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

[SharpDog]

Looks like Red Flag laws have some support in the Senate. Red Flag laws allow family members, Law Enforcement and in some cases neighbors to petition the court to remove firearms from your premises.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...p-can-come-together-for-gun-confiscation-law/

 

[FROGO207]

If passed this possibly will come with it's own set of unintended consequences. Like if your neighbor dislikes you and has you swatted just to get even over some trivial thing. All they have to do is say "Well he seemed pretty upset and was carrying around a gun in his house". Bam you loose the firearms until you "prove" you are still OK to have them. And they will not get into trouble for trying to stop a problem.

 

[Elkins45]

No chance this will be misused by ex-spouses and girlfriends. None at all.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Not good, this "red flag" law can have all kinds of bad ripple effects. IMHO, it's the same slippery slope as making laws the prohibit mentally incompetent people from obtaining firearms. Psychology is constantly changing (so is sociology for that matter) so what constitutes insanity now may change in the future. I could theoretically be diagnosed as "insane" because I believe in God, or I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, or I believe in creation and not evolution.

Trust me, this is where our "progressive" society is going.

 

[Godsgunman]

If it passes we simply call in those who voted yes on this bill then they can see first hand how asinine such a law would be.

 

[SharpDog]

If it passes we simply call in those who voted yes on this bill then they can see first hand how asinine such a law would be.

This is already state law in several states and it is spreading.

Volunteer, Donate, Spread the word.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Not good, this "red flag" law can have all kinds of bad ripple effects. IMHO, it's the same slippery slope as making laws the prohibit mentally incompetent people from obtaining firearms. Psychology is constantly changing (so is sociology for that matter) so what constitutes insanity now may change in the future. I could theoretically be diagnosed as "insane" because I believe in God, or I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, or I believe in creation and not evolution.

Trust me, this is where our "progressive" society is going.

Yes, that is exactly where it is going. At least you are still able to see social trends. How insane could you be ?

 

[Steve S.]

There are “less stable” people with guns out there; probably more than we would like to admit - your “red flag” goes up once in a while, I read the stories on this forum, my red flag has gone up before. There are oodles of alcoholics, druggies, crazies without guns, aggressive drivers, lying ex-spouses, vengeful neighbors, dirty police officers, dirity politicians, etc. - all can and will twist our laws for evil doings, you see it every day.
There are crazies with guns out there - we all know that. Separating the guns from the crazies is very complicated. We on this forum do not want the crazies to have possession of a gun either. It is going to get very messy and not just for gun owners.

 

[paulsj]

Not good, this "red flag" law can have all kinds of bad ripple effects. IMHO, it's the same slippery slope as making laws the prohibit mentally incompetent people from obtaining firearms. Psychology is constantly changing (so is sociology for that matter) so what constitutes insanity now may change in the future. I could theoretically be diagnosed as "insane" because I believe in God, or I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, or I believe in creation and not evolution.

Trust me, this is where our "progressive" society is going.

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

 

[badkarmamib]

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

You must not have read the entire post. What is the legal definition of "mentally incompetent?" What will the legal definition of "mentally incompetent" evolve to when the antis have that as the only requirement for confiscation?

 

[Pudge]

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

You are correct. When the minimum standards for mental competence are established and can be objectively quantified, and authorities are required to prove those standards are not met prior to confiscation, I think you'll see remarkable support for legislation which intends to accomplish such a goal.

 

[Speedo66]

The first time some judge allows a person who was red flagged to have his guns back, and that person then commits an assault with them, is the last time that judge will allow the return of a person’s guns.

The national press will vilify him or her, and and it will have a chilling effect on all such cases nation wide.

Judges will deny any prejudice from a situation like that, but human nature being what it is, and them mostly being elected officials, you know they will tend to err in the direction of their political safety to the detriment of your rights.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

We can already see discrimication against slightly 'weird' people in states where any sort of reported 'domestic disturbance' is reported. Look at the Florida Baker Acting law. 70% of the peopled admitted to those facilities don't even qualify as being crazy , and the nurses and people giving the psychological exams know it. Many of the cases are just of parents who are frustrated with their teenage kid, or schools who don't know what to do with a kid who hit somebody.
If a similar implentation is in place over guns, especially nationwide, it's gonna get bad. Ex-spouses, ex-girlfriends, pissy neighbors, etc. are going to abuse this law. It's human nature to use the threat of the law to get their way over a petty argument. It's wrong, but it's human nature. And laws that give too much power to our corrupt nature are corrupt laws

 

[DeepSouth]

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

You must not have read the entire post. What is the legal definition of "mentally incompetent?" What will the legal definition of "mentally incompetent" evolve to when the antis have that as the only requirement for confiscation

Right!
Think about this.

According to a 2004 Harris poll, 27 percent of adults received mental health treatment within two years of that year..... https://psychcentral.com/lib/9-myths-and-facts-about-therapy/


One in six Americans take some kind of psychiatric drugs — mostly antidepressants, researchers reported... https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...tidepressants-other-psychiatric-drugs-n695141

And how many people live with those people, at least we know Government abuse never happens..... https://dailycaller.com/2015/01/02/...ted-because-he-sought-treatment-for-insomnia/


Advise, don’t keep all your eggs in one basket, or your guns in one safe.
No one will ever get my last gun, and if they do..... I have a lathe.

 

[psyopspec]

If passed this possibly will come with it's own set of unintended consequences. Like if your neighbor dislikes you and has you swatted just to get even over some trivial thing. All they have to do is say "Well he seemed pretty upset and was carrying around a gun in his house". Bam you loose the firearms until you "prove" you are still OK to have them. And they will not get into trouble for trying to stop a problem.

I don't think those consequences are unintended. The politicians supporting this know exactly what it is that they're doing.

 

[BSA1]

I don't think those consequences are unintended. The politicians supporting this know exactly what it is that they're doing.

Our enemies are well informed and well prepared for a long battle. Recent comments on THR show that some gun owners are ready to surrender their rights. The anti's are counting on "moderates" surrendering 2A rights one at a time.

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[BSA1]

No chance this will be misused by ex-spouses and girlfriends. None at all.

I know of bottom-feeding divorce lawyers that deliberately try to prevent the spouses from reaching a more peaceful and less expensive settlement between themselves. Part of their usual strategy is to convince the wife that she is the victim of abuse and file a protection order against her husband. The more the lawyer can stroke bad feelings the more money is in it for him.

We are already seeing how protection orders are leading to the accused being required to surrender his guns. Either by proving he is no longer in possession of them or turning them over to the Police.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You are correct. When the minimum standards for mental competence are established and can be objectively quantified, and authorities are required to prove those standards are not met prior to confiscation, I think you'll see remarkable support for legislation which intends to accomplish such a goal.

But don’t let that be a cop out, an excuse for delaying any action forever. We aren’t totally ignorant about mental incompetence. So what if a few folks are not treated perfectly by a rule? This world isn’t perfect. We have to do the best we can right now.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Our enemies are well informed and well prepared for a long battle. Recent comments on THR show that some gun owners are ready to surrender their rights. The anti's are counting on "moderates" surrendering 2A rights one at a time.

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

You demean the true origin of these words. Your cause is nothing compared to the cause represented by the original words you are paraphrasing. I would gladly give up my guns to bring back even just one of the folks slaughtered in the Holocaust.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Having “gun collections” could be grounds. You know, hoarders.

When I was in the pest control business I ran into quite a few hoarders who were some interesting characters. Downright scary, some of them.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

Mentally incompetent people shouldn't have access to a lot of things. That's not the point here.

People who have been adjudicated mentally defective through due process are already prohibited from possessing firearms. "Red flag" laws lower the burden of proof to a claim by anyone who allegedly knows the gun owner. That person has a telephone conference with a judge and Viola! If they're convincing, you lose your guns. You had no idea it was coming, and it's on you to prove that you're not dangerous to get them back. Ever piss anyone off? I'm betting you have, and if they know who you are, they can make that call with a likely result of you being surprised by your local SWAT members showing up to take your firearms.

It's a blatant violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th & 14th amendments under the pretense of improving public safety. In reality, it will endanger LEOs and citizens alike. Most people will probably stand there in shock while their possessions are carted off, but I'm positive it will result in some fierce standoffs.

 

[Jinx0760]

Not acceptable.

 

[Walkalong]

Mentally incompetent people shouldn't have access to a lot of things. That's not the point here.

Yep.

A very dangerous law if it gets passed. Citizens turning each other in to the government. Anyone, and you have to prove you are innocent, not the other way around. Very dangerous. Shows were the minds of some of our politicians are.

 

[herrwalther]

No chance this will be misused by ex-spouses and girlfriends. None at all.

A psycho ex girlfriend tried to have me arrested because she didn't think I was where I told her I was. Her reasoning: I wasn't allowed to bring her along. I am adamantly against red flag laws. It goes against the most basic form of due process.

Mentally incompetent people should not have access to firearms.

That is a very wide net. Which is what Obama wanted to do with the SSA gun ban. Would you stand behind giving a single organization, with little to no government oversight, unilateral authority to decide who can have firearms? Because I cannot think of a bigger slippery slope. I take anti-depressants for pain management. And I know for sure I would be declared "mentally unfit" for firearms regardless of the off label use of my medication. And there are many more who would be suddenly "mentally incompetent" for convenience.

 

[Pat Riot]

You demean the true origin of these words. Your cause is nothing compared to the cause represented by the original words you are paraphrasing. I would gladly give up my guns to bring back even just one of the folks slaughtered in the Holocaust.

I see BSA1’s comment as a metaphor. If you want to give up your guns for any reason you may do so. This thread is about government intrusion and keeping it in check. I would think you would see that, given the reference you cited.