Swatting as an Inevitable Byproduct of "Red Flag" Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deanimator

Deanimator

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
12,945
Location
North Olmsted, Ohio
  1. Proponents of racially invidious gun controls will not allow to pass any "red flag" law with any meaningful protections for the victims of malicious accusations.
  2. Non-leftists who speak their minds publicly will be subject BOTH to "doxxing" and "swatting" by domestic terrorists (Antifa, etc.) via the unconstrained "red flag" laws.
  3. The disarmed victims will then be subject to violent attacks both in the streets and in their homes, from which they will have no defense.
  4. "Police" in places like Portland will neither apprehend "swatters", nor defend the disarmed victims from violence from which they can no longer defend themselves.
  5. The victims will be blamed for having unapproved opinions, while the attackers will be lauded as "freedom fighters".
Some of this is ALREADY happening (2, 3, 4, 5).

The final piece in the puzzle will be to create a "safe working environment" for the terrorists by preemptively disarming their intended victims. This of course was the purpose of Jim Crow era gun controls in the South, which acted to protect Klansmen from those whom they wished to lynch.

But I suppose if you keep your mouth shut and your head down and recite the words you're told to recite, it [probably] won't be a problem for you.
 
Deanimator said:
  1. Proponents of racially invidious gun controls will not allow to pass any "red flag" law with any meaningful protections for the victims of malicious accusations.
  2. Non-leftists who speak their minds publicly will be subject BOTH to "doxxing" and "swatting" by domestic terrorists (Antifa, etc.) via the unconstrained "red flag" laws.
  3. The disarmed victims will then be subject to violent attacks both in the streets and in their homes, from which they will have no defense.
  4. "Police" in places like Portland will neither apprehend "swatters", nor defend the disarmed victims from violence from which they can no longer defend themselves.
  5. The victims will be blamed for having unapproved opinions, while the attackers will be lauded as "freedom fighters".
Some of this is ALREADY happening (2, 3, 4, 5).

The final piece in the puzzle will be to create a "safe working environment" for the terrorists by preemptively disarming their intended victims. This of course was the purpose of Jim Crow era gun controls in the South, which acted to protect Klansmen from those whom they wished to lynch.

But I suppose if you keep your mouth shut and your head down and recite the words you're told to recite, it [probably] won't be a problem for you.
Click to expand...

The purpose of groups like Antifa is to provoke opposition into actions so they can be exposed and eliminated. The purpose of "Flag Laws" is to establish network of informers and to make people suspicious of one another making it less likely for them to go against the establishment.
 
There will be more states that pass RFLs but likely they will differ significantly from state to state.

I already practice fairly strict Operational Security OPSEC in my own affairs and very, very few, like I can count them on one hand, know I own firearms (except all of you ... you know who you are:) ) and definitely not my neighbors.
 
It truly is amazing all the "conservatives" that are coming out in support of Red Flag laws. I know that something must be done, but the idea that a neighbor can call and report me with little or no evidence and the police can then supersede my private property rights and my right to be innocent until proven guilty is astounding. Am I still living in America?
 
The OP proposes a hypothetical threat. Let the next post be some real instances of such happening before we just go off on hypotheticals. This is a hint.
 
SharpDog said:
There will be more states that pass RFLs but likely they will differ significantly from state to state.

I already practice fairly strict Operational Security OPSEC in my own affairs and very, very few, like I can count them on one hand, know I own firearms (except all of you ... you know who you are:) ) and definitely not my neighbors.
Click to expand...

Your practice of OPSEC crosses my mind more and more these days as a 2A proponent. But there is an internal struggle within myself that battles against it; that in this time I need to be more vocal in my support for 2A which would then bare witness to the fact that I am a gun owner. The fact that I live in Idaho pretty much guarantees my owning of firearms.
 
GEM said:
The OP proposes a hypothetical threat. Let the next post be some real instances of such happening before we just go off on hypotheticals. This is a hint.
Click to expand...

To get this thread on track:

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/07/31/hundreds-firearms-confiscated-floridas-red-flag-law/
Since the ‘red flag’ law was enacted in March, Florida authorities have filed more than 400 orders to seize firearms from gun owners or ban them from owning one due to perceived risk to themselves or others, WFTS-TV reported.

Now how does one know what would have happened if the firearms were not seized? How can one identify that it prevented an evil action?
 
<*(((>< said:
Your practice of OPSEC crosses my mind more and more these days as a 2A proponent. But there is an internal struggle within myself that battles against it; that in this time I need to be more vocal in my support for 2A which would then bare witness to the fact that I am a gun owner. The fact that I live in Idaho pretty much guarantees my owning of firearms.
Click to expand...

The only people that I have told that I own firearms are close friends, NICS and the LGS

I donate to political and 2A organizations, these and firearms-related purchases are on my credit cards. I do post in favor of 2A on social forums but the 2A stuff is only a part of the other conservative posts I make so not really indicative that I actually own firearms.

The biggest security risk is here on THR and other gun forums where I openly state that I have firearms

well at least I did have them until that horrible boating accident last month.
 
SharpDog said:
The only people that I have told that I own firearms are close friends, NICS and the LGS

I donate to political and 2A organizations, these and firearms-related purchases are on my credit cards. I do post in favor of 2A on social forums but the 2A stuff is only a part of the other conservative posts I make so not really indicative that I actually own firearms.

The biggest security risk is here on THR and other gun forums where I openly state that I have firearms

well at least I did have them until that horrible boating accident last month.
Click to expand...
Those you donate to will not come to your defense.
 
<*(((>< said:
It truly is amazing all the "conservatives" that are coming out in support of Red Flag laws. I know that something must be done, but the idea that a neighbor can call and report me with little or no evidence and the police can then supersede my private property rights and my right to be innocent until proven guilty is astounding. Am I still living in America?
Click to expand...

Politicians can't do anything meaningful to help eliminate violence involving guns (investing in economically challenged areas, improving access to health services, raise the minimum wage,......) Because that would cost a lot of money. Universal background checks, gun-free zones,. Flag laws are inexpensive to implement.
Don't worry with fight against hate speech, Flag Laws, gun-free zones will make us all safe. Life will be wonderful.
 
<*(((>< said:
It truly is amazing all the "conservatives" that are coming out in support of Red Flag laws. I know that something must be done, but the idea that a neighbor can call and report me with little or no evidence and the police can then supersede my private property rights and my right to be innocent until proven guilty is astounding. Am I still living in America?
Click to expand...

That is not what is being proposed. At least not here in Ohio where red flag laws are actively being discussed. Our Governor's proposal makes specific reference to following due process and there needs to be a preponderance of evidence. Even after your court hearing, it is only a 30 day ban. The State has to go back to court to keep your guns longer to get a 6 month ban, then every 6 months after that.

I don't really like the restrictions being imposed either, but reported on the news this morning was that the mother of the Texas shooter called the police and told them she was very concerned about her son's rhetoric, actions and recent firearms purchases and she wanted to know what her options were. The cops said she had no options because he was of legal age to buy the gun.

Stories like that make you pause and think. Not every non-criminal that can have a gun, should.
 
"Swatting" is real concern with red flag laws. But "swatting" is also the Achilles' Heel of red flag laws. A few instances in which someone gets killed in a swatting will turn the public against the red flag laws.
 
A situation (any situation) where I have to keep secrets is not what I want.

The premise that anyone can make a call and get weapons confiscated with no evidence is not consistent with the laws that have been passed.
 
Do red flag laws work? It can be hard to tell if the laws work when it comes to mass shootings. It is impossible to know if the law prevented shooting incidents.However, some studies have shown that the law seems effective in preventing suicides. A Duke University study in 2016 concluded that Connecticut’s red flag law averted around one suicide for every 10 to 20 gun seizure cases. The study looked at 762 gun seizure cases between 1999, when the law was enacted in Connecticut, and 2013.The study seemed to show that the laws have been most effective when they were used to remove weapons from people threatening to do harm to themselves compared to those who were threatening others.
Click to expand...

The NRA says that any red flag law enacted by state legislatures should include:
- Anyone subject to an ERPO (Extreme Risk Protection Order, another name for red-flag legislation) should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.
- An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.
- The judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.
- Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental health treatment.
- The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.
- There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon the termination of an ERPO.
- The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate, the last point in the quote above:

  • The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

What are red flag laws; would they have helped prevent the Texas, Ohio shootings?
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/w...-texas-ohio-shootings/NRdA1ytBxj3mYqJbI7DmiJ/
 
The law should also be explicit that ownership of guns or other weapons is not probative of risk. In other words, no tautological nonsense where the judge decides:

  1. This person has a lot of guns.
  2. Having a lot of guns is sick.
  3. Because this person has a lot of guns they should not be able to have a lot of guns.

That's exactly what some judges will decide if given the latitude to do so. I think getting this substantive point clear in the law is AT LEAST as important as lots of due process. Lots of due process in front of a judge who believes that it is sick to own guns does not help you.
 
These laws are an opening for what is sometimes called the "Thought Police". Convicting someone based on what you "think they may do" because they have access to a firearm will be an interesting legal dilemma for the courts. If no crime is committed or no record (verbal or written) of a threat where does that put the gun owner?
 
I hate to have to point out the obvious, but red flag laws don’t have to be a thing for swatting to happen... it’s kind of irrelevant isn’t it.

Sure bad people can use red flag laws to have someone swatted, but they don’t have to, they can simply use 911.

Maybe I’m missing something. Just seems like the swatters are the problem and the red flag laws would just be one tool.


BTW: I do not support red flag laws, I think they’re a terrible idea.
 
Rembrandt said:
These laws are an opening for what is sometimes called the "Thought Police". Convicting someone based on what you "think they may do" because they have access to a firearm will be an interesting legal dilemma for the courts. If no crime is committed or no record (verbal or written) of a threat where does that put the gun owner?
Click to expand...

This has to be predicated on a threat by the defendant. There also need to be actual evidence beyond he said, she said.
 
AlexanderA said:
"Swatting" is real concern with red flag laws. But "swatting" is also the Achilles' Heel of red flag laws. A few instances in which someone gets killed in a swatting will turn the public against the red flag laws.
Click to expand...
  1. IF the media reports such incidents. They will go through the trials of Hercules in order NOT to. Other than Fox News, what network reports Antifa attacks... without DEFENDING them?
  2. The victims will be blamed, as they ALREADY are. The attacks will be JUSTIFIED, as they ALREADY are.
 
DeepSouth said:
I hate to have to point out the obvious, but red flag laws don’t have to be a thing for swatting to happen... it’s kind of irrelevant isn’t it.

Sure bad people can use red flag laws to have someone swatted, but they don’t have to, they can simply use 911.

Maybe I’m missing something. Just seems like the swatters are the problem and the red flag laws would just be one tool.


BTW: I do not support red flag laws, I think they’re a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
Reread what I wrote.

It will be a THREE step process:
  1. False red flag [swatting] accusation to DISARM the victim.
  2. Doxxing to identify and locate the victim.
  3. Physical attack on the victim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
‘Red flag’ gun law should include minors and cohabitants, Washington state prosecutors say
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
BlueHeelerFl
BlueHeelerFl
G
  • Locked
Gun control laws may be partly at fault in massacre
Replies
8
Views
603
P95Carry
P
Craig_AR
  • Locked
Red Flag Law Research Help?
Replies
1
Views
295
DeepSouth
DeepSouth
W
  • Locked
Fw: October is Domestic Violence Month
Replies
6
Views
748
semf
S
Craig_AR
  • Locked
OK: Courts Rely on Domestic Abuse Defendants’ Word for Surrendering Guns
Replies
20
Views
2K
Texasgrillchef
T
Back
Top