Red Flag Laws

[Uncle Dave]

View attachment 795546

100% agreed.


So - do you let a criminal get a gun? How do you stop them from getting them?

What if a known criminal has one ? Do we/ you try to take it away?

UD

 

[t&y]

"...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

To take this back a few steps, i think you are talking about amending the constitution with red flag laws.

As well, the common point of your four examples was a person made overt actions that a reasonable person could assume about to happen. Those were about PEOPLE. A logical inference, or even a test, with your example set is to substitute various things that could harm people, instead of guns, so that the true logic of your examples is clear. In all cases, the gun is not the problem, the perp is the problem. As well, in all of those cases, if everyone of the people the perp wanted to hurt had a gun its highly unlikely the perp would act. Right? Unless the goal of the perp was suicide, which is the most common gun death.

While you may not have tried to make that point in your mind, your examples clearly made it for us, and in my mind makes the attempt to find that slippery slope the most dangerous of all.

And the definition of regulated, "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Fix the crazy people, not remove the personal protection part. Arm everyone and the problem goes away. period.

I think thats the answer.

Let's not forget "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Most people either ignore or glaze of the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the right to keep and bear arms. So I ask you this, do you think anyone at anytime should lose the right to bear arms?

 

[SNiC Jet]

100% agreed.


So - do you let a criminal get a gun? How do you stop them from getting them?

What if a known criminal has one ? Do we/ you try to take it away?

UD

So - do you let a criminal get a gun?
No, there are already Federal and State laws prohibiting this.....
Federal law bans those who have been convicted of certain crimes from ever possessing firearms. Included in those crimes are all felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. (The law also prohibits those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having a gun.) (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2013).)

State law often overlaps with the federal ban. For example, in California, convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence offenses bar offenders from owning or possessing guns within 10 years of conviction. (Cal. Penal Code § 29800 et seq. (2013).)

How do you stop them from getting them?
We can expand "back ground checks" to include private sellers, but with Fed and State Governments displaying and proving themselves as totally incompetent, new laws and regulations will have little or no impact on this situation, thus the Left's push to disarm lawful citizen's and limiting their rights simply because our government is too incompetent to enforce our current statutes........this is IMO, totally unacceptable.


What if a known criminal has one ? Do we/ you try to take it away?
Yes!!! and place those individuals in prison, AND if applicable, imprison and/or heavy fine those persons who assisted with the possession.

Will any of this stop the criminals?
NO! ......and disarming our citizens will only give these criminals unlimited access to a Nation wide gun free zone....Not Smart!

What's the answer? Enforce the established gun laws and prosecute the offenders. Example: Kate Steins killer was found not guilty of murder in CA.....however, was convicted only of being a felon in possession of a firearm (this alone should have placed him in CA prison)....but recently this conviction was overturned by 3 Liberal judges simply because he only possessed the gun for a moment (you can't make this shit up)....... IMO, the REAL problem is obvious....and the Liberal ass-clowns are crying and do not know what to do simply because they are receiving the results of what they themselves implemented....Liberal minded Judges....and now, they target lawful gun owners as a result of their failures.

What is the purpose of additional laws when our bureaucrats are too incompetent to identify those suspected and our courts are not willing to enforce and/or prosecute the criminals who are literally holding the smoking gun? What messages are we REALLY sending? Police officers are being ridiculed, harassed, and abused in the light of day...but this conduct is deemed acceptable and applauded by certain groups... We do not have a gun problem....we have an enforcement problem in a time where "social justice" out weighs common sense......

 

[Uncle Dave]

So you are ok with a universal background check

You are anti private sale without a check or not I cant tell?
HOw about family transfers with no felonies?

You are pro enforcement (pretty sure everyone here is)



So are you pro or against red flag laws?

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

So you are ok with a universal background check

You are anti private sale without a check or not I cant tell?
HOw about family transfers with no felonies?

You are pro enforcement (pretty sure everyone here is)



So are you pro or against red flag laws?

UD

So you are ok with a universal background check......YES!

You are anti private sale without a check or not I cant tell? Background checks should apply ......unless we are talking antiques

HOw about family transfers with no felonies? The "I did not know" will be the defense....Family members should not be exempt.

You are pro enforcement (pretty sure everyone here is) YES!

So are you pro or against red flag laws?
Support ONLY as written and implemented as defined below...
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.PERIOD!

IMO, the above declares and identifies "a person" as an individual being....and NOT applied to a group or any group of legal citizens!
But this is where we are fooling ourselves.....as the SC justices declares "corporations" as "persons"........

So, in this perspective...HELL NO!!!....I DO NOT SUPPORT as I have no confidence when considering our past judicial decisions in regards to "a person"....and chances are good they will continue and/or repeat their unconstitutional foolishness.

 

[530RL]

Let's not forget "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Most people either ignore or glaze of the word UNREASONABLE when talking about the right to keep and bear arms. So I ask you this, do you think anyone at anytime should lose the right to bear arms?

Is your argument that the 4th amendment supersedes the 2nd amendment?

 

[Uncle Dave]

So are you pro or against red flag laws?
ONLY as written and implemented as defined below...
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.PERIOD!

IMO, the above declares and identifies "a person" as an individual being....and NOT applied to a group or any group of legal citizens!
But this is where we are fooling ourselves.....as the SC justices declares "corporations" as "persons"........

So, in this perspective...HELL NO!!!....I DO NOT SUPPORT as I have no confidence when considering our past judicial decisions in regards to "a person"....and chances are good they will continue and/or repeat their unconstitutional foolishness.

OK so Kid (say no one knows who the parents are) goes on Friendface/ youface Sunday night takes a pict of him with (pick a "scary" gun) and sys he's going to blow his schoolmates away Monday morning.

You are ok letting him keep the gun?

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

OK so Kid (say no one knows who the parents are) goes on Friendface/ youface Sunday night takes a pict of him with (pick a "scary" gun) and sys he's going to blow his schoolmates away Monday morning.

You are ok letting him keep the gun?

UD

Really..... you have to ask?
Common sense screams NO!....his individual conduct dictates the results....
Where are you going with this?

 

[Uncle Dave]

Really..... you have to ask?
Common sense screams NO!....his individual conduct dictates the results....
Where are you going with this?

I ask because you outlined a hard line that would preclude you from trying to take the weapon just one post prior.

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

I ask because you outlined a hard line that would preclude you from trying to take the weapon just one post prior.

UD

Which line was that?....I will try to clarify....

 

[RCDave]

 

[t&y]

Is your argument that the 4th amendment supersedes the 2nd amendment?

No. I think they support each other.

 

[94Nautique]

Boner, speaking of waxing pussies. Can 94 get a 2fer deal with the wife? 94’s box needs a major manicure! The word on the street is that 94 would let you pull a 3 way if you helped her out with a proper waxing!

Hey sauce feel free to pm me, I'll send you my phone number and we can chat.

Otherwise I'd ask that you rethink the shit talking posts.

Sound good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[530RL]

Hey sauce feel free to pm me, I'll send you my phone number and we can chat.

Otherwise I'd ask that you rethink the shit talking posts.

Sound good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

I got a thousand on Sauce.....

 

[saucedaddy]

Hey sauce feel free to pm me, I'll send you my phone number and we can chat.

Otherwise I'd ask that you rethink the shit talking posts.

Sound good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

Best way, actually.

6 shots in, you'll be as smart as a liberal. 12 shots in, you'll reach Saucer plateau, at 15 you get into FraudPa territory when you just cut and paste.

Let 'er rip, tater chip. [emoji16]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

Hadn't thought of you in a year & a half until you chose to get uppity yesterday and speak of me. So I figured you were looking for attention again? Then you originally “Liked” my post? Can’t handle it then don’t instigate it! You stay away & I’ll call the dogs off. I don’t “PM” so feel free to hit that “Report” button if it still hurts.

 

[was thatguy]

Yes exactly.

5150 is a 72 hour hold.
Is that what you’re talking about?

 

[RodnJen]

5150 is a 72 hour hold.
Is that what you’re talking about?

Yes.

 

[rmarion]

and this will stop criminals from acquiring Guns illegally.

The F.ing Left are IDIOTS!!!

 

[Uncle Dave]

Which line was that?....I will try to clarify....

ONLY as written and implemented as defined below...
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.PERIOD!

Using this definition there wouldn't be time to get a court order, nor would a family member even be identified to petition for the removal.

 

[94Nautique]

Hadn't thought of you in a year & a half until you chose to get uppity yesterday and speak of me. So I figured you were looking for attention again? Then you originally “Liked” my post? Can’t handle it then don’t instigate it! You stay away & I’ll call the dogs off. I don’t “PM” so feel free to hit that “Report” button if it still hurts.

Would love to chat with you. Offer still stands.

 

[94Nautique]

I got a thousand on Sauce.....

You bet on people talking?

You are one odd dude.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Using this definition there wouldn't be time to get a court order, nor would a family member even be identified to petition for the removal.

Please explain, "there wouldn't be time...." and IMO, the family member is also the one's who could initiate the petition for removal....what do you mean by "nor would a family member even be identified"?......sounds to me like you want to place these "red flag" discretion and removals solely in the hands of the police authorities......

Please tell me......How do you see "Red Flag" removals implemented?

 

[Uncle Dave]

Please explain, "there wouldn't be time...." and IMO, the family member is also the one's who could initiate the petition for removal....what do you mean by "nor would a family member even be identified"?......sounds to me like you want to place these "red flag" discretion and removals solely in the hands of the police authorities......

Please tell me......How do you see "Red Flag" removals implemented?

I did explain it. The scenario I outlined was a Sunday night to Monday morning timeline.

What if one can't locate a family member?
What if no one can identify the poster? Say its some random guy that created a profile that day.
What if the family is out of town?
Could you get a court order on a Sunday night?


I look at this scenario as self selection
It's a criminal threat violation which can end up as a felony conviction.
I think if a person goes online and threatens to go postal at a specific place and time, and displays he has the means to do so -
To my mind they just waived rights to weapons ownership.
I think actions like that should be grounds for immediate disarming.

3rd party "he said she's saids" - completely different deal.
In these scenarios I agree with you

UD

 

[thetub]

5150 is a 72 hour hold.
Is that what you’re talking about?

WTG RODs so full of shit and speaks in little riddles cause he dont know anything about what hes saying.

5150 is useless ask any cop on the boards thanks to Rods ACLU buddies he deepthroats...

cops dont want to touch anyone cause of lawsuits from ACLU

but this might be different for a gun toting white man...

 

[SNiC Jet]

I did explain it. The scenario I outlined was a Sunday night to Monday morning timeline.

What if one can't locate a family member?
What if the family is out of town?
Could you get a court order on a Sunday night?

I look at this scenario as self selection
I think if a person goes online and threatens to go postal at a specific place and time, and displays he has the means to do so -
To my mind they just waived rights to weapons ownership.
I think actions like that should be grounds for immediate disarming.

UD

What if one can't locate a family member? I never said or implied that a family member must be a participant in the preceding....

What if the family is out of town? See above...

Could you get a court order on a Sunday night? Are you serious? Search warrants and arrest warrants are a 365/24/7 job...... That fact that a judge must be awoke to save lives is irrelevant......

You say,
"I look at this scenario as self selection
I think if a person goes online and threatens to go postal at a specific place and time, and displays he has the means to do so -
To my mind they just waived rights to weapons ownership.
I think actions like that should be grounds for immediate disarming."

Who makes this determination? Police, neighbors, friends.......this is totally irresponsible in regards to safe guarding our Rights and this were I jump off! There is already laws against making these threats as you describe...ARREST HIM!
Eliminating due process is not only totally unacceptable to me, but what you are suggesting is the first steps into turning our Nation into a "Police State".......

 

[thetub]

and saucegobbler fu-k you too

with love and kisses

 

[Uncle Dave]

What if one can't locate a family member? I never said or implied that a family member must be a participant in the preceding....

What if the family is out of town? See above...

Could you get a court order on a Sunday night? Are you serious? Search warrants and arrest warrants are a 365/24/7 job...... That fact that a judge must be awoke to save lives is irrelevant......

I look at this scenario as self selection
I think if a person goes online and threatens to go postal at a specific place and time, and displays he has the means to do so -
To my mind they just waived rights to weapons ownership.
I think actions like that should be grounds for immediate disarming.

Who makes this determination? Police, neighbors, friends.......this is totally irresponsible in regards to safe guarding our Rights and this were I jump off! Eliminating due process is not only totally unacceptable to me, what you are suggesting is the first steps into turning our Nation into a "Police State".......

Heres what you said.

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.PERIOD!

Then you said this - I never said or implied that a family member must be a participant in the preceding....

It seemed to me you implied ONLY police or a family member could petition removal.

Im proposing a scenario where the threat is made but the family cant be located or is unknown.

IN the last serial killer case the parents called the police and said the kid was a threat - nothing happened.

It seems you are ok with allowing this that make outward and time bound threats to keep their weapons.

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

Heres what you said.

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.PERIOD!

It seemed to me you implied ONLY police or a family member could petition removal.

UD

If a citizen feels the need to stop a lunatic as you describe....would he or she not first call the police to assist them with their preventive efforts? If not, who do you suggest they contact and rely on for removal assistance?

 

[Uncle Dave]

If a citizen feels the need to stop a lunatic as you describe....would he or she not first call the police to assist them with their preventive efforts? If not, who do you suggest they contact and rely on for removal assistance?

The police would be where Id start - but the law has to allow the police to act.

It hasn't previously.

UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

Who makes this determination? Police, neighbors, friends.......this is totally irresponsible in regards to safe guarding our Rights and this were I jump off! There is already laws against making these threats as you describe...ARREST HIM!
Eliminating due process is not only totally unacceptable to me, but what you are suggesting is the first steps into turning our Nation into a "Police State".......

Im making no such case that "random" disarming occurs - I specifically outlined a publicized threat.

You are making a case to arrest the person doing the threatening.
IF the person being arrested were armed the police would disarm them.

Isnt this a red flag arrest then?

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

The police would be where Id start - but the law has to allow the police to act.

It hasn't previously.

UD

The police can react, they can arrest him for making public threats to others......Police have always had the responsibility and duty to react and prevent "active" harm to others...... but allowing police to be judge and jury of a persons face book post as you describe and then allowing them to seize all weapons w/o due diligence and due process is the beginning of the end......

 

[SNiC Jet]

Im making no such case that "random" disarming occurs - I specifically outlined a publicized threat.

You are making a case to arrest the person doing the threatening.
IF the person being arrested were armed the police would disarm them.

Isnt this a red flag arrest then?

UD

One more time.....regarding the face book scenario you presented.....the Police can not simply knock on his door and arrest him w/o a warrant....... that IMO is a Police State.

However, I have no problem with them knocking on his door for further investigation regarding his face book posts.......

 

[Uncle Dave]

The police can react, they can arrest him for making public threats to others......Police have always had the responsibility and duty to react and prevent "active" harm to others...... but allowing police to be judge and jury of a persons face book post as you describe and then allowing them to seize all weapons w/o due diligence and due process is the beginning of the end......

Police "can react" but have no obligation to protect anyone.

I never said the police should be the judge and jury .

The cops aren't going to allow him to keep his guns in the case of an arrest - they will be confiscated if he is arrested.


At some point doesn't a person self select disarmament by publicizing threats? Im saying the guys that do the do it to themselves.

UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

One more time.....regarding the face book scenario you presented.....the Police can not simply knock on his door and arrest him w/o a warrant....... that IMO is a Police State.

However, I have no problem with them knocking on his door for further investigation regarding his face book posts.......

Police arrest people all the time without warrants.

Threaten to shoot a cop while holding a gun and you'll get arrested with no warrant- if not shot.

Threaten to kill a school full of kids publicly while holding a semi auto rifle - no arrest without warrant.

Its ok to hold either position, Im just curious what peoples positions are.



UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

Police "can react" but have no obligation to protect anyone.

I never said the police should be the judge and jury .

The cops aren't going to allow him to keep his guns in the case of an arrest - they will be confiscated if he is arrested.


At some point doesn't a person self select disarmament by publicizing threats? Im saying the guys that do the do it to themselves.

UD

Police "can react" but have no obligation to protect anyone.You lost me here....

I never said the police should be the judge and jury . Then who makes the "guilty" determination to enter the home and seize the weapons based solely on face book posts?

The cops aren't going to allow him to keep his guns in the case of an arrest - they will be confiscated if he is arrested. Agreed

At some point doesn't a person self select disarmament by publicizing threats? Im saying the guys that do the do it to themselves. Agreed....but that is sure no reason to allow the unlawful actions of "the guys" to be utilized as an excuse to remove or weaken the Rights and due process from law abiding citizens.

This is a "Slippery slope"!

 

[t&y]

A couple points here. 5150 is a valuable tool but doesn't fix the problem. Many hospitals will simply monitor the person and ask how they are feeling, then release them prior to the 72 hour period being completed due to lack of room and beds.

5150.5 allows for a person to provide the officer with all the information necessary to place someone on a 72 hour observation even though the Office might never see the acts or behavior. Think about a person you know very well, always follows the same pattern over the course a few days leading up to a mental break, and you want to stop it and get them back on the meds before they lose it. That is the intent behind a 5150.5. Big thing is it take the responsibility of the hold off the officer, and puts it squarely on the person providing the information.

So now the meat and potatoes here.... Can a cop just walk up based off somebody's statements, place them on a 5150 or 5150.5 hold, and confiscate all their guns? HELLLLLLLLLLLL NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... come on people, don't fall for the bullshit.

YES, cops can take weapons/guns for safekeeping in the case of a mental evaluation or other violent crimes, but they are not permanently deprived or confiscated. A judge will review the case and either order them to be removed or given back.

Same goes for these red flag laws. The person who is the subject will get a chance to plead their case to a judge. It's not a simple, "Hey frank is crazy, go get his guns." There is a legal process.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Threaten to kill a school full of kids publicly while holding a semi auto rifle - no arrest without warrant.

Did you personally see him actively holding his REAL semi-auto weapon on face book, or was the weapon on face book merely a movie prop, air rifle, or a card board cut out? Stupid...YES...but being stupid is not against the law.
Or, did you actually see and hear him making these threats while holding a REAL weapon openly in public? That is the difference!

 

[Uncle Dave]

Police "can react" but have no obligation to protect anyone.You lost me here....

I never said the police should be the judge and jury . Then who makes the "guilty" determination to enter the home and seize the weapons based solely on face book posts?

The cops aren't going to allow him to keep his guns in the case of an arrest - they will be confiscated if he is arrested. Agreed

At some point doesn't a person self select disarmament by publicizing threats? Im saying the guys that do the do it to themselves. Agreed....but that is sure no reason to allow the unlawful actions of "the guys" to be utilized as an excuse to remove or weaken the Rights and due process from law abiding citizens.

This is a "Slippery slope"!

Police have no obligation to protect anyone. This is a reality most do not know is true. I urge you to do a small bit of research. I believe you are going to be surprised. Warren Vs District of Columbia is one of the precedent setting cases.

I see a threat to shoot up a school as no different than a bomb threat -an arrestable threat that should result in at min temp confiscation
Ultimately the case to restore weapons ownership should be with a a judge.

Im not arguing that due process should go away - Im trying to find out where people draw a line at min temporary disarmament based a real time threat with a razor thin time line.

I know its a difficult scenario - but if we wish to engage in real discussion thats the meat of the matter .

UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

Did you personally see him actively holding his REAL semi-auto weapon on face book, or was the weapon on face book merely a movie prop, air rifle, or a card board cut out? Stupid...YES...but being stupid is not against the law.
Or, did you actually see and hear him making these threats while holding a REAL weapon openly in public? That is the difference!

Lets say we cant tell. How many people get shot with fake or toy weapons because no one can tell?

Lets say we can identify the guy - and we can trace the weapons purchase and determine he owns what he appears to be holding- does that change our response?

Stupid is not against the law. but speech rights have limits - yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre for example isnt protected behavior.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Police have no obligation to protect anyone.

Obligated, maybe not...that you so-called judges! But duty is another matter isn't it?

Core Duties of a Police Officer
The primary duty of a police officer is to protect people and property.

Im trying to find out where people draw a line at min temporary disarmament based a real time threat with a razor thin time line.

IMO, your Sunday night face book scenario is NOT a "razor thin time line".......

 

[SNiC Jet]

Lets say we can identify the guy - and we can trace the weapons purchase and determine he owns what he appears to be holding- does that change our response?

If you have time to trace weapons, then it is NOT a razor thin time line? Sorry UD, but your scenario keeps changing......

 

[Uncle Dave]

If you have time to trace weapons, then it is NOT a razor thin time line? Sorry UD, but your scenario keeps changing......

Come on - I gave 2 scenarios.


UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

Come on - I gave 2 scenarios.


UD

Sorry, I missed that.....Why don't you just tell me the mechanics as to who, how and when you believe these Red Flag weapon seizure should take place and under what circumstances. Thanks

 

[Uncle Dave]

Obligated, maybe not...that you so-called judges! But duty is another matter isn't it?

Core Duties of a Police Officer
The primary duty of a police officer is to protect people and property.


IMO, your Sunday night face book scenario is NOT a "razor thin time line".......

Sunday night to monday morning is pretty tight - lets say Im wrong and its not "razor thin"

I tried to engage in dialog about the subject - what people want is to be right. Not have a dialog.

If we cant build and discuss an edge case scenario then why bother discussing at all?

Yes they have a duty to protect - but if that duty is abdicated, they cannot be held liable for dereliction of duty which makes it a moot point wouldn't you say?

UD

 

[Uncle Dave]

Sorry, I missed that.....Why don't you just tell me the mechanics as to who, how and when you believe these Red Flag weapon seizure should take place and under what circumstances. Thanks

I did -

I said a guy threatening to shoot up a school on Soc med should be arrested at min and de armed (until a judge says otherwise)
I said that action is similar to a bomb threat and wouldn't require a warrant.

You said in 2 different things in 2 diff posts- that he should not be arrested without a warrant and in another post hat these threats are already covered by law and "arrest him".

There is already laws against making these threats as you describe...ARREST HIM!
One more time.....regarding the face book scenario you presented.....the Police can not simply knock on his door and arrest him w/o a warrant....... that IMO is a Police State.



UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

I did -

I said a guy threatening to shoot up a school on Soc med should be arrested at min and de armed (until a judge says otherwise)
I said that action is similar to a bomb threat and wouldn't require a warrant.

You said in 2 different things in 2 diff posts- that he should not be arrested without a warrant and in another post hat these threats are already covered by law and "arrest him".

There is already laws against making these threats as you describe...ARREST HIM!
One more time.....regarding the face book scenario you presented.....the Police can not simply knock on his door and arrest him w/o a warrant....... that IMO is a Police State.



UD

Thank you......if the threat is as you described and is verified...... I can agree, and I believe we agree that current laws support these actions.....so why the need for additional laws?

 

[Uncle Dave]

Thank you......if the threat is as you described and is verified...... I can agree, and I believe we agree that current laws support these actions.....so why the need for additional laws?

Current laws do not support the disarm action without a warrant.

A red flag law could, I am as worried as anyone about the slippery slope.

I should have been more clear in my above statement - my intent would be clearer if I said the following.
I said that action is similar to a bomb threat and shouldn't require a warrant.

UD

 

[SNiC Jet]

Current laws do not support the disarm action without a warrant.

A red flag law could, I am as worried as anyone about the slippery slope.



UD

But they support and allow the arrest.....and as you said....when arrested, they will confiscate weapons.

The cops aren't going to allow him to keep his guns in the case of an arrest - they will be confiscated if he is arrested.

So, why the need for additional laws?

 

[Uncle Dave]

But they support and allow the arrest.....and as you said....when arrested, they will confiscate weapons.

So, why the need for additional laws?

Its not a given they support or allow the arrest. Any enforcement of a soc med threat is arbitrary, and some times in some places not at all.

Serial killers make public threats before during and after murders.

Should it be a law? thats the discussion.

Many here claim red flag laws are simply unconstitutional regardless of the circumstance.I understand this position. (and have a high degree of distrust for government at large)

UD

 

[RCDave]