I agree with that, to the point of how do we figure out who gets to make that call? Who determines what kind of talk crosses the line from being angry with the world and wanting to go out and commit mass murder? The issue we face here is that we have a 1st Amendment and a 2nd Amendment. One protects speech and the other firearm ownership. We run into problems when we try to shut people down before actual harm is committed. At the end of the day all a person can do is make sure they're prepared to protect themselves and their families, and if we are going to take action, let it be to figure out what's going so wrong with a person that they commit mass murder and find a way to fix it.
Swatting as an Inevitable Byproduct of "Red Flag" Laws
- Thread starter Deanimator
- Start date
- Status
I agree with that, to the point of how do we figure out who gets to make that call? Who determines what kind of talk crosses the line from being angry with the world and wanting to go out and commit mass murder? The issue we face here is that we have a 1st Amendment and a 2nd Amendment. One protects speech and the other firearm ownership. We run into problems when we try to shut people down before actual harm is committed. At the end of the day all a person can do is make sure they're prepared to protect themselves and their families, and if we are going to take action, let it be to figure out what's going so wrong with a person that they commit mass murder and find a way to fix it.
Elkins45
Member
I heard on the radio today that some Kentucky state legislators are proposing a red flag law for us. The reporter specifically mentioned the proposal will contain penalties for misuse.
This thread is heavy on speculation and low on facts.
FWIW red flag laws don’t have any effect on the guns buried in your backyard.
This thread is heavy on speculation and low on facts.
FWIW red flag laws don’t have any effect on the guns buried in your backyard.
P5 Guy
Member
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...der-guns-months-after-new-gun-law-took-effect
Notice this is a 2018 article.
Notice this is a 2018 article.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,619
Can you please document your second statement? For each state that has passed a red flag law: What documentation is required? Does the gun owner get to confront his or her accuser in a court of law to dispute the assertions?
That would be a good thing.
Tommygunn
Member
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
In practical terms, that's more likely to amount to "intimidated by Twitter mobs, timid and conformist".
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
The OP is connecting recent history (albeit without cites) from the Reconstruction South, and many contentious divorces or domestic disputes. All that's required is to observe, no speculation is necessary.
Re: Red Flag laws, we already have a well establish Constitutional Law doctrine describing how to judicially deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property, and how to guard against abuse; that's what courts are for.
Provided that all the same protections and rights of due process are respected, Red Flag laws need not be Constitutionally difficult. Of course, that's not what they had in mind. . .
Last edited:
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I cant believe anyone on this forum actually thinks RF laws are a good idea.
In many of these "mass shootings" there were civilians that tried to throw up "flags" that the eventual shooters were not fit to have access to firearms. How well did that work out? Theres a break in the system here that needs to be addressed. Folks are already throwing up "flags" but they are being ignored.
As with most things adding another law isn't going to help. This RF law is ripe for abuse, and it will be abused.
In many of these "mass shootings" there were civilians that tried to throw up "flags" that the eventual shooters were not fit to have access to firearms. How well did that work out? Theres a break in the system here that needs to be addressed. Folks are already throwing up "flags" but they are being ignored.
As with most things adding another law isn't going to help. This RF law is ripe for abuse, and it will be abused.
SilentStalker
Member
Guns buried in the yard are of little use. And you won’t be able to use them ever. A tool that cannot be utilized is not a tool and therefore effectively banned. Might was well go ahead and turn them in at that point. Again. We could all just say no. There is like 150 million gun owners in this country. If we just say no, what are they going to do? Get the military to take them? No. Get the police to take them? Possibly. Thing is, if we all protect each other then nothing will ever get done. We have a reason and the ability to push back yet everyone wants to give in to defeatism. I don’t get it. The founders gave everyone the tools and people just want to willingly give them up.
m
Precisely. I think this is strategy.
The premise is fine, preventing nutjobs from having guns is fine by me, but how would these laws be implemented?
IMO there’d have to either be some physical evidence. A threatening voicemail, a “manifesto” of some sort, etc. At a minimum there’d need to be multiple corroborating stories.
The idea that the law would be based around a he said/she said situation doesn’t really make sense for obvious reasons.
You’d also need a process in place for removing the “flag”.
IMO there’d have to either be some physical evidence. A threatening voicemail, a “manifesto” of some sort, etc. At a minimum there’d need to be multiple corroborating stories.
The idea that the law would be based around a he said/she said situation doesn’t really make sense for obvious reasons.
You’d also need a process in place for removing the “flag”.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Not to mention harsh MANDATORY penalties for malicious reporting... something simply not acceptable to the most rabid proponents. To them, merely WANTING to be a citizen gun owner is a disqualifier.
The purpose of these laws, as with ALL racially invidious gun controls is not to prevent criminals from getting guns, but to make it as difficult as humanly possible for non criminals to have guns, especially those not ideologically aligned with them or acting as their bodyguards.
Human nature suggests that RF laws, like our newly evolving social pressures of what words are appropriate to speak, will simply drive that behavior underground and (IMHO) create more of it because of the nagging resentment; it will manifest like Las Vegas, it will appear and execute without warning, come out of nowhere - it is the quintessential “slippery slope” for increasing surprise/ crazy firearms behavior - firearms crazy will fall off of the radar screen until it explodes.
One cannot know whether the seizure prevented much of anything. I do not expect that to prevent antigunners from proclaiming that RFLs "may have prevented the next mass shooting, saving dozens or maybe even hundreds."
One would hope so, but in the current political climate, I'm not sure that's the case. I think there will be plenty of antigunners who will be all to happy to blame the victim. "He shouldn't have pointed a gun at the police." These laws are being pushed hard by people who hate us, even if not exclusively by them. I mean that literally, too. I'm convinced that the antigunners don't just hate our guns. They hate us.
For years, I have said (& posted) that the antigunners would eventually push the idea that: (1) if you want guns; (2) that means that you're mentally ill; and (3) shouldn't have guns.
Yes, but I think we're talking about causation rather than correlation.
Swatting exists, even in the absence of RFLs.
RFLs exist and appear to be on the rise.
The apparent hypothesis of the OP (and the thread title) is that Swatting is "in inevitable byproduct" of RFLs.
I don't read that as a claim that Swatting would go away in the absence of RFLs.
Going back for a moment the point I made about about the antigunners blaming a victim because "he shouldn't have pointed a gun at the police," . . . . I'm genuinely concerned about both Swatting & mistaken addresses. If I were to awake to a crash in the night and a bunch of black-clad, armed guys coming into my house, there's a very real possibility that I would point a gun at them. That worries me.
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
As I understand the NY rfl Law it's like getting a protection order. The complainant sees a judge presents a case and the judge issues an order to confiscate that individuals guns. The person who's guns are taken is not present for initial court appearance and has to file with same court to disprove allegations. So gun owners are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. There is no due process of law here. Also there is no provions for malicious prosecutions.
SilentStalker
Member
Completely anti-American. The time to storm the castle has long passed.
You can have all the penalties you want for malicious reporting. The problem is getting them prosecuted. You think some liberal prosecutor is going to punish a fellow traveler for taking guns away from some redneck?
You're smoking some powerful weed there.
You're smoking some powerful weed there.
theotherwaldo
Member
-As I understand it, either of these comments might be enough to trigger a Red Flag... .
Enough. Banging a drum on the internet and beating your chest from a keyboard will change nothing. If you really want to fight this, use that keyboard to flood your representative's email, write letters, and call them. We need to be hounding them relentlessly on why these are horrible unconstitutional laws. Yelling into the echo chamber will not accomplish that task...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
