Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can ‘Come Together’ for Gun Confiscation Law

Are there any procedures to punish those who would misuse this law? Any penalties listed?

This is such a slippery slope. While no one here is advocating for someone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent to have access to firearms, the slippery slope is that defining mental illness is not a simple test and we are now looking at bureaucrats, police, an ex-spouse, hormone-raging teenager, or disgruntled neighbor to determine what is a "mental-instability" threat. We have already had hints that Service Members diagnosed with PTSD are a potential threat. What about the majority of children with psychotropic/behavior prescriptions; many can't even join the military? Politicians and their Hollywood voice boxes have made statements that those who doubt "climate change" are a threat and should be locked up. How long before a comment on Social Media is taken out of context and used as the Red Flag to confiscate your firearms? This slope is slippery and it is has absolutely nothing to do with helping those who are truly suffering mental illness. This is just control and confiscation disguised as a "public safety" measure. This slope is really slippery.

The government won't rely on just family and third-party complaints. They will desire to take preventative action as well, and they don't know who owns firearms...so what do you think is next? Registration. It's all part of the socialist playbook and to defend a bad law "to save one life" rings hollow as it has for the past 30 years. None of these laws are about saving lives, not a single one. And these Red Flag laws have nothing to do with truly helping those suffering mental illness.

I can completely see these laws being abused by disgruntled neighbors, co-workers, competitors, vindictive spouses, upset child...it's a bad precedent that will create more headaches for law enforcement and law-abiding gun owners than stop potential criminal acts or suicide. And now, if you're the target how are you going to prove you are mentally competent, by what definition, IQ, prescription medication, social media comments, associations, religion, political beliefs????

ROCK6

Old Dog said:

Veterans who have been treated for PTSD, anxiety, depression, anger management and the like are likely to be the largest group that will suffer from widespread adoption of these laws. One also is left to wonder about the potential for anti-gun health care providers to subjectively provide information about a person they believe might be a risk to public safety.

Click to expand...

And you’d be right but the interesting thing would be the guns we make in the shop.
Slingshot.22s and pipe shotguns would be fun not to mention the end product of full machine shop

Tinman357 said:

Are there any procedures to punish those who would misuse this law? Any penalties listed?

Click to expand...

Should it become law, criminal and civil liabilities for false (and especially malicious) reporting must exist. If people can, with impunity and perhaps even anonymously, "swat" others for spite or revenge and face no repercussions, the situation will become far, far worse in very short order, the folks who never were dangerous becoming so when they retaliate against the swatter.

It's bad all around. It'll be a public policy version of TSA, actually ending many more live than it could ever ostensibly save.

Easy Professor,

You are getting waaay too defensive. We will have to disagree that many public school administrators, school boards, colleges are liberal and support restrictions on gun storage (for the safety of the children) and/or ownership.

How many colleges are truly pro-ownership? Especially colleges like Ivy League ones like Yale and Harvard? The ones that are producing future Wall Street bankers, Federal and State Government leaders, big corporation CEO’s, etc.

Self-defense to me includes defense against tyranny. But since you are conducting this class I will yield to your position that the Bill of Rights only applies to protection from the Government and that protection of oneself against other individuals was not the original intent of the 2A. (Of course the Courts have later held the 2A applies to individual self-defense).

Urbanization is successful as large number of people are under the control of a elite few that pass laws, control the police and the courts, create social welfare programs, etc. thus the success of large city and county governments advancing the anti-gun agenda. The Supreme Court is most certainly not our friend under the current makeup. Chief Justice Roberts is making a turn towards being a liberal. Without Scalia I think Roberts is easily persuaded by the Liberal Justices.

Mental illness causing crime is part of the current BIG LIE by the media, politicians and liberals. It is easy to sell fear on something (especially complex one) that most people know little about. We do not have to look to hard for cases where the media altered recordings of what the actual conversation was (such as 911 calls) to fit their agenda.

Good topic. I can not help but draw parallels to the conversations that took place in the 1850’s and we know how that ended.

Old Dog said:

Now that our society and the government has legitimized using children to lobby again guns and kids are being taught in public schools "if you see something, say something," I almost feel as though we could be headed in the same direction as the Third Reich in the 1930s ... children being indoctrinated to inform on adults (not only in cases of serious wrongdoing, i.e., child abuse, but primarily in cases where the adults are resisting to the government's bidding or displaying disagreement with any aspect of the government).

Click to expand...

Here in the 50's kids were encouraged to report their parents if they thought the parents were communist sympathizers.

Veterans who have been treated for PTSD, anxiety, depression, anger management and the like are likely to be the largest group that will suffer from widespread adoption of these laws.

Click to expand...

Don't think for a minute they don't know that, they know exactly which side vets will be on if things get hot. Remember Dianne Feinstein saying every veteran has some form of mental illness? She was already laying the groundwork.

BSA1 said:

Then all is lost. At least on the West Coast, in the NE and in Florida.

Only how does your research jive with the increase of gun ownership by women and minorities? I submit the issue is much more complex than simple urbanization.

The 2A is all about the right of self-defense which is exactly counter to the position of academics. Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens is now arguing for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

West Coast, Shmest Coast, check this article to learn about the huge jump in California gun ownership over the past decade:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/repor...hip-over-last-decade-despite-strict-gun-laws/

Tinman357 said:

Are there any procedures to punish those who would misuse this law? Any penalties listed?

Click to expand...

You just asked the proverbial $64,000 question.

Old Dog said:

Now that our society and the government has legitimized using children to lobby again guns and kids are being taught in public schools "if you see something, say something," I almost feel as though we could be headed in the same direction as the Third Reich in the 1930s ... children being indoctrinated to inform on adults (not only in cases of serious wrongdoing, i.e., child abuse, but primarily in cases where the adults are resisting to the government's bidding or displaying disagreement with any aspect of the government).

Just as though bogus allegations of physical or sexual abuse toward one party or children are used in contentious divorce proceedings.

And if you read the standards imposed by the Red Flag laws in states that already have instituted them, the standard (and burden of proof) is typically far too low to offer protections against misuse of these laws.

Veterans who have been treated for PTSD, anxiety, depression, anger management and the like are likely to be the largest group that will suffer from widespread adoption of these laws. One also is left to wonder about the potential for anti-gun health care providers to subjectively provide information about a person they believe might be a risk to public safety.

Click to expand...

I would think examples of USSR/Ivan Serov and DDR/Erich Mielke would be more appropriate than Nazi Germany though "diferrences" between National Socialism and International Socialism are only superficial.
There is no denying that the Germans were the Concentration Camp experts. It maybe hard to believe by the first ones were set up ca 1904 in German South-West Africa (present day Namibia) . One was located at place called Shark Island. We must remember, however, the first large war crime of WWII in Europe occured when Soviet Members of NKVD shot thousands of Polish officers in spring of 1940.

rpenmanparker said:

I'm for gun ownership, but I don't impart the mystical attributes to it that many others do. First of all we are nearly unique in our right to gun ownership. That is good for us, but not having guns isn't so bad for many others who enjoy governmental systems like ours. It shouldn't be hard to see that it is not owning guns that is protecting our freedom. It is our form of government, our dedication to the principles of democracy, our heterogeneity, and so many other aspects. Thinking our freedom is all or even a lot about guns is as dangerous an error as can possibly be made in the modern world. Such a mistake for example can lead to our greedily fondling our guns all the while accepting horrible government. That is where the danger is, the decay of our democracy, not the loss of our guns. Fix the democracy, and you will never have to worry about using your guns to fend off the government or repel the unwashed masses. Let the democracy continue to rot, and no guns, no matter how big, how powerful, how many, can ever protect you. I hope the RKBA is never lost, but I don't foolishly impart magical power to it. It isn't protecting us. Only our diligence as good citizens and (little d, little r) democratic republicans can do that.

Click to expand...

I disagree with much of this post, but I just bolded one sentence. There's a reason the founding fathers put the RKBA in the 2nd amendment, right behind the 1st amendment, and that reason is to prohibit tyranny from the government.

I believe Red Flag laws and other similar legislation are dishonest attempts to create a backdoor to mass confiscation. With regards to these laws, the definition for mental instability will be as malleable as is needed to disarm the largest amount of people possible.

Meanwhile, there's this: Rural Sheriffs Defy New Gun Measures
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-sheriffs-defy-new-gun-measures-11552230000

Lycidas Janwor said:

I disagree with much of this post, but I just bolded one sentence. There's a reason the founding fathers put the RKBA in the 2nd amendment, right behind the 1st amendment, and that reason is to prohibit tyranny from the government.

Click to expand...

The Founders were brilliant but not perfect. It would be absurd to think that we had not learned new truths over the last 227 years. Not to say that the original purposes of the 2A were not and are not still valid, but we have so many years of experience to teach us what else we must do to safeguard our national experience. Personal gun ownership is not the only thing...not even the main thing.

As far as penalties for false reports - my understanding is that you would have to have proof of malice and prove it at a criminal standard (~99% certainty).

That's a tall order, and a false accusation would be far easier to call in than it would be to defeat. The accusor's standard of proof would essentially just be word of mouth, whereas the "defendant"'s standard would be guilty until proven innocent. Couple that imbalance with the low likelihood of a false accusation blowing up in the reporter's face, and you have a law that is ripe for abuse from the word go.

i will cry no tears for convicted felons. The recidivism rate for convicted felons is sky high and some want them to own guns. Advocating for gun ownership by convicted felons is a loser for us.

• "Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

• Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

• Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.

• Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders."

https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx

Adjudicated mental cases have absolutely no business owning firearms-period. Another loser for our side.

rpenmanparker said:

Personal gun ownership is not the only thing...not even the main thing.

Click to expand...

Only to you. You have already stated your willingness to give up all of your gun in Post #19. Many of us have a much different view about why gun ownership is important to us and preserving our freedoms.

BSA1 said:

You have already stated your willingness to give up all of your gun in Post #19

Click to expand...

Malarky!!!

Another person authored post 19.

Shilling for convicted violent felons is not preserving our freedoms.

BSA1 said:

Only to you. You have already stated your willingness to give up all of your gun in Post #19. Many of us have a much different view about why gun ownership is important to us and preserving our freedoms.

Click to expand...

I hear you. I can’t agree that even your most capable firearms are going to save you. Red Dawn was just a movie. Your freedoms depend upon the strength of the democracy and the quality of our leadership, not your gun ownership.

rpenmanparker said:

I hear you. I can’t agree that even your most capable firearms are going to save you. Red Dawn was just a movie. Your freedoms depend upon the strength of the democracy and the quality of our leadership, not your gun ownership.

Click to expand...

The right to keep & bear arms was put in as a attempt to provide a means for a populace to resist a tyrannical government.
It was never a guarantee, and could never be that. Even the founders knew that. It was a last ditch effort --- when everything short of armed violence had failed.
The colonists might have lost The Revolutionary War. Had the British not been involved in The Thirty Years War with France, they could have devoted more effort to suppress the Colonists, and would likely have won.
Even one small act by one soldier might have altered the outcome.
As General Washington approached the Battle of Trenton, having skillfully kept his ragged army together, a British officer in Trenton was given a note from a spy informing them of Washington's approach.
He put it in his pocket, and then forgot it.
Had the British won that battle, and killed Washington .... or taken him P. O. W., the outcome might have been very different.

The second amendment is not a gaurantee. If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster oven.
You have to WIN THE WAR.
In another thread on this forum, dealing with the Blackhawk Down incident, a member reported his military veteran brother told him more than once the army considers an armed society even harder to deal with than another standing army.
Consider that.

The military personnel take oath to protect country from external and internal enemies. The military, national guard, police and private armies for hire would quickly defeat rebellion staged by the populace.
Even if military brass supported the proletarians they would want major concessions for what they have given up meaning the winners would likely get stuck with worse government than the one they replaced. This is before mentioning world players like China & Russia which would not sit back waiting for turmoil in USA to rsolve itself. The whole idea of armed resistance against the government is stupid.

Walkalong said:

What do you think the percentage is, universities have gotten their reputation for being anti gun and a liberal hot bed for good reason. Just curious, I know there are universities that lean conservative and pro gun, I would just be surprised if they are a high percentage, and even more surprised if they taught a large percentage of college students overall.

Click to expand...

I quite agree that the general attitude of universities is anti-firearms. There are two reasons:

1. The general political views of most of the folks working there. Guns are seen as totemic of the worst of social conservative positions. Thus, identifying with that set of folks is unpleasant and reading the rhetoric from major gun organizations adds to the problem. Wayne's editorials that most Democrats and professors are socialists and want to make your kids socialists are an example of stupid NRA rhetoric. Yes, someone will say that is true - but it isn't. Most kids don't become socialists. There are PC horror shows at some schools to be sure but that's not everybody.

2. Schools have been told that their overall liability is lesser if they don't allow guns. I've been to seminars on this. If they allow guns to employees and said employee goes nuts or shoots an innocent, the costs will be more than if a rampage occurs that might have been reported. Frank knows this better than I but the analyses seem to be that you are not responsible for the actions of a third party that you had no knowledge of.

3. Give a choice, most colleges unless specifically conservative in mission - will not allow guns. In TX, IIRC, the schools had a discussion of campus carry as it was mandated by the state. The public schools were forced by legislation to allow such and most fought it unsuccessfully. None of the private schools did. The discussions were either set up to be fraudulent with a predetermined anti-carry outcome or with the knowledge that the boss (president) will kick your butt if you come out in favor. Personally, I did with protection of tenure, being a full professor and being old. I could tell the President he was full of it in a discussion. Also, testify as I did to the legislature. Unfortunately, the private property argument allowed the private schools to stop a mandate for carry on their campuses. The private property argument is a different one.

The students - dealing with upscale Texan kids, upscale Oregon kids and working class in both states - I found that they have the typical range of gun beliefs with many of them being all for gun rights, buying guns, getting concealed carry documentation. Not a small minority BTW. That's why Wayne's socialist blather is so stupid. This might be different in upscale colleges of the East but that just mirrors state attitudes.

It is interesting that high school shooting teams are making a resurgence, so much so that a NY state legislator from NYC wants to ban them as we know skeet shooting is causal of evil. http://time.com/longform/high-school-shooting-teams/

I react to generalized statements that academics in toto are anti-gun. Academics like Kleck are crucial reseachers for making the case of gun ownership. There are gun positive feminist scholars.and minority scholars. So general statement are silly.

The same to the repeated statement about mental illness and the BIG LIE. It is a nuanced argument as we do see illness being related to some pretty horrific crimes. The general statement just makes us look stupid. There is a problem with some and it needs to be solved.

As an idea for Red Flag states - here and probably everywhere - there are lawyer commercials on TV. Have you been hit by a truck. Ed Sleazy will get you big bucks. Did you get exposed to some substance? Call Ed Sleazy! Did you take Pill XYZ, call Ed Sleazy.

So how about - Were your guns taken away in a false Red Flag claim? Call Ed Righteous and we will sue the accuser FOR YOU! Run this a few times on the tube. This gets you out of trying to prove evil actions in criminal courts with their higher standards.

GEM said:

Instead of complaining, with some justification about the laws, I would be interested in what you would propose to deal with people who seem not able to handle their affairs or present behavior and threats that same dangerous. How do you separate them from the enraged Ex scenario? Just being negative won't fly in today' world.

Click to expand...

I had a long post that addressed the issue but had second thoughts because I suspect that it is more popular to deal with the generalities of the Second Amendment than to address your challenge. This is the shorter form.

One, we already have laws that would have prevented most of these but law enforcement appears unwilling to follow through--the Miami school shooter had a document history of police involvement and violence but the school system and police force did not follow through probably because "he was a child" mentality. Similar issues involved the Aurora murderer and the murderer in Phoenix. The idiot at Ft. Hood was corresponding with a known terrorist and had expressed violent thoughts along with the murderous husband and wife team in California who engaged in various illegal acts prior to the actual one. The fixated psychopath in CT had known psychiatric issues and was fascinated with mass murders. VT shooter, like the TX church mass murderer, were actually not able to buy firearms legally but the state of VA and the Air Force failed their duty to report disqualifiers to the FBI. And so on, and so on. The only odd duck is the Vegas monster which the law enforcement reports seem curiously deficient which probably means the guy was a government informant/asset of some sort that might have turned terrorist regarding child porn/etc. or some other issue embarrassing to the powers that be. Even the Columbine duo were doing things like exploding pipe bombs, making violent videos, etc. None of these were people that just snapped--they, like other mass murderers expressed their intent early and finally resolved to make their demented thoughts a reality.

How then does the 2A community deal with bureaucrats that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to place public safety higher on the priority list? We have failed so far because much as I hate to admit it, the reason is that agencies and their personnel cannot be sued nor usually fired for these failures see Winnebago Cty. v. DeShaney for why. Note the difference in treatment if one is shot by the police and the extensive investigation procedures and frequent lawsuits versus being a victim of a mass shooter enabled by government sloth and inefficiency. One generally involves extensive oversight that often results in corrective action while the latter usually vanishes from the agenda of that agency other than airy promises to do better in the future.

For that reason, absolute immunity should end for these agencies and qualified immunity substituted instead. If higher up bureaucrat and politicians responsible for failed policies were on the stand in court or via depositions testifying about their agencies malfeasance and managerial failings, it would serve to alert the public something is wrong, publicly identify the individuals and agencies responsible which would coincidentally make it more difficult to employ them in a similar capacity elsewhere, and require an outside agent such as a special master to ensure compliance. It is not usually the fault of the individual street level leo's in the case of agency failings but it usually a sign of poor leadership in supervisory and executive positions (often because of political cronyism and poor policymaking). Therefore, absolute immunity of failures of duty gives the signal of impunity from action by aggrieved citizens.

So what is left--one is that the NRA needs to get involved with a strong push on improving our mental health system. Currently it is left mainly to the jails and law enforcement to clean up the mess--jails have become the new asylums. We need to pay the price for sufficient mental health care, revise government attitudes toward required treatment such as Kendra's law in NY, and making sure that mental health is treated with as much a priority as heart attack prevention and treatment.

paulsj said:

The military personnel take oath to protect country from external and internal enemies. The military, national guard, police and private armies for hire would quickly defeat rebellion staged by the populace.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're thinking this through well. Here's a mathematically rigorous scenario planning piece to get you started:
ESR: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8053
SurvivalBlog: https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/

TL-DR If even 5% of the gun-owners offer any real resistance to confiscation, the regime runs out of door kickers in a hurry. The 2nd Amendment worked; we are too numerous to be defeated except by our own consent.

paulsj said:

The whole idea of armed resistance against the government is stupid.

Click to expand...

. . . said a man living in a country founded by farmers and bakers who defeated the most powerful empire in history, and drove an army of professional soldiers out of their most valuable colony. You have to admit that's ironic.

ETA, lest I sound flippant: I don't take this lightly, I know that war is hell on earth, and civil wars are unusually brutal. Thanks to the wisdom given to our ancestors, we'll probably never need to use the 2nd Amendment. . . but we might. I do not believe we are without hope in that circumstance.