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.

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.” 

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

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.

 

"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?

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?

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.

there is data.....

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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 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?