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.

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.

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.

"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.

"We"?
As you can see most dont agree with your anti 2a gun control opinions.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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]

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).

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.