In armed society police need extra eqiupment to control population. This is especially true when real crises arise and state of martial law needs to be implemented. Our military and I assume National Guard is getting some badly needed practice in crowd management at US Mexico border.
"Red Flag" laws..?
- Thread starter Shanghai McCoy
- Start date
- Status
In armed society police need extra eqiupment to control population. This is especially true when real crises arise and state of martial law needs to be implemented. Our military and I assume National Guard is getting some badly needed practice in crowd management at US Mexico border.
The way you fight back is by activating the trial lawyers as the enforcement mechanism--e.g. like in civil rights laws, once there was a way to sue and get money from those violating the laws and government could not control enforcement via political means, then those harmed by discrimination could be paid for that harm.
It will be difficult to prevent these redflag laws because of for the children sort of appeal and existing laws on committing mentally ill. However, you can attach strong due process and lawsuits built in to dissuade bad actors. If someone who falsely reports a red flag on someone because of spite and they lose their house over it, they just might not make that call. It should not be through a misdemeanor false police report bs but actual liability. Same thing for police departments and officers and local governments under qualified immunity. Require any judiciarl reversal of a red flag order after a hearing come with lawyers fees and damages to any firearms paid by the state and/or local governments. After all, the virtuous thing to do is protect the rights of those falsely accused as well as the public.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
I don not agree that police need armored vehicles to keep the peace; that IS what the National Guard is for. My dad was a cop; walked a beat for the first years in a bad neighborhood in NYC. Nightstick, blackjack, but mostly his constant presence in the neighborhood helped keep the peace. Yes things are more dangerous now with gang members having to shoot cops as an initiation, etc.; so yes to body armor, 15 round plus semi autos, etc. But the second you start acting like an occupying force instead of someone there to help, you have lost the public
Deanimator
Member
- Any penalties for false accusers will be fought completely or minimized because it "discourages reporting". But the proponents see false reporting as a feature, not a bug. Anti-gun cultists ALREADY threaten to make "man with a gun" calls on people not committing crimes.
- Police unions will fight ANY accountability on the part of police on qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and any other grounds they can. Police who maliciously or negligently enforce such orders, or even who show up at the wrong address, and who do real harm, will be portrayed as the "victims". They will be shown deference in the courts, while the victims will be blamed.
This isn't a can of worms. It's a can of spitting cobras. Best not to open it in the first place. There were a PLETHORA of opportunities for the Broward County murderer to be stopped, up to and past the time he started shooting. NONE of them was taken.
I refuse to have my rights (and my very life) jeopardized to avoid confronting blatant incompetence and despicable cowardice.
Temperamentally and logically, I am against laws that give the patina of doing something but actually are placebos. I dislike subterfuge in lawmaking and do not care for laws that unjustly create classes of people with different rights.
However, it strikes me that one of the reasons that libertarians and conservatives get rolled over and over again is that some event happens that riles up the general public and the conservative/libertarian response is that we do not need new laws. Red flag laws and the bumpstock ban are examples.
From my standpoint, it is clear that we already have existing mental health laws that clearly deal with commitment proceedings that would have addressed a lot of these individual nutcases from the CT maniac, the CO Denver maniac, the AZ fruitcake maniac, etc.
We also have criminal laws on background checks that if enforced would have made it difficult to purchase firearms for frootloop TX church murderer, VA Tech insane idiot, DC Navy Yard nutjob, FL school murderer and others.
We have laws on the books that would have separated jihadi GI Joe in TX due to communicating with a known terrorist Awlaki and probably would have scooped up the Fresno jihadi couple (straw buying) and Orlando jihadi as well.
However, our constant complaint just enforce the laws that we have falls on deaf ears--the public just wants something "done" and will support stupid laws by our opponents over doing nothing.
Therefore, we should have on the shelf a range of legislation that toughens criminal laws for misuse, allows lawsuits against agencies failing their duties such as the AF personnel who did not enter the records into NICS, etc.
For example, on bumpstocks, what if the Republicans had instead proposed via legislation to reopen the NFA registry under the Hughes amendment for registration of these and included an amnesty for the "shadow" machine guns floating around out there period for registration.
On red flag laws, see my comments above. On universal background checks--exempt buyers and sellers with carry permits from such instances.
If the gun grabbers aim to ban 80% receivers and such, then counter with a proposed law that prohibits felons and other banned persons from possession of such.
Build trapdoors, waivers, exemptions, etc. and riddle every such law with things that we want. Then, if the law is rejected due to gun grabber opposition, then turnaround and blame them for not caring about the public safety, etc.
Gungrabbers do all kinds of havoc over hassling travelers over magazines, bullets etc. via state law, then mandate under FOPA that any such jurisdiction loses 10 percent of federal highway aid for such ridiculous hassles.
We have tried compromise with the gun grabbers to make them go away and watched our freedom slip away bit by bit, we have tried adamant opposition but are overcome from time to time via Presidential action or cowardice in Congress and/or state legislatures.
Our static defense is not working any more than the Maginot Line did for France in 1940.
How about we play the gun grabbers game and go for incremental gains for freedom by deceptive and virtue signalling legislation. For folks in unfree states that have statewide initiatives, roll your own high minded legislation to claw back your freedom bit by bit.
George S. Patton was quoted as saying do not take counsel of your fears. We all fear losing our civil liberties through the legislative process but we need to take the offensive instead of waiting for the worst to happen. We cannot rely upon the courts as they simply do not care about the right to keep and bear arms for the most part. They have demonstrated that they care far more for rights of the people and social stances to their liking rather than enforcing the Bill of Rights.
I would propose a way out is having gun competent individuals working to draft laws so that friendly state and federal legislators have the drafts on hand when the next inevitable crisis comes up. We cannot expect them to beat some ill propose policy with nothing in hand to counter. It also has the advantages of working toward something rather than trying to stop something.
We can insist on our rights and lose politically which is what we have been doing. We lack the political numbers along with elite and societal support to get what we want or even to keep what we have left. These are hard to swallow facts.
We are a relatively large minority in terms of population but we are not united and we do not command the heights of elite/media/corporate opinion (for example, the NRA among gun rights supporters lacks the cohesive power of Planned Parenthood which manages to get massive subsidies for its practices from state and federal governments). How much funding do pro-life groups get from such places?
George Washington when fighting the American Revolution could have continued the disastrous tactics that were pursued after success in Boston. The idea that British would keep coming up and attack fortified positions and suffer massive casualties required that the British continue to be stupid. As the New York campaign indicated, they were anything but.
As Thomas Fleming mentioned, there were really two wars with very different strategies pursued. Washington was brave enough to change his standard to fight when and where he had an advantage and decline to fight on unfavorable ground. Named after a similar effort by Roman General Fabius, Washington did things that no respectable European Army would do--fight on Christmas Eve in a snowstorm--you have to be kidding. Using riflemen to pick off British officers, how perfectly appalling. Refusing to allow one large standup battle with the British, why that was cowardice.
The grand object of Washington was to tire out the British, demoralize and confuse them as to strategy, use spies and other means to commit subterfuge on plans, and take whatever victories that he could on grounds of his choosing.
For me, the meaning is clear, we can either sit tight in our warm, snug little fortresses and wait for the enemies of the 2A to come to us as they will and we will likely lose that siege. Or, we can scamper here and there and win victories through proposing our own legislation, by initiative if need be, by having prepared laws with support preplanned for events, and by riddling current laws with exemptions, etc. just like Swiss cheese.
Obamacare itself now faces a constitutional hurdle because the Republicans just repealed an unpopular section via negating the taxes imposed. If some of the Republicans had actually understood what might happen, they probably would have opposed it. Instead, it sounded good and made it look like they were trying to do what they had promised since 2010. It just so happens that they opened a window for a court to use the decision upholding that very law to effectively argue for its negation because the tax was dead.
This is what we have to do if we want to win a political fight. Instead of a 5th Column of the Constitution's enemies which tries to impose fascism by extinguishing rights, we need to form a 6th Column that fights to protect them.
However, it strikes me that one of the reasons that libertarians and conservatives get rolled over and over again is that some event happens that riles up the general public and the conservative/libertarian response is that we do not need new laws. Red flag laws and the bumpstock ban are examples.
From my standpoint, it is clear that we already have existing mental health laws that clearly deal with commitment proceedings that would have addressed a lot of these individual nutcases from the CT maniac, the CO Denver maniac, the AZ fruitcake maniac, etc.
We also have criminal laws on background checks that if enforced would have made it difficult to purchase firearms for frootloop TX church murderer, VA Tech insane idiot, DC Navy Yard nutjob, FL school murderer and others.
We have laws on the books that would have separated jihadi GI Joe in TX due to communicating with a known terrorist Awlaki and probably would have scooped up the Fresno jihadi couple (straw buying) and Orlando jihadi as well.
However, our constant complaint just enforce the laws that we have falls on deaf ears--the public just wants something "done" and will support stupid laws by our opponents over doing nothing.
Therefore, we should have on the shelf a range of legislation that toughens criminal laws for misuse, allows lawsuits against agencies failing their duties such as the AF personnel who did not enter the records into NICS, etc.
For example, on bumpstocks, what if the Republicans had instead proposed via legislation to reopen the NFA registry under the Hughes amendment for registration of these and included an amnesty for the "shadow" machine guns floating around out there period for registration.
On red flag laws, see my comments above. On universal background checks--exempt buyers and sellers with carry permits from such instances.
If the gun grabbers aim to ban 80% receivers and such, then counter with a proposed law that prohibits felons and other banned persons from possession of such.
Build trapdoors, waivers, exemptions, etc. and riddle every such law with things that we want. Then, if the law is rejected due to gun grabber opposition, then turnaround and blame them for not caring about the public safety, etc.
Gungrabbers do all kinds of havoc over hassling travelers over magazines, bullets etc. via state law, then mandate under FOPA that any such jurisdiction loses 10 percent of federal highway aid for such ridiculous hassles.
We have tried compromise with the gun grabbers to make them go away and watched our freedom slip away bit by bit, we have tried adamant opposition but are overcome from time to time via Presidential action or cowardice in Congress and/or state legislatures.
Our static defense is not working any more than the Maginot Line did for France in 1940.
How about we play the gun grabbers game and go for incremental gains for freedom by deceptive and virtue signalling legislation. For folks in unfree states that have statewide initiatives, roll your own high minded legislation to claw back your freedom bit by bit.
George S. Patton was quoted as saying do not take counsel of your fears. We all fear losing our civil liberties through the legislative process but we need to take the offensive instead of waiting for the worst to happen. We cannot rely upon the courts as they simply do not care about the right to keep and bear arms for the most part. They have demonstrated that they care far more for rights of the people and social stances to their liking rather than enforcing the Bill of Rights.
I would propose a way out is having gun competent individuals working to draft laws so that friendly state and federal legislators have the drafts on hand when the next inevitable crisis comes up. We cannot expect them to beat some ill propose policy with nothing in hand to counter. It also has the advantages of working toward something rather than trying to stop something.
We can insist on our rights and lose politically which is what we have been doing. We lack the political numbers along with elite and societal support to get what we want or even to keep what we have left. These are hard to swallow facts.
We are a relatively large minority in terms of population but we are not united and we do not command the heights of elite/media/corporate opinion (for example, the NRA among gun rights supporters lacks the cohesive power of Planned Parenthood which manages to get massive subsidies for its practices from state and federal governments). How much funding do pro-life groups get from such places?
George Washington when fighting the American Revolution could have continued the disastrous tactics that were pursued after success in Boston. The idea that British would keep coming up and attack fortified positions and suffer massive casualties required that the British continue to be stupid. As the New York campaign indicated, they were anything but.
As Thomas Fleming mentioned, there were really two wars with very different strategies pursued. Washington was brave enough to change his standard to fight when and where he had an advantage and decline to fight on unfavorable ground. Named after a similar effort by Roman General Fabius, Washington did things that no respectable European Army would do--fight on Christmas Eve in a snowstorm--you have to be kidding. Using riflemen to pick off British officers, how perfectly appalling. Refusing to allow one large standup battle with the British, why that was cowardice.
The grand object of Washington was to tire out the British, demoralize and confuse them as to strategy, use spies and other means to commit subterfuge on plans, and take whatever victories that he could on grounds of his choosing.
For me, the meaning is clear, we can either sit tight in our warm, snug little fortresses and wait for the enemies of the 2A to come to us as they will and we will likely lose that siege. Or, we can scamper here and there and win victories through proposing our own legislation, by initiative if need be, by having prepared laws with support preplanned for events, and by riddling current laws with exemptions, etc. just like Swiss cheese.
Obamacare itself now faces a constitutional hurdle because the Republicans just repealed an unpopular section via negating the taxes imposed. If some of the Republicans had actually understood what might happen, they probably would have opposed it. Instead, it sounded good and made it look like they were trying to do what they had promised since 2010. It just so happens that they opened a window for a court to use the decision upholding that very law to effectively argue for its negation because the tax was dead.
This is what we have to do if we want to win a political fight. Instead of a 5th Column of the Constitution's enemies which tries to impose fascism by extinguishing rights, we need to form a 6th Column that fights to protect them.
BTW,
This group has done a lot to roll back half baked restrictions in Georgia gun laws. Here is an example of constructive development of a concrete agenda for potential legislation for the 2019-20 legislative session by an organized group, Georgia Carry.org.
https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/2019-2020-legislative-agenda.275425/
Notice, that the discussion centers on specific items on an agenda rather than degenerating into "my opinion is that all laws restricting firearms are illegal" or fighting over Donald Trump's administration, socialism, dogs and cats living together, or other non-pertinent issues. Kinda like Frank's legal group so to say.
This group has done a lot to roll back half baked restrictions in Georgia gun laws. Here is an example of constructive development of a concrete agenda for potential legislation for the 2019-20 legislative session by an organized group, Georgia Carry.org.
https://www.georgiapacking.org/threads/2019-2020-legislative-agenda.275425/
Notice, that the discussion centers on specific items on an agenda rather than degenerating into "my opinion is that all laws restricting firearms are illegal" or fighting over Donald Trump's administration, socialism, dogs and cats living together, or other non-pertinent issues. Kinda like Frank's legal group so to say.
cheygriz
member
And if we aren't careful we can turn into delusional paranoids. I'm beginning to wonder if some here already have.
Deanimator
Member
Yeah, the next thing you know, people will be claiming that a sitting Congressman threatened gun owners with nuclear weapons...
We have wandered from actually discussing the mental health issues and appropriate interactions with gun rights to general political issues. Unless you have something specifically on the issue, let's not go off target, please.
Deanimator
Member
The intent of "Red Flag" laws is two-fold:
- To create a mechanism by which gun ownership can be discouraged by harassing and intimidating gun owners with frivolous and malicious "complaints".
- To be a wedge for even more repressive measures, such as registration, owner licensing, "assault weapon" bans, restrictions on concealed carry and confiscation.
- "Wider" HOW?
- Anti-gun cultists have a way: registration, mandatory, unannounced home inspections and bans.
cjwils
Member
I am shocked at those words. Only in a totalitarian system is the job of the police to control the population.
Deanimator
Member
Given that I've seen gun owners threatened with everything from concentration camps to nuclear weapons by the proponents of "commonsense gun safety measures", I think you may be onto something.
In truth, this whole thing is just part of a huge grift, that includes banning people on the "no-fly" list... whose members are unknown and whose criteria for being on it are equally secret.
But we keep getting told that we really haven't heard the things which the other side has said right to our faces...
Deanimator
Member
Given their craven dishonesty, there's utterly no reason to trust the proponents of racially invidious gun control laws.
For decades after every infringement they've claimed to have "no further territorial ambitions. "
Now that the mask has been cast aside and they're openly proclaiming "Lebensraum!", we're somehow now supposed to believe in "compromise". If we fell for something so obviously transparent, we'd be as stupid as they think we are.
Yes indeed 'Lebensraum' for folks from developing countries who will not mind living to work. After they build that stupid wall I bet they will be packing them in here like my beloved sprats are in cans. The business comunity will need hard workers working harder for same or less. Their kids will attend good universities and take over white collar job market. They may actually pull of MAGA. It will be great.
Last edited:
Wow! These folks got it going on! You know, "going on," in the sense of organized for a legislative session that impresses old law nerds like me.
Aaaaaaannnnnyyyyywwwwaaaayyyy, getting back on topic. I don't think that there's much question but there are some folks out there who really, really shouldn't have access to guns. And if someone has already been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as we all know, they're already barred. RFLs do (at least) two things, though: (1) they allow friends and family members to disarm someone who perhaps should be committed, without having to go through that hassle, at least temporarily; and (2) they allow friends and family to harass gun owners, with no repercussions that I've ever seen. I'm afraid that the risk of SWATting is very high. If the police are ordered to show up at a house with an armed and (allegedly) mentally ill subject inside, they're going to show up ready for a gunfight.
Deanimator
Member
And that's exactly what the anti-gun cult wants. They'd prefer to simply intimidate gun owners into not BEING gun owners, but if a few innocent people have to die, they're ok with that, and they've said it loud and clear.
I know. I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
