highly litigous society, red flag laws will just be a tit for tat nightmare.
We already have an uncontrollable infestation of karens multiplying like feral cats in our nation.
-
Just like frivolous lawsuits and a highly litigous society, red flag laws will just be a tit for tat nightmare.
We already have an uncontrollable infestation of karens multiplying like feral cats in our nation.
That's why I'm surprised that only 2 have been granted in the entire state.
I remember 1 in Oregon or somewhere that it was 1 of their first. A crossing guard was having coffee with a friend and they were talking about how the on property police officer would leave at the same time every morning to get his coffee. The crossing guard mentioned if anyone wanted to do an active shooting, it would be on the cops coffee break. A waitress overheard and he was red flagged and all his guns were taken away. I'm going by memory here.
One of WA's first red flags, a guy was inside his home while holstering. Through the his window, his neighbor said he looked at them funny. They have never spoken to him prior to that. He was red flagged and his guns taken away.
-
there is data.....
(https://i.imgur.com/wbCTRdv.jpeg)
-
That's why I'm surprised that only 2 have been granted in the entire state.
I remember 1 in Oregon or somewhere that it was 1 of their first. A crossing guard was having coffee with a friend and they were talking about how the on property police officer would leave at the same time every morning to get his coffee. The crossing guard mentioned if anyone wanted to do an active shooting, it would be on the cops coffee break. A waitress overheard and he was red flagged and all his guns were taken away. I'm going by memory here.
One of WA's first red flags, a guy was inside his home while holstering. Through the his window, his neighbor said he looked at them funny. They have never spoken to him prior to that. He was red flagged and his guns taken away.
The culture here for the most part is different from the mainland. It's the same reason very few people are reported for setting off illegal fireworks. Nobody wants to cause problems with family and friends, and the ones who are just neighbors don't want to risk retaliation.
The Xerox shooter was showing very obvious signs he was suffering a mental health decline. He was also making comments that showed he was thinking of doing something violent. Nobody reported his behavior, even though they worked with him. Red flag laws would not have stopped hime unless there is some magic section that can inform and motivate someone to file the petition. When Red Flag laws require that only certain professionals or close family members can file the petitions, coworkers, friends and neighbors must then report the behavior to police, etc. Unless the professional you notiffy sees the same behavior you reported, they are unlikely to take action. The mass shooter in CA had the cops called more than once, but he seemed perfectly fine to them in the brief time they interacted.
If red flag laws targeted behavior instead off guns, I'd be supportive assuming the criteria and process used is effective and constitutional.
-
Once again, you think my hpotheticals aren't good enough. Are you the Hypotethical Master?
What I propose is no red flag law and we've gone over the why. I do not have a solid solution, but taking someones rights away (gun, property, and due process) isn't the answer.
What I think we should do, is anyone having an episode like this, have a professional who is on call to evaluate on site. Then if the person is a danger, they can be detained. If the anti 2A lobby was serious about preventing gun harm, they could easily fund this. So could the city/state. But they aren't serious. They just want to disarm the people. And if it's an anger thing, then like Flapp said, they shouldn't be released. Expedite a hearing so the accused can answer for any threats made, like next day type. Again, nothing is perfect, but protecting someone's rights is.
You think there are a lot of clones out there replacing mothers so they can assassinate someone? Seems like a very low statistical probability, maybe I am wrong.
If you say that taking someone's rights, whether guns, property, etc. isn't the answer, does that include their freedom?
There have been pushes to increase the availability of mental health professionals working with police. Whether a ride along style or phone consultation there have been programs to try and do something like what you are suggesting. One weakness I see is that these systems often only have power when someone is immediately dangerous. So if cops met someone saying they wanted to jump off a building they can intervene, contact a mental health professional, and physically take them into custody. But if police get a call that the person tried to kill themselves last week all they can do is refer them to services. Of course this can be tweaked to a better system and unfortunately bureaucracy makes this a slow process but all the concerns of red flag laws being abused would still be at play. On the due process end, the problem with an expedited hearing is that often it takes many sit down sessions with a patient for a Dr. to diagnose someone. There are the basic questions such as "do you feel like hurting anyone" but to really understand what is going on in someone's head, like the guy in Waikiki with a bunch of firearms in his hotel room, the detention is going to take longer than a couple of days. I agree that hearings should be done as quick as possible but one or two days may not be realistic, if it lasts longer then it needs to be justifiable, just like how long a police officer can detain someone at a crime scene.
You say they are just trying to disarm people, I do not agree with that suspicion.
-
Just like frivolous lawsuits and a highly litigous society, red flag laws will just be a tit for tat nightmare.
We already have an uncontrollable infestation of karens multiplying like feral cats in our nation.
How is that different than any other crime reporting though? If you had a crazy karen neighbor she could say you hit her or killed her cat or whatever
-
How is that different than any other crime reporting though? If you had a crazy karen neighbor she could say you hit her or killed her cat or whatever
Karen's neighbor would not have her personal property seized before being afforded due process. Some people have tens of thousands of dollars invested in their gun collection. That's not something you want to see getting tossed in the back of a police van or pickup prior to having any hearing.
-
You think there are a lot of clones out there replacing mothers so they can assassinate someone? Seems like a very low statistical probability, maybe I am wrong.
If you say that taking someone's rights, whether guns, property, etc. isn't the answer, does that include their freedom?
There have been pushes to increase the availability of mental health professionals working with police. Whether a ride along style or phone consultation there have been programs to try and do something like what you are suggesting. One weakness I see is that these systems often only have power when someone is immediately dangerous. So if cops met someone saying they wanted to jump off a building they can intervene, contact a mental health professional, and physically take them into custody. But if police get a call that the person tried to kill themselves last week all they can do is refer them to services. Of course this can be tweaked to a better system and unfortunately bureaucracy makes this a slow process but all the concerns of red flag laws being abused would still be at play. On the due process end, the problem with an expedited hearing is that often it takes many sit down sessions with a patient for a Dr. to diagnose someone. There are the basic questions such as "do you feel like hurting anyone" but to really understand what is going on in someone's head, like the guy in Waikiki with a bunch of firearms in his hotel room, the detention is going to take longer than a couple of days. I agree that hearings should be done as quick as possible but one or two days may not be realistic, if it lasts longer then it needs to be justifiable, just like how long a police officer can detain someone at a crime scene.
You say they are just trying to disarm people, I do not agree with that suspicion.
So you admit it's possible since you stated "very low statistical". Thanks for confirming my hypothetical could happen.
Precedent has already been set for generations about "taking someones freedom" aka detained. Red flag is new and needs to be addressed now before it gets worst.
I know you don't agree with me as you have supported red flag law and still failed to show one that's constitutional. You even went as far as to post our red flag law, but left out the unconstitutional part. Is this thread going to re-vamp this topic?
-
So you admit it's possible since you stated "very low statistical". Thanks for confirming my hypothetical could happen.
Precedent has already been set for generations about "taking someones freedom" aka detained. Red flag is new and needs to be addressed now before it gets worst.
I know you don't agree with me as you have supported red flag law and still failed to show one that's constitutional. You even went as far as to post our red flag law, but left out the unconstitutional part. Is this thread going to re-vamp this topic?
Re-vamp?
More like regurgitate! :shake:
-
Ya know, after reading all these
"but what about this,
but what about that
- without making such an infringement on someone's rights based on suspicions and allegations made by, well, whoever
- how can we rob someone of their rights over something they haven't actually done?"
kinds of arguments,
I have to admit I am finally swayed to strongly favor red flag laws.
Yes, I think that given toll in death and suffering in the tens millions (7 - 9 million under Stalin, Mao 20 - 45 million, Pol Pot 1.5 - 2 million (piker)) over the last century, that anyone espousing / advocating Marxist, Socialist, Communist ideas, or against the tradition individual human rights as has evolved in Western Civilization over the last 300 years or so, is an inherent and urgent public safety risk to our society, and should be aggressively targeted by Extreme Risk Protection Orders, i.e. red flag laws.
Certainly begin with confiscation of firearms, good lord!
Then we can perhaps create a federal registry of such mentally unbalanced and societally toxic individuals, purely for demographic / informational purposes, of course.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
-
Karen's neighbor would not have her personal property seized before being afforded due process. Some people have tens of thousands of dollars invested in their gun collection. That's not something you want to see getting tossed in the back of a police van or pickup prior to having any hearing.
I guess you don't know the definition of done.
If a Karen made a false claim of assault you are right your property would not be seized before due process, but you would be when you were arrested for assault. BTW if she claimed you assaulted her with an object, that object could be seized as evidence. Taking property is a lower level of infringement than taking a person.
Surely you recognize the down side of taking guns only after hearings. If I am planning on doing a mass shooting, for example, and I hear I have to go to court because they want to take my guns do you think my plans will get thwarted or do you think I will just move up my plans?
-
So you admit it's possible since you stated "very low statistical". Thanks for confirming my hypothetical could happen.
Precedent has already been set for generations about "taking someones freedom" aka detained. Red flag is new and needs to be addressed now before it gets worst.
I know you don't agree with me as you have supported red flag law and still failed to show one that's constitutional. You even went as far as to post our red flag law, but left out the unconstitutional part. Is this thread going to re-vamp this topic?
I never said your hypotheticals were impossible.
So you want red flag laws to go to court so case precedent can be set? I agree with that, there is some precedence already on red flag type laws BTW. Of course for the law to get tested in court usually requires someone be charged/inconvenienced with the law for that to happen.
I have supported the concept of red flag laws, I take issue with certain bits of some red flag laws. The devil is in the details because the specifics of how the laws take effect, how the due process plays out, etc. are what matters. I posted criticism of Hawaii's red flag laws, things I would change, but my argument that Hawaii's law should have a little more protection does not equate to unconstitutional. Your had a different opinion, and that is fine, I didn't attack you personally for it. If you wish to "re-vamp" the constitutionality question you are free to do so (I can't stop you) but I am not going to bring it back up.
-
I guess you don't know the definition of done.
If a Karen made a false claim of assault you are right your property would not be seized before due process, but you would be when you were arrested for assault. BTW if she claimed you assaulted her with an object, that object could be seized as evidence. Taking property is a lower level of infringement than taking a person.
Surely you recognize the down side of taking guns only after hearings. If I am planning on doing a mass shooting, for example, and I hear I have to go to court because they want to take my guns do you think my plans will get thwarted or do you think I will just move up my plans?
Maybe you don't know the meaning of probable cause.
In your fantasy example, Karen made a complaint as a WITNESS and VICTIM of a CRIME (assault), giving the police probable cause to investigate and detain/arrest.
With red flag laws, there is no crime alleged, so there are no witnesses or other evidence to establish probable cause. it's based on someone's feeling that the person might commit a crime in the future.
I thought they taught probable cause to cops? i guess not.
-
Maybe you don't know the meaning of probable cause.
In your fantasy example, Karen made a complaint as a WITNESS and VICTIM of a CRIME (assault), giving the police probable cause to investigate and detain/arrest.
With red flag laws, there is no crime alleged, so there are no witnesses or other evidence to establish probable cause. it's based on someone's feeling that the person might commit a crime in the future.
I thought they taught probable cause to cops? i guess not.
That there is a clean kill bro.
-
Ya know, after reading all these
"but what about this,
but what about that
- without making such an infringement on someone's rights based on suspicions and allegations made by, well, whoever
- how can we rob someone of their rights over something they haven't actually done?"
kinds of arguments,
I have to admit I am finally swayed to strongly favor red flag laws.
Yes, I think that given toll in death and suffering in the tens millions (7 - 9 million under Stalin, Mao 20 - 45 million, Pol Pot 1.5 - 2 million (piker)) over the last century, that anyone espousing / advocating Marxist, Socialist, Communist ideas, or against the tradition individual human rights as has evolved in Western Civilization over the last 300 years or so, is an inherent and urgent public safety risk to our society, and should be aggressively targeted by Extreme Risk Protection Orders, i.e. red flag laws.
Certainly begin with confiscation of firearms, good lord!
Then we can perhaps create a federal registry of such mentally unbalanced and societally toxic individuals, purely for demographic / informational purposes, of course.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
You seem to view the opposition (people who want lots of gun control) as all having malicious motives and that colors the way you view every bill they come up with. I don't think they have such malicious motives, in my experience watching and listening to them I see that they (generally speaking) want to reduce gun violence and they place a lower level of importance on private ownership than we do. It isn't a disarm so they can rule over people, more like a belief that a lesser armed public is safer. We disagree with their conclusions but it doesn't mean they have malicious intent.
The problem I see when it comes to things like the red flag laws is that the pro gun side is very quick to point out all the ways they feel red flag laws violate their rights. They are often correct in their arguments but there is a distinct lack of arguments, suggestions, ideas of how to solve the problem that the anti-gun people want to solve. Flapp, to his credit, has an idea for a different system but I never see politicians or gun rights groups lobbying for such systems. I hear "better mental health care" mentioned sometimes but that is so vague it is more like lip service. I don't think we can sit back and just shoot down every idea because we not only don't do anything to solve the problem but we also can be made to look bad for not doing anything. Make no mistake, publicity is not a part of the battle we should ignore.
I would put gun control ideas into 1 of 4 camps.
1. No gun control on person or type of gun.
2. Control of who can have gun
3. Control of what guns people can have
4. Control all guns for everyone as much as possible
I argue that 1 and 4 are both bad ideas, are unrealistic, and should be avoided. This leaves me with either focusing on what guns can be legal or what people can have guns. I think it is obvious that even fully automatic suppressed weapons are of little danger in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens. However in the hands of a crazy person or criminal even slower shooting, lower capacity firearms can cause great damage. This is why I reject most laws on gun types and accessories but I look seriously at restricting when certain people who have shown themselves to be dangerous are allowed to own firearms. There is also a legal argument to be made here because that approach doesn't deny a whole population of people arms, it denies specific individuals on a case by case basis.
-
somewhere there is data....
-
"better mental health care" = a process to funnel.money to friends, family, connected businesses, non profits for "awareness" , useless public info campaigns....
-
You seem to view the opposition (people who want lots of gun control) as all having malicious motives and that colors the way you view every bill they come up with. I don't think they have such malicious motives, in my experience watching and listening to them I see that they (generally speaking) want to reduce gun violence and they place a lower level of importance on private ownership than we do. It isn't a disarm so they can rule over people, more like a belief that a lesser armed public is safer. We disagree with their conclusions but it doesn't mean they have malicious intent.
The problem I see when it comes to things like the red flag laws is that the pro gun side is very quick to point out all the ways they feel red flag laws violate their rights. They are often correct in their arguments but there is a distinct lack of arguments, suggestions, ideas of how to solve the problem that the anti-gun people want to solve. Flapp, to his credit, has an idea for a different system but I never see politicians or gun rights groups lobbying for such systems. I hear "better mental health care" mentioned sometimes but that is so vague it is more like lip service. I don't think we can sit back and just shoot down every idea because we not only don't do anything to solve the problem but we also can be made to look bad for not doing anything. Make no mistake, publicity is not a part of the battle we should ignore.
I would put gun control ideas into 1 of 4 camps.
1. No gun control on person or type of gun.
2. Control of who can have gun
3. Control of what guns people can have
4. Control all guns for everyone as much as possible
I argue that 1 and 4 are both bad ideas, are unrealistic, and should be avoided. This leaves me with either focusing on what guns can be legal or what people can have guns. I think it is obvious that even fully automatic suppressed weapons are of little danger in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens. However in the hands of a crazy person or criminal even slower shooting, lower capacity firearms can cause great damage. This is why I reject most laws on gun types and accessories but I look seriously at restricting when certain people who have shown themselves to be dangerous are allowed to own firearms. There is also a legal argument to be made here because that approach doesn't deny a whole population of people arms, it denies specific individuals on a case by case basis.
"We"?
As you can see most dont agree with your anti 2a gun control opinions.
-
Maybe you don't know the meaning of probable cause.
In your fantasy example, Karen made a complaint as a WITNESS and VICTIM of a CRIME (assault), giving the police probable cause to investigate and detain/arrest.
With red flag laws, there is no crime alleged, so there are no witnesses or other evidence to establish probable cause. it's based on someone's feeling that the person might commit a crime in the future.
I thought they taught probable cause to cops? i guess not.
Absent some immediately available video evidence or witness to disprove said Karen's claim, there would be sufficient probable cause to arrest you. So it might play out like this, she calls 911, says you hit her in the head causing pain. Injury or redness isn't visible due to her hair. Cop looks around for video cameras or witnesses but can't find any. The initial claim itself is enough to detain you. The investigation and her statement is enough to arrest you.
FYI the probable cause test is primarily having to do with criminal cases, not civil cases. Might want to educate yourself a little better before suggesting you know something better, just a friendly suggestion.
With red flag laws a crime does not have to be alleged because it is a civil case. A criminal act can be part of the reason a red flag order is sought though (just like a TRO). A red flag petition can certainly include the name of witnesses and any other documents or evidence to support a claim. A petitioner can attach text messages, they could submit surveillance video, names or testimony of other witnesses. The form is 5 pages and there is ample space for the petitioner to explain why they are asking for a petition. It isn't the case that someone just says to the judge "Flapp looks dangerous" and they come take your guns away.
Link to the form
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1FP2091.pdf
-
"better mental health care" = a process to funnel.money to friends, family, connected businesses, non profits for "awareness" , useless public info campaigns....
Hence my referring to it as vague :thumbsup:
-
You seem to view the opposition (people who want lots of gun control) as all having malicious motives and that colors the way you view every bill they come up with. I don't think they have such malicious motives, in my experience watching and listening to them I see that they (generally speaking) want to reduce gun violence and they place a lower level of importance on private ownership than we do. It isn't a disarm so they can rule over people, more like a belief that a lesser armed public is safer. We disagree with their conclusions but it doesn't mean they have malicious intent.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
https://youtu.be/6IjPuNzOG_w
-
"We"?
As you can see most dont agree with your anti 2a gun control opinions.
Based on what dataset, a dozen or so of the most vocal people on a pro-gun website?
I am sure you can recognize that people on the same side of an issue can disagree amongst themselves to the extent of a particular aspect. Hence "we"
Besides, if we took a comprehensive poll of different aspects of the gun control debate I would clearly be on the pro-gun side.
-
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Perhaps you have heard the saying that any action is better than no action? It is commonly said in tactical firearm training. We going to have a quote war?
-
Ya know, after reading all these
"but what about this,
but what about that
- without making such an infringement on someone's rights based on suspicions and allegations made by, well, whoever
- how can we rob someone of their rights over something they haven't actually done?"
kinds of arguments,
I have to admit I am finally swayed to strongly favor red flag laws.
Yes, I think that given toll in death and suffering in the tens millions (7 - 9 million under Stalin, Mao 20 - 45 million, Pol Pot 1.5 - 2 million (piker)) over the last century, that anyone espousing / advocating Marxist, Socialist, Communist ideas, or against the tradition individual human rights as has evolved in Western Civilization over the last 300 years or so, is an inherent and urgent public safety risk to our society, and should be aggressively targeted by Extreme Risk Protection Orders, i.e. red flag laws.
Certainly begin with confiscation of firearms, good lord!
Then we can perhaps create a federal registry of such mentally unbalanced and societally toxic individuals, purely for demographic / informational purposes, of course.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
Many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1A. The reasoning basically is beacuse what's hate speech to 1, may not be to another.
So in your example of communist thoughts, I don't think just because they are dumb and support this, should they have their 2a right taken away. Same concept as hate speech reasoning.
You are free to support red flag law, but why I bring it up to EEF is because when it was passing he stated "it could be constitutional". Then when I asked for proof, he cherry picked and posted our red flag law and left out the part that makes it unconstitutional (no due process). He then questioned me when I stated that there are no constitutional ones and asked me if I had read every one that has passed into law for other states. I said I have. IIRC there were like 4 that passed at this time.
He still fails all this time later to back up his statement and not refusing to admit that he is wrong. As you can see, this is the way he operates. Had he just stated "i support red flag laws" then there would be little conversation after it. But stating that they "can be constitutional" and then failing time and time again to prove that statement is why it keeps coming up.
-
Absent some immediately available video evidence or witness to disprove said Karen's claim, there would be sufficient probable cause to arrest you. So it might play out like this, she calls 911, says you hit her in the head causing pain. Injury or redness isn't visible due to her hair. Cop looks around for video cameras or witnesses but can't find any. The initial claim itself is enough to detain you. The investigation and her statement is enough to arrest you.
FYI the probable cause test is primarily having to do with criminal cases, not civil cases. Might want to educate yourself a little better before suggesting you know something better, just a friendly suggestion.
With red flag laws a crime does not have to be alleged because it is a civil case. A criminal act can be part of the reason a red flag order is sought though (just like a TRO). A red flag petition can certainly include the name of witnesses and any other documents or evidence to support a claim. A petitioner can attach text messages, they could submit surveillance video, names or testimony of other witnesses. The form is 5 pages and there is ample space for the petitioner to explain why they are asking for a petition. It isn't the case that someone just says to the judge "Flapp looks dangerous" and they come take your guns away.
Link to the form
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1FP2091.pdf
Show me in the Constitution where individual rights only apply to criminal law. When the plaintiff/complainant is the government, as is the case in red flag laws, constitutional protections ought to still apply. Otherwise, what's to stop the government from enacting all manner of unconstitutional laws under the guise of "civil law?"
When the government (cops) seize your property without probable cause, they are violating the constitution. Doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. Carving out a legalistic label to avoid the constitution is just a bureaucratic form of tyranny.
-
I never said your hypotheticals were impossible.
So you want red flag laws to go to court so case precedent can be set? I agree with that, there is some precedence already on red flag type laws BTW. Of course for the law to get tested in court usually requires someone be charged/inconvenienced with the law for that to happen.
I have supported the concept of red flag laws, I take issue with certain bits of some red flag laws. The devil is in the details because the specifics of how the laws take effect, how the due process plays out, etc. are what matters. I posted criticism of Hawaii's red flag laws, things I would change, but my argument that Hawaii's law should have a little more protection does not equate to unconstitutional. Your had a different opinion, and that is fine, I didn't attack you personally for it. If you wish to "re-vamp" the constitutionality question you are free to do so (I can't stop you) but I am not going to bring it back up.
Please show me where I stated that you stated my hypotheticals are impossible in this thread. Are you starting to imagine things again?
Yes, red flag laws need to be challenged and make it's way to SCOTUS. Many anti 2a laws are challenged because someone was charged/inconvenienced. Do you want me to provide examples?
Your red flag statement above, are you imaging more things again? That would be twice in 1 reply. We went over this, you stated they "can be constitutional" and I asked you to prove it. You then posted HI's red flag one and left the due process area. Meaning you thought HI's one is constitutional and still do by your " Hawaii's law should have a little more protection does not equate to unconstitutional. " statement.
Thanks for playing again.
-
The problem I see when it comes to things like the red flag laws is that the pro gun side is very quick to point out all the ways they feel red flag laws violate their rights. They are often correct in their arguments but there is a distinct lack of arguments, suggestions, ideas of how to solve the problem that the anti-gun people want to solve. Flapp, to his credit, has an idea for a different system but I never see politicians or gun rights groups lobbying for such systems. I hear "better mental health care" mentioned sometimes but that is so vague it is more like lip service. I don't think we can sit back and just shoot down every idea because we not only don't do anything to solve the problem but we also can be made to look bad for not doing anything. Make no mistake, publicity is not a part of the battle we should ignore.
I would put gun control ideas into 1 of 4 camps.
1. No gun control on person or type of gun.
2. Control of who can have gun
3. Control of what guns people can have
4. Control all guns for everyone as much as possible
I argue that 1 and 4 are both bad ideas, are unrealistic, and should be avoided. This leaves me with either focusing on what guns can be legal or what people can have guns. I think it is obvious that even fully automatic suppressed weapons are of little danger in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens. However in the hands of a crazy person or criminal even slower shooting, lower capacity firearms can cause great damage. This is why I reject most laws on gun types and accessories but I look seriously at restricting when certain people who have shown themselves to be dangerous are allowed to own firearms. There is also a legal argument to be made here because that approach doesn't deny a whole population of people arms, it denies specific individuals on a case by case basis.
You are under the impression that it's pro 2a peoples jobs to find ways to make anti 2a laws constitutional. That's not how it works. Pro 2a people generally want no red flag law. We have stated over and over again that keeping criminals behind bars via no early release is 1 way to help reduce crime/gun crimes. Not disarming the people with gun free zones/sensitive places, etc...
Those who want to take guns away ignore the simple solution. Keep criminals behind bars. Which means spend money on prisons instead of other things first. This is 1 part.
-
Many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1A. The reasoning basically is beacuse what's hate speech to 1, may not be to another.
So in your example of communist thoughts, I don't think just because they are dumb and support this, should they have their 2a right taken away. Same concept as hate speech reasoning.
You are free to support red flag law, but why I bring it up to EEF is because when it was passing he stated "it could be constitutional". Then when I asked for proof, he cherry picked and posted our red flag law and left out the part that makes it unconstitutional (no due process). He then questioned me when I stated that there are no constitutional ones and asked me if I had read every one that has passed into law for other states. I said I have. IIRC there were like 4 that passed at this time.
He still fails all this time later to back up his statement and not refusing to admit that he is wrong. As you can see, this is the way he operates. Had he just stated "i support red flag laws" then there would be little conversation after it. But stating that they "can be constitutional" and then failing time and time again to prove that statement is why it keeps coming up.
So you do want to bring it back up. If you want to tell him the background that is fine but do it accurately.
When I mentioned Hawaii's red flag law you pointed to things you felt were unconstitutional. I did not ignore these things, in fact I pointed out that I think it could be improved upon. I did not ignore your claim that there was no due process, I just disagreed. You said there was no due process, I pointed out the due process and you claimed, basically, that it didn't count. I did not "admit I was wrong" because it you asserted an opinion I disagreed with, not a statement of fact.
You also repeatedly tried to rebut my argument that a red flag law concept could be constitutional by asking me to point out one which is a red herring. Even if we agreed that a constitutional one did not exist, that wouldn't disprove the assertion that one could exist. If I said you could put dog tongue on a pizza, the lack of anyone having done it before wouldn't negate that it could be done. You repeatedly posted that argument as if it were some big trophy but it is a flawed argument from the beginning.
-
Absent some immediately available video evidence or witness to disprove said Karen's claim, there would be sufficient probable cause to arrest you. So it might play out like this, she calls 911, says you hit her in the head causing pain. Injury or redness isn't visible due to her hair. Cop looks around for video cameras or witnesses but can't find any. The initial claim itself is enough to detain you. The investigation and her statement is enough to arrest you.
FYI the probable cause test is primarily having to do with criminal cases, not civil cases. Might want to educate yourself a little better before suggesting you know something better, just a friendly suggestion.
With red flag laws a crime does not have to be alleged because it is a civil case. A criminal act can be part of the reason a red flag order is sought though (just like a TRO). A red flag petition can certainly include the name of witnesses and any other documents or evidence to support a claim. A petitioner can attach text messages, they could submit surveillance video, names or testimony of other witnesses. The form is 5 pages and there is ample space for the petitioner to explain why they are asking for a petition. It isn't the case that someone just says to the judge "Flapp looks dangerous" and they come take your guns away.
Link to the form
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1FP2091.pdf
They have a saying "it's better to let the guilty go free than to incarcerate an innocent person".
Your example speaks for itself. Lack of evidence says it all. The reason is irrelevant.
I hope you don't arrest people based on someone's word and a lack of evidence. Good way to get sued and cost tax payers dollars and to cause distrust of the police.
We have seen another state issue a red flag based on "flapp looks dangerous". The homeowner was inside his home holstering his gun and his neighbor saw him thru the homeowners window and said "he looked at them funny". Then red flag was implemented and guns taken away. IIRC this was in WA or OR. I posted about this in the red flag thread a while ago and the specifics.
-
Show me in the Constitution where individual rights only apply to criminal law.
I didn't say they only apply to criminal law. You brought up probable cause and made it a big part of your argument, I just pointed out that probable cause has to do with criminal law, not civil law.
When the plaintiff/complainant is the government, as is the case in red flag laws, constitutional protections ought to still apply. Otherwise, what's to stop the government from enacting all manner of unconstitutional laws under the guise of "civil law?"
I agree.
When the government (cops) seize your property without probable cause, they are violating the constitution. Doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. Carving out a legalistic label to avoid the constitution is just a bureaucratic form of tyranny.
Not true, as I pointed out, probable cause is a test for criminal cases, not civil cases. Civil cases generally involve "preponderance of the evidence." (There may be some exceptions but I find this standard mentioned in a variety of civil cases as the standard).
-
So you do want to bring it back up. If you want to tell him the background that is fine but do it accurately.
When I mentioned Hawaii's red flag law you pointed to things you felt were unconstitutional. I did not ignore these things, in fact I pointed out that I think it could be improved upon. I did not ignore your claim that there was no due process, I just disagreed. You said there was no due process, I pointed out the due process and you claimed, basically, that it didn't count. I did not "admit I was wrong" because it you asserted an opinion I disagreed with, not a statement of fact.
You also repeatedly tried to rebut my argument that a red flag law concept could be constitutional by asking me to point out one which is a red herring. Even if we agreed that a constitutional one did not exist, that wouldn't disprove the assertion that one could exist. If I said you could put dog tongue on a pizza, the lack of anyone having done it before wouldn't negate that it could be done. You repeatedly posted that argument as if it were some big trophy but it is a flawed argument from the beginning.
Lets elaborate more. You think just because 1 side gets to go to court, that's "some due process" (your words) and it's good enough. The defendant has no idea he's being looked into until cops show up to take his guns away. Maybe you should read more on what due process is.
Thanks for proving i'm right again about "You also repeatedly tried to rebut my argument that a red flag law concept could be constitutional by asking me to point out one which is a red herring.". Which means you still can't find one.
Why are you now imagining a big trophy? Did you not receive any trophy's as a child?
What another bad example about dog tongue and pizza. Keep trying, but I hope you take a rest cause you seem to be imagining things again.
-
Please show me where I stated that you stated my hypotheticals are impossible in this thread. Are you starting to imagine things again?
Yes, red flag laws need to be challenged and make it's way to SCOTUS. Many anti 2a laws are challenged because someone was charged/inconvenienced. Do you want me to provide examples?
Your red flag statement above, are you imaging more things again? That would be twice in 1 reply. We went over this, you stated they "can be constitutional" and I asked you to prove it. You then posted HI's red flag one and left the due process area. Meaning you thought HI's one is constitutional and still do by your " Hawaii's law should have a little more protection does not equate to unconstitutional. " statement.
Thanks for playing again.
You asked me to admit it was possible which implies I had suggested it was impossible, otherwise your question wouldn't make much since. Hence I pointed out I never said it was impossible.
So we are in agreement, red flag laws should be tested in the courts :thumbsup: Just for context, other restraining orders involving firearms have gone to court and were upheld. In the Rahimi case the court held 8-1 that the restraining order preventing the respondent from having a firearm was legal. Not an exact match to red flag laws but along similar lines enough to be relevant.
Hawaii's red flag law has due process. You can keep giving your opinion claiming otherwise if you want, but your opinion is hardly evidence of me being wrong and refusing to admit it. Glad we could clear that up :thumbsup:
-
Please show me where I stated that you stated my hypotheticals are impossible in this thread. Are you starting to imagine things again?
Yes, red flag laws need to be challenged and make it's way to SCOTUS. Many anti 2a laws are challenged because someone was charged/inconvenienced. Do you want me to provide examples?
Your red flag statement above, are you imaging more things again? That would be twice in 1 reply. We went over this, you stated they "can be constitutional" and I asked you to prove it. You then posted HI's red flag one and left the due process area. Meaning you thought HI's one is constitutional and still do by your " Hawaii's law should have a little more protection does not equate to unconstitutional. " statement.
Thanks for playing again.
He's digging his own hole deeper and deeper.
He argued that HI red flag laws might need more attention to "due process."
Then he argues with me that probable cause is only allowed for criminal cases, whereas red flag laws are civil.
The Bill of Rights primarily applies to criminal cases and does not guarantee the right
to a jury trial in civil cases brought by the government. However, some protections,
like due process, do apply to civil cases under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Right to Due Process of Law
This right has not formally been incorporated, with the Court reasoning that the Fourteenth
Amendment already protects due process of law against state violation.
It first defended the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting due process of law at the
state level in Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, at 45 (1894).[33]
The 14th A requires Due Process.
When it was adopted, the Clause was understood to mean that the government
could deprive a person of rights only according to law applied by a court. Yet since
then, the Supreme Court has elaborated significantly on this core understanding.
As the examples above suggest, the rights protected under the Fourteenth
Amendment can be understood in three categories: (1) “procedural due process;”
(2) the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, “incorporated” against the states;
and (3) “substantive due process.”
“Procedural due process” concerns the procedures that the government
must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The key
questions are: What procedures satisfy due process? And what constitutes “life,
liberty, or property”?
Historically, due process ordinarily entailed a jury trial. The jury determined the
facts and the judge enforced the law. In past two centuries, however, states have
developed a variety of institutions and procedures for adjudicating disputes.
Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process
requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an
impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950).
With regard to the meaning of “life, liberty, and property,” perhaps the most notable
development is the Court’s expansion of the notion of property beyond real or
personal property. In the 1970 case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the Court found that some
governmental benefits—in that case, welfare benefits—amount to “property” with
due process protections. Courts evaluate the procedure for depriving
someone of a “new property” right by considering: (1) the nature of the property
right; (2) the adequacy of the procedure compared to other procedures; and
(3) the burdens that other procedures would impose on the state. Mathews v.
Eldridge (1976).
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
In short: SCOTUS found in 1970 that the government cannot summarily deprive someone of property without affording them due process protections. Since states are the ones creating red flag laws, the 14th A incorporates individual rights against the state, which includes civil matters. Because the state is also 'government," which the bill of rights was written to protect us against.
Also:
Since then, the Court [SCOTUS] has held that the Due Process Clause
“incorporates” many—but not all—of the individual protections of the Bill
of Rights against the states. If a provision of the Bill of Rights is “incorporated”
against the states, this means that the state governments, as well as the
federal government, are required to abide by it. If a right is not “incorporated”
against the states, it applies only to the federal government.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
More to the point, it's correct that in a CIVIL trial brought by the state, the defendant can't demand a jury trial (an unincorporated right). However, in terms of due process, that right is incorporated in criminal and civil actions brought by the state.
Seems pretty well documented and straightforward to me. But then, I'm not trying to justify an unconstitutional overreach by Hawaii's legislature.
-
They have a saying "it's better to let the guilty go free than to incarcerate an innocent person".
Your example speaks for itself. Lack of evidence says it all. The reason is irrelevant.
I hope you don't arrest people based on someone's word and a lack of evidence. Good way to get sued and cost tax payers dollars and to cause distrust of the police.
We have seen another state issue a red flag based on "flapp looks dangerous". The homeowner was inside his home holstering his gun and his neighbor saw him thru the homeowners window and said "he looked at them funny". Then red flag was implemented and guns taken away. IIRC this was in WA or OR. I posted about this in the red flag thread a while ago and the specifics.
A statement by a witness or a victim is a piece of evidence FYI.
People get arrested all the time based on someone's word, how do you think police operate? At a domestic violence case one partner hits the other, not witnesses, no visible injuries, yet someone gets arrested based on a statement. If you were walking down a dark street and someone robbed you and the cops catch the suspect a few blocks away they will still arrest him based on your statement even if they don't find video of the incident or your wallet on his person. You are mistaken on what requirements need to be met to establish probable cause for an arrest.
As per your example, assuming it was an accurate summary of the whole case, this sounds like it was a bad case that the judge should toss out/refuse to sign the order. Hard to evaluate though without more specifics.
-
You asked me to admit it was possible which implies I had suggested it was impossible, otherwise your question wouldn't make much since. Hence I pointed out I never said it was impossible.
So we are in agreement, red flag laws should be tested in the courts :thumbsup: Just for context, other restraining orders involving firearms have gone to court and were upheld. In the Rahimi case the court held 8-1 that the restraining order preventing the respondent from having a firearm was legal. Not an exact match to red flag laws but along similar lines enough to be relevant.
Hawaii's red flag law has due process. You can keep giving your opinion claiming otherwise if you want, but your opinion is hardly evidence of me being wrong and refusing to admit it. Glad we could clear that up :thumbsup:
Wow, even more imagination about "possible".
Since red flag laws are already on the books and HI won't delete it, the only course left is for the courts to test it. Why do you continue to bring things up that aren't relevant. No one here is talking about a restraining order. The topic at hand is red flag law. BRB, mag laws are unconstitutional too. I just felt like bringing that up.
Just because you keep repeating "HI red fla law ahs due process" doesn't make it true Jean.
-
I didn't say they only apply to criminal law. You brought up probable cause and made it a big part of your argument, I just pointed out that probable cause has to do with criminal law, not civil law.
-- and you would be wrong when the state is the filing party.
(1) the right applies to both civil and criminal cases brought about by government. you even stated "I didn't say they only apply to criminal law" telling me you concede this point;
(2) certain constitutional rights are incorporated with the states, and among them is due process. Due process requires that the government obtain a warrant before depriving you of property. The warrant requires a crime or civil complaint alleging some unlawful act -- such as you cashing Social Security checks made out to your dead grandmother. They can't stop payment without criminal charges or a civil lawsuit. All of this is contained within the concept of due process.
When you go to civil court, is it your belief the judge makes up how they will rule based 100% on the testimony and evidence? Or do they have civil law books that prescribe what's legal and what is not? Because, if there's a civil law that says the state can take your guns without a warrant, allegation of criminal conduct, etc., then it's unconstitutional.
I agree.
Not true, as I pointed out, probable cause is a test for criminal cases, not civil cases. Civil cases generally involve "preponderance of the evidence." (There may be some exceptions but I find this standard mentioned in a variety of civil cases as the standard).
-
There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.
What is this "data" you speak of?
-
A statement by a witness or a victim is a piece of evidence FYI.
Statement of WHAT? He said a bad word? He wore a MAGA hat in the seat next to me? What was the CRIME?
People get arrested all the time based on someone's word, how do you think police operate? At a domestic violence case one partner hits the other, not witnesses, no visible injuries, yet someone gets arrested based on a statement. If you were walking down a dark street and someone robbed you and the cops catch the suspect a few blocks away they will still arrest him based on your statement even if they don't find video of the incident or your wallet on his person. You are mistaken on what requirements need to be met to establish probable cause for an arrest.
As per your example, assuming it was an accurate summary of the whole case, this sounds like it was a bad case that the judge should toss out/refuse to sign the order. Hard to evaluate though without more specifics.
-
EEF:
Probable cause is a test for ANY case if the police (the state) is about to deprive you of life, liberty or property. It's in the US Constitution.
You already conceded the Bill of Rights doesn't apply only to criminal cases. Why are you reverting now?
And since the state is depriving you of property, the constitutional protections apply EVEN IN CIVIL CASES.
I can repeat fo you a few more times, but i can't understand it for you.
You're replying faster than you have time to read ALL of my comments. You're just arguing without taking time to comprehend what is being generously provided for you to incorporate into your thought process.
Until you start reading what others post more than posting the same rebutted arguments over and over, this will continue to be another shit show thread starring you as the main character.
-
A statement by a witness or a victim is a piece of evidence FYI.
People get arrested all the time based on someone's word, how do you think police operate? At a domestic violence case one partner hits the other, not witnesses, no visible injuries, yet someone gets arrested based on a statement. If you were walking down a dark street and someone robbed you and the cops catch the suspect a few blocks away they will still arrest him based on your statement even if they don't find video of the incident or your wallet on his person. You are mistaken on what requirements need to be met to establish probable cause for an arrest.
As per your example, assuming it was an accurate summary of the whole case, this sounds like it was a bad case that the judge should toss out/refuse to sign the order. Hard to evaluate though without more specifics.
Yes, I know that people get arrested based on a witness statement. HPD showed up to my friends house cause his baby mama said he hit her. Guess what...he was and has been in Vegas when the cop showed up and when the baby mama stated he hit her. His mom had to call him when she opened the door for the police looking for him. They left and he was never arrested or looked for again. He still lost custody of his child.
For your example, what if the person being arrested has evidence that he wasn't the robber? Would you still drive him to jail? Detaining someone is allowed if RAS has been met. My neighbors wife was robbed by a haole guy on a moped carrying an ukulele in a backpack. Guess what, they found someone who matches that down to having the ukulele. When they brought him to her, she said that wasn't the guy. He was then driven back to where he was picked up, about 1.5 miles away from the incident. So had the cops just arrested the guy and taken him to jail, then they would have an innocent man in jail. See, I can play this game too and provide real examples. BTW, the guy had an ukulele cause he just left a xmas party and was playing it.
This is why were trying to fight against red flag laws from passing.
-
5 pages. Welcome back EEF.
-
Yes, I know that people get arrested based on a witness statement. HPD showed up to my friends house cause his baby mama said he hit her. Guess what...he was and has been in Vegas when the cop showed up and when the baby mama stated he hit her. His mom had to call him when she opened the door for the police looking for him. They left and he was never arrested or looked for again. He still lost custody of his child.
For your example, what if the person being arrested has evidence that he wasn't the robber? Would you still drive him to jail? Detaining someone is allowed if RAS has been met. My neighbors wife was robbed by a haole guy on a moped carrying an ukulele in a backpack. Guess what, they found someone who matches that down to having the ukulele. When they brought him to her, she said that wasn't the guy. He was then driven back to where he was picked up, about 1.5 miles away from the incident. So had the cops just arrested the guy and taken him to jail, then they would have an innocent man in jail. See, I can play this game too and provide real examples. BTW, the guy had an ukulele cause he just left a xmas party and was playing it.
This is why were trying to fight against red flag laws from passing.
He's not going to care about what you or I post unless he can see a small opening to post the same untrue arguments he's been posting already.
There's nothing new. Just more "you're wrong no matter how many sources support you!" from EEF.
I don't think this pig wants to sing, and we've tried so hard to teach him!
-
He's not going to care about what you or I post unless he can see a small opening to post the same untrue arguments he's been posting already.
There's nothing new. Just more "you're wrong no matter how many sources support you!" from EEF.
I don't think this pig wants to sing, and we've tried so hard to teach him!
You're right. Lets see what funny stuff he replies with next.
-
5 pages. Welcome back EEF.
You are free to stop responding to me if you are concerned about the number of pages
-
You are free to stop responding to me if you are concerned about the number of pages
Right. Because 'number of pages" is what he's commenting on.
SWOOSH!!
-
Wow, even more imagination about "possible".
Since red flag laws are already on the books and HI won't delete it, the only course left is for the courts to test it. Why do you continue to bring things up that aren't relevant. No one here is talking about a restraining order. The topic at hand is red flag law. BRB, mag laws are unconstitutional too. I just felt like bringing that up.
Just because you keep repeating "HI red fla law ahs due process" doesn't make it true Jean.
So now you are going to pretend there were no implications? :crazy:
What does it matter? You wanted me to admit something I never claimed wasn't true, is that a win to you? I might as well ask you when you will admit most pizzas have cheese then act like I bested you somehow. Stop arguing just to argue, especially when there is an actual dispute that matters.
What did I bring up that was irrelevant? I agreed with you that the law needs to be tested in court but you seem to still be trying to find something to argue about in that agreement. Red flag laws and restraining orders are very similar by their very nature with many overlapping pro and con arguments thus it is a good parallel to look at.
You can keep repeating your opinion that Hawaii's red flag law doesn't have due process but it doesn't make it true.
-
Right. Because 'number of pages" is what he's commenting on.
SWOOSH!!
Guess you still didn't look up the definition of the word done did you?
-
Guess you still didn't look up the definition of the word done did you?
Apparently you want me to stop destroying your BS.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I'm not done until the last time i say I'm done!! :geekdanc: :rofl:
-
You are free to stop responding to me if you are concerned about the number of pages
Once again you're WRONG. Do you like to feel this way?
-
So now you are going to pretend there were no implications? :crazy:
What does it matter? You wanted me to admit something I never claimed wasn't true, is that a win to you? I might as well ask you when you will admit most pizzas have cheese then act like I bested you somehow. Stop arguing just to argue, especially when there is an actual dispute that matters.
What did I bring up that was irrelevant? I agreed with you that the law needs to be tested in court but you seem to still be trying to find something to argue about in that agreement. Red flag laws and restraining orders are very similar by their very nature with many overlapping pro and con arguments thus it is a good parallel to look at.
You can keep repeating your opinion that Hawaii's red flag law doesn't have due process but it doesn't make it true.
I wanted you to prove that there is a constitutional red flag law out there, which you have failed to do. It isn't hard to admit that there are none.
I do admit that most pizza's do have cheese. See how easy that is. And once again, another poor example. "Stop arguing just to aruge, esp when there is an actual dispute that matters". Are you implying that the dispute with red flag matters cause it is unconstitutional? Because if it were constitutional that you claim, then it doesn't matter right? Wow, you even show yourself to be wrong. This is awesome.
Once again, you don't comprehend well. The "irrelevance" is with regard to you bringing up a restraining order in this thread as we're talking about red flag. See how hard to keep focus when you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole? Haven't you been taught that it's hard to remember a lie?
Thanks for playing Jean.
-
Apparently you want me to stop destroying your BS.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I'm not done until the last time i say I'm done!! :geekdanc: :rofl:
This is what people who don't rely on facts do. They hope that factual people stop replying and the other person thinks their BS is correct cause it stopped being corrected.
-
This is what people who don't rely on facts do. They hope that factual people stop replying and the other person thinks their BS is correct cause it stopped being corrected.
It's almost impossible to convince someone who's wrong that they are wrong.
Even when proven to be wrong, they still try to find some shred of truth in what they argued just to not be 100% wrong.
My wife's grandmother and wife's father went 'round and 'round all the time over the silliest arguments. After arguing for an hour over something she thought she read, he went to their encyclopedias and showed her where he was right.
"Well," she said, "that book is wrong, too!"
You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
-
Many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1A. The reasoning basically is beacuse what's hate speech to 1, may not be to another.
So in your example of communist thoughts, I don't think just because they are dumb and support this, should they have their 2a right taken away. Same concept as hate speech reasoning.
You are free to support red flag law, but why I bring it up to EEF is because when it was passing he stated "it could be constitutional". Then when I asked for proof, he cherry picked and posted our red flag law and left out the part that makes it unconstitutional (no due process). He then questioned me when I stated that there are no constitutional ones and asked me if I had read every one that has passed into law for other states. I said I have. IIRC there were like 4 that passed at this time.
He still fails all this time later to back up his statement and not refusing to admit that he is wrong. As you can see, this is the way he operates. Had he just stated "i support red flag laws" then there would be little conversation after it. But stating that they "can be constitutional" and then failing time and time again to prove that statement is why it keeps coming up.
Um, I think you didn't my intended meaning.
My "example" was a squared (i.e doubled) backhanded attack on authoritarianism.
But it's not your fault - I'm no Mark Twain for sure!!!
-
Um, I think you didn't my intended meaning.
My "example" was a squared (i.e doubled) backhanded attack on authoritarianism.
But it's not your fault - I'm no Mark Twain for sure!!!
Don't feel bad. Samuel Clemens is no Mark Twain anymore, either. :geekdanc:
-
Once again you're WRONG. Do you like to feel this way?
I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me? Is someone trying to assasinate you?
-
I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me? Is someone trying to assasinate you?
you sound angry.
are you okay?
-
EEF:
Probable cause is a test for ANY case if the police (the state) is about to deprive you of life, liberty or property. It's in the US Constitution.
You already conceded the Bill of Rights doesn't apply only to criminal cases. Why are you reverting now?
And since the state is depriving you of property, the constitutional protections apply EVEN IN CIVIL CASES.
I can repeat fo you a few more times, but i can't understand it for you.
You're replying faster than you have time to read ALL of my comments. You're just arguing without taking time to comprehend what is being generously provided for you to incorporate into your thought process.
Until you start reading what others post more than posting the same rebutted arguments over and over, this will continue to be another shit show thread starring you as the main character.
Preponderance of the evidence is a higher standard than probable cause, so by default if there is preponderance of the evidence in a case then there is more than enough for probably cause.
I am not denying that the 4th amendment mentions probable cause , only that probable cause is typically surrounding criminal cases. There is a dispute as to whether the 4th amendment applies to civil actions though and there is a mixture of court cases as to whether the 4th amendment applies to non-criminal searches.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/05-searches-and-inspections-in-noncriminal-cases.html
But lets go back to your bringing up probable cause in the first place, and lets, for the sake of argument, say that in fact probable cause was necessary to take someone's firearms under a red flag law.
The Hawaii red flag law specifically says:
"If the court finds probable cause to believe that the respondent poses an imminent danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent's self or another person by owning, purchasing, possessing, receiving, or having in the respondent's custody or control any firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue an ex parte gun violence protective order."
So what is the point of you bringing up probable cause anyway? The law says the judge must find probable cause to issue the order.
https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-10/chapter-134/section-134-64/
-
you sound angry.
are you okay?
I don't really get angry often. My response was playing on one of CMO's older posts
-
I wanted you to prove that there is a constitutional red flag law out there, which you have failed to do. It isn't hard to admit that there are none.
I do admit that most pizza's do have cheese. See how easy that is. And once again, another poor example. "Stop arguing just to aruge, esp when there is an actual dispute that matters". Are you implying that the dispute with red flag matters cause it is unconstitutional? Because if it were constitutional that you claim, then it doesn't matter right? Wow, you even show yourself to be wrong. This is awesome.
Once again, you don't comprehend well. The "irrelevance" is with regard to you bringing up a restraining order in this thread as we're talking about red flag. See how hard to keep focus when you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole? Haven't you been taught that it's hard to remember a lie?
Thanks for playing Jean.
Proving one exists is different than saying one can exist, that was the fallacy of your argument there.
Me getting you to admit pizzas have cheese is meaningless, that was my point... swoosh.
You argued that Hawaii's red flag law is unconstitutional because it lacks due process. I showed you the due process but you ignored it. Maybe blinded by bias, maybe not wanting to admit you were wrong. Either way it doesn't matter because you are determined to not recognize it as constitutional. It doesn't matter if I put it on a golden platter for you, you will just claim the same.
-
I don't really get angry often. My response was playing on one of CMO's older posts
You sound angry.
-
You sound angry.
Don't know what to tell you. You are mistaken.
-
Don't know what to tell you. You are mistaken.
you sure? just take a breath. Jesus loves you.
-
Don't feel bad. Samuel Clemens is no Mark Twain anymore, either. :geekdanc:
Nice
-
you sure? just take a breath. Jesus loves you.
Now that's good sportsmanship!
-
Um, I think you didn't my intended meaning.
My "example" was a squared (i.e doubled) backhanded attack on authoritarianism.
But it's not your fault - I'm no Mark Twain for sure!!!
I apologize that I didn't understand your intended meaning.
-
I am wrong? You are not free to stop responding? So someone is forcing you to reply to me? Is someone trying to assasinate you?
Yes you are and I posted why. I know I am free to respond or not respond. Why would you ask if someone is forcing me to reply to you? Why would you ask if someone is trying to assassinate me?
You aren't doing to well buddy.
-
Proving one exists is different than saying one can exist, that was the fallacy of your argument there.
Me getting you to admit pizzas have cheese is meaningless, that was my point... swoosh.
You argued that Hawaii's red flag law is unconstitutional because it lacks due process. I showed you the due process but you ignored it. Maybe blinded by bias, maybe not wanting to admit you were wrong. Either way it doesn't matter because you are determined to not recognize it as constitutional. It doesn't matter if I put it on a golden platter for you, you will just claim the same.
Your first sentence makes no sense as you're unable to show one exist. We went over this. When I asked you to show one exist, you posted HI's one. Instead of just saying "they don't exist. But for them to be constitutional, I think X,Y, Z needs to be done". You even went as far to ask me if I read all the ones that are law and I said I have.
So since your cheese example failed as I agreed, now you're moving the goal post. Hahahhaa.
You didn't show me due process in HI's law. You showed me what you THINK is due process and you're wrong. We covered this already. You don't need a golden platter, you just need to be correct. I have no problem admitting a factual statement when you make one. See cheese example.
-
I apologize that I didn't understand your intended meaning.
That's very kind of you.
I likewise apologize for being the keyboard-equivalent of a chicken butt.
- my filipino wife tells me this is a common insult in the PI, because apparently chicken butts are incessantly winking, just like some people are constantly jabbering away -
Filipinos, being curious, humorous, and highly observant people, must have been drawn to the examination of chicken butts at some point in their history, saw the connection, and a new insult was born.
Either that, or it's really, really, boring out there in the provinces.
Anyway - Have a Great Day Dude!