"Red Flag" laws..?

[Deanimator]

If I truly feared that the U.S. government was "out to get me," I would either move to another country, or, better yet, seek professional help.

Which one of those should Richard Jewell have done?

 

[paulsj]

If I truly feared that the U.S. government was "out to get me," I would either move to another country, or, better yet, seek professional help.

Good advice. If fella pays their share of taxes they have nothing to fear.

 

[GAF]

With the red flag and domestic abuse laws which I guess are really red flag laws are getting to the point that hearsay is all it take to get one banned. Sort of like the Salem witch trials. Hearsay got people murdered.

 

[Deanimator]

With the red flag and domestic abuse laws which I guess are really red flag laws are getting to the point that hearsay is all it take to get one banned. Sort of like the Salem witch trials. Hearsay got people murdered.

Presumption of innocence and evidence are going out of fashion.

 

[Officers'Wife]

If I truly feared that the U.S. government was "out to get me," I would either move to another country, or, better yet, seek professional help.

And cattle will always be friendly, bears will always recognize that we are on the top of the food chain and the North Koreans would never think of attacking the United States.

 

[Robert]

Good advice. If fella pays their share of taxes they have nothing to fear.

The government does not have my best interest at heart. I will thank them kindly to let me live my life as I see fit to long as I don't impose myself on those around me in a negative way.

 

[cheygriz]

I'm 74 years old. I grew up in the 1950s.

And I guarantee you that I enjoy ten times more personal freedom now than I did in the fifties.

When I hear youngsters whine about "Loss of their freedoms" I laugh out loud.

They should have lived back in the "good old days"(????) when the police could "run you in" for vagrancy if you didn't have any money in your pocket. When you could be arrested for failure to give a good account of yourself." When "questioning" by the police involved a rubber hose and heat lamp. When wearing shorts in public got you arrested for "indecent exposure."
When concealed weapon permits were not available to anyone except the politically connected, and carrying a concealed weapon got you six months in jail.

I could go on for ten pages, but the point is made. Next time you feel like whining aboiut losing your freedom, ask your grandfather what the fifties were really like.

And yet, in spite of everything, we survived and built a more free country. And we will continue to do so.

 

[Tommygunn]

I'm 74 years old. I grew up in the 1950s.

And I guarantee you that I enjoy ten times more personal freedom now than I did in the fifties.

When I hear youngsters whine about "Loss of their freedoms" I laugh out loud.

They should have lived back in the "good old days"(????) when the police could "run you in" for vagrancy if you didn't have any money in your pocket. When you could be arrested for failure to give a good account of yourself." When "questioning" by the police involved a rubber hose and heat lamp. When wearing shorts in public got you arrested for "indecent exposure."
When concealed weapon permits were not available to anyone except the politically connected, and carrying a concealed weapon got you six months in jail.

I could go on for ten pages, but the point is made. Next time you feel like whining aboiut losing your freedom, ask your grandfather what the fifties were really like.

And yet, in spite of everything, we survived and built a more free country. And we will continue to do so.

So, we're trading some rights for others?

In 1931 I could walk into a hardware store and buy a .22 bolt rifle, or a Thompson submachinegun, pay the $$$, and take either (or both) home.
Can you do that today?
Yes, some rights have been gained ..... but some very important rights are under threat.
Think also of the privacy that's been threatened since the "Patriot Act."

 

[cheygriz]

I can get up in the morning and get dressed, putting on my shoulder holster and my SIG P226 and go about my normal day.

50 years ago, that would have landed me in jail for six months.

I can't buy a new Thompson. So what? I can buy an AR-15 or an AK.

As you grow older, you will come to realize that EVERYTHING in life is a tradeoff of one kind or another. You give up one thing to gain something else. That's the way life has worked since Adam and Eve left the garden.

 

[lionking]

If someone is proven to be falsely accused there should be punishment for those that did the accusing . As mentioned earlier when a lawyer recommends to a client to do such false accusations the lawyer should be put in jail and disbarred as well.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm 74 years old. I grew up in the 1950s.

And I guarantee you that I enjoy ten times more personal freedom now than I did in the fifties.

When I hear youngsters whine about "Loss of their freedoms" I laugh out loud.

They should have lived back in the "good old days"(????) when the police could "run you in" for vagrancy if you didn't have any money in your pocket. When you could be arrested for failure to give a good account of yourself." When "questioning" by the police involved a rubber hose and heat lamp. When wearing shorts in public got you arrested for "indecent exposure."
When concealed weapon permits were not available to anyone except the politically connected, and carrying a concealed weapon got you six months in jail.

I could go on for ten pages, but the point is made. Next time you feel like whining aboiut losing your freedom, ask your grandfather what the fifties were really like.

And yet, in spite of everything, we survived and built a more free country. And we will continue to do so.

I did ask my grandfather a question similar once. His reply was by and large things have gotten far worse and those that talk of the "old days" are generally displaying selective memory that changes to fit their mood.

 

[PapaG]

I have been seeing some references to Florida's new red flag law and was wondering if this could be a trend nation wide? Anyone know the details and how this works?

Going into effect in Illinois, a soon to not be free state.

 

[lemaymiami]

Thought I was pretty moderate in my first response, post #5... Watched as things progressed and for sure - this is a hot button issue, no doubt...

Clearly our world has changed since I was a kid (sixties - dodged the draft in 1968 by enlisting....) when there simply was no such thing as an "active shooter"... Today, sad to say, I don't need to remind anyone that we have all too many incidents where, after the fact it was pretty clear that someone should have acted before the blood was on the ground. Nothing you can do about a premeditated action that gave not one hint of trouble beforehand (the Vegas shooter comes to mind) except to pray for a strong, quick response by folks who know how to neutralize a shooter.... and put him or her down as early as possible...

As for those individuals that gave quite a bit of information about their instability and/or intentions beforehand (the Parkland shooting -the church shooting up in the Carolinas), this is clearly an issue that needs to be acted on. Hardly any of our existing laws and law enforcement concepts deal with this. Traditionally no action was taken until a law had been broken - but in today's world we really do need to change our tactics (and the legal framework behind it all..). I'm saying this even though I'm all too aware that our mental health services are barely adequate for ordinary circumstances - and most professionals in the field will tell you that they're not reliably able to predict human behavior... We can give an ailing individual a new heart, we can send a man to the moon - but mental health issues are still behind the times (understatement).

I have been the young officer dealing with troubled folks and on the scene of more murder/suicides than I ever wanted to witness (once or twice I was on the scene when the last to die - was still flopping around after a head shot that wasn't terminal... quickly enough....). In later years I assisted my officers in taking folks into custody (and seizing their weapons) after family members - many times at their wits end, begged us to help... Yes there are already laws on the books that allow this - long before "red flag" laws were contemplated... I've counselled young officers that had someone badly needing mental health treatment - that couldn't find an agency or a bed anywhere - that wasn't already full to over-flowing... That sort of circumstance will discourage a young well meaning cop - learning that there's a lot of difference between what we say we provide - and what's actually there on the ground - not matter how desperate the need.

Yes, well meaning legislation can be mis-used - and most dealing with conflicts between family members or neighbors soon learn that folks will lie - to no end if they're wanting to injure someone else....Learning to distinguish between truth and falsehood takes years (many that I worked with never developed those skills, putting up a cynical front to mask their frustration...). That particular skill is highly valued by folks who work the street - since often, the only justice seen will be when a lying complainant isn't allowed to injure a family member or a neighbor...

I have to side with those who say we (everyone that appreciates the second amendment) need to get out in front of this kind of issue. Laws will be written about this topic - and they need to be reasonable - and also need to require a judicial review within no more than a week to have the facts aired and allow a judge to see whether a pre-emptive action was, in fact, justified. There also needs to be a requirement that the state pay for the attorney of the person that the action was taken against - if it's found to be without merit...

I could go farther but I'll allow others to speak up about this. Make no mistake, if armed citizens want to keep their current privileges we need to be part of the solution on this topic - at least in my opinion....

 

[cheygriz]

Well said, lemay. A person is ceither part of the solution or part of the problem.

We gain nothing by pretending there is no problem, or that the cure is worse than the illness.

We get ahead of it, and offer some solutions we can live with, or allow Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Shumer to offer solutions we won't like at all.

The "Chicken Little" approach is total nonsense.

 

[cheygriz]

I did ask my grandfather a question similar once. His reply was by and large things have gotten far worse and those that talk of the "old days" are generally displaying selective memory that changes to fit their mood.

I offered examples. Do you have examples?? do you know of any cases today where a person can be lynched for being black? Or gay? Or Jewish? Or Catholic? Believe me, it happened in the 50s and 60s. I know, because I was there. What specifically did your grand father think had gotten worse?

 

[Hasaf]

I am going to mention a counterproductive effect of these laws that I have seen.

I have a friend who, by any sane definition, is a real gun nut. That's okay with me. Unfortunately, mental health wise, he has gone through some rough patches. He hasn't ever gotten formal help because he realizes that help would come at the cost of something that gives him a significant degree of pleasure.

Yes, an anti-gun person would derive a lot of glee from this. However, the issue remains. If I know of one then there are undoubtedly others.

One has to wonder how much harm is being done by these red-flag laws through their discouraging people to get help; or refer someone, they worry about, to help.

 

[Deanimator]

I have to side with those who say we (everyone that appreciates the second amendment) need to get out in front of this kind of issue. Laws will be written about this topic - and they need to be reasonable - and also need to require a judicial review within no more than a week to have the facts aired and allow a judge to see whether a pre-emptive action was, in fact, justified. There also needs to be a requirement that the state pay for the attorney of the person that the action was taken against - if it's found to be without merit...

1. The only way for gun owners to "get out in front" of this is to DISARM... TOTALLY. That's the ONLY thing that will satisfy the proponents of racially invidious gun controls. That's been the goal all along. Now they've stopped trying to hide it.
2. To the gun control cult, the only "reasonable" law is one which disarms everyone... but them and those whom they employee to protect them... directly.
3. If the only "penalty" for violating somebody's rights is legal fees, they'll do it all day long and twice on Sunday. It's not THEIR money. "SWATing" gets people KILLED. Entirely apart from the dubious legislation proposed, falsely reporting a crime leading to a police visit should be treated as attempted manslaughter, AT A MINIMUM. Police who fail in their due diligence to detect false accusations should be PERSONALLY liable, both criminally and civilly.

If there were EVER "honest" attempts" at "reasonable gun safety measures", those days have LONG since passed, in fact long before I was born, and I'll be sixty two next week.

The tactics of the anti-gun cult mirror those of the pro-slavery forces in the antebellum South, seeking to spread their malicious ideology far outside of their existing satraps. It only remains to be seen what will be their "Fugitive Slave Act" that ends up being the "bridge too far". There is no "compromise" with them. One can only submit totally or resist.

 

[Deanimator]

Well said, lemay. A person is ceither part of the solution or part of the problem.

We gain nothing by pretending there is no problem, or that the cure is worse than the illness.

We get ahead of it, and offer some solutions we can live with, or allow Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Shumer to offer solutions we won't like at all.

We gain nothing by pretending that the other side wants anything except total disarmament of everyone but themselves and their bodyguards. NOTHING else will satisfy them.

Abject surrender is a "solution" of sorts.

In December 1941, which was Jeannette Rankin, part of the "solution" or part of the "problem"?

The "Chicken Little" approach is total nonsense.

The "peace in our time" approach is nonsense. It was in 1938. It is today.

What will you do when the Sudetenland isn't enough?

 

[Tommygunn]

I can get up in the morning and get dressed, putting on my shoulder holster and my SIG P226 and go about my normal day.

50 years ago, that would have landed me in jail for six months.

I can't buy a new Thompson. So what? I can buy an AR-15 or an AK.

As you grow older, you will come to realize that EVERYTHING in life is a tradeoff of one kind or another. You give up one thing to gain something else. That's the way life has worked since Adam and Eve left the garden.

You do realize that the Thompson was full auto, and the AR-15 is semi auto..... What you mentioned there was not a "tradeoff," it's a RESTRICTION.

Look, I'm not denying somethings have improved, but the fact remains, our rights are still under threat. Our president just banned bumpstocks. Now, I have no love for those stupid devices, but a supposedly conservative republican president has banned a device that some people already own, and will be forced to surrender. The Democrats who take over the House in January have promised new antigun laws.
The threat is there.
Yes , you can buy a new AR-15 at Academy Sports.
For now........

 

[Deanimator]

Yes , you can buy a new AR-15 at Academy Sports.
For now........

And banning such sales... and CONFISCATING the AR-15s ALREADY IN OUR POSSESSION is a CENTRAL demand of the anti-gun cult. Anybody who denies that is LYING. Anybody who believes that they'll EVER be satisfied with less is DELUSIONAL And the other side tells us so, THEMSELVES.

But hey, maybe Congressman Swalwell was just trying to lull us into a false sense of security by... THREATENING TO NUKE US.

 

[Deanimator]

I can get up in the morning and get dressed, putting on my shoulder holster and my SIG P226 and go about my normal day.

Then you either don't live in New York City or Los Angeles, or you're a cop, or you and Bill de Blasio (or Gil Garcetti) are drinking buddies.

If you're the Black or Hispanic guy working at Kinkos, not so much.

 

[Deanimator]

In 1931 I could walk into a hardware store and buy a .22 bolt rifle, or a Thompson submachinegun, pay the $$$, and take either (or both) home.
Can you do that today?

In 1965 I could order a Luger or a G-43 through the mail and have it sent straight to my house. Can you do that today?

And yet somehow, I'm told that "Today, guns are far too easy to acquire."

Like the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists, the anti-gun cult are pathologically lying maximalists.

 

[Tommygunn]

In 1965 I could order a Luger or a G-43 through the mail and have it sent straight to my house. Can you do that today?

And yet somehow, I'm told that "Today, guns are far too easy to acquire."

Like the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists, the anti-gun cult are pathologically lying maximalists.

Yeuuup. Good point!

 

[George P]

I'm 74 years old. I grew up in the 1950s.

And I guarantee you that I enjoy ten times more personal freedom now than I did in the fifties.

When I hear youngsters whine about "Loss of their freedoms" I laugh out loud.

They should have lived back in the "good old days"(????) when the police could "run you in" for vagrancy if you didn't have any money in your pocket. When you could be arrested for failure to give a good account of yourself." When "questioning" by the police involved a rubber hose and heat lamp. When wearing shorts in public got you arrested for "indecent exposure."
When concealed weapon permits were not available to anyone except the politically connected, and carrying a concealed weapon got you six months in jail.

I could go on for ten pages, but the point is made. Next time you feel like whining aboiut losing your freedom, ask your grandfather what the fifties were really like.

And yet, in spite of everything, we survived and built a more free country. And we will continue to do so.

And yet back then, you also had privacy; today everything about you is known, and those that do know may not have your best interests in mind. We have police now dressing and acting like paramilitary units. No longer Protect and Serve, it is more like military actions against US citizens. Red Flags, while nice in theory, have a much greater propensity for wrong doing by those with an agenda.

 

[Deanimator]

Red Flags, while nice in theory, have a much greater propensity for wrong doing by those with an agenda.

And more to the point:

1. Those who maliciously invoke them won't be meaningfully punished.
2. Those who negligently or maliciously enforce them won't be meaningfully punished.

The VICTIMS will be punished, or at best dismissed.

And that is by DESIGN.

THIRTY years ago, I was seeing anti-gun cultists talking about the need to destroy the "gun culture". If they can't destroy lawful gun ownership outright, they'll discourage it by making it as dangerous, legally and physically, as possible. To this end, they will shield those who misuse (USE, actually) racially invidious gun control laws.