Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, I'll feed the troll.
Hopefully not as this denial of rights for no reason is just begging to be abused by immature or unscrupulous individuals and government officials.
Furthermore, have you seen what police do with personal property to include firearms? It is treated like trash regardless of it being museum quality or walmart junk. Imagine your expensive property treated like trash and just tossed in the back of a truck or car and hauled away.
If you want to red flag something, red flag the person's mental health based upon diagnosis from a real doctor vs dr facebook and come with a warrant.
Here's a quote from someone AGAINST the proposed law: "You know, committing a crime is not relevant to having this done,” Hannon said. “This is basically pre-crime, we haven't really heard a lot of testimony about pre-crime. This is someone being punished and having their rights restricted because they may commit a crime."
Well, um, those people who COULD HAVE been red-flagged were seriously mentally ill. The law would not, as far as I can tell, red-flag anyone who is not seriously mentally ill or otherwise a danger to himself or others.
Again, from the NPR story: Under the proposed law, a family member, roommate, law enforcement officer and others could petition a court to look at factors like evidence of serious mental illness before issuing what's called an extreme risk protection order."
I am NOT just being argumentative here: I am trying to understand what the problem is? Do you really think that, for example, some random person will report their random neighbor as being "mentally ill" so the neighbor is reviewed by the court? And even if so, why on earth would the court accept some random person's "testimony"? I don't think they would.
It seems like common sense to me, so I am trying to understand the opposition. And please keep in mind, I am NOT some total anti-gun person.
Leaders and elites in power who push "gun control," know that it does not work, but con many average people into thinking it will.
Less than 3% of gun deaths in the U.S. are caused by rifles, including so-called assault rifles. You are far more likely to drown in the U.S. than you are to be killed in a "mass shooting." However, since everyone consumes news and media 24/7, they have irrational fears and beliefs that are not based off logic. (Another example is that it's the safest it's been for children in half a century, but people have irrational fears of their kids being kidnapped, raped, molested or murdered.)
Gun control does not work. London did away with guns, then the criminals used knives. Then London went after knives, so the criminals started attacking people with homemade acid. Now London is trying to ban ingredients to make acid! Lunacy! Now that guns are off the streets in London, it for the first time in modern history just became more dangerous than NYC.
You will never stop people who want to kill. Why not go after the real problem? Why not ask ourselves what drives a person to kill another person? That is the problem. Guns, knives, acid, ramming vehicles into crowds--those are just the symptom of a problem.
To me this is not about pro-guns or anti-guns; rather, it's about being for common sense, logic, and rationality, or disregarding these things for temporary feel-good measures.
[edit] FYI I was not raised in a house with guns, and have not been around them most of my life. (Probably shot them less than a dozen times total.) They are not my "line in the sand," and I'm borderline a pacifist. I do revere the truth though, and see through the charade that the leaders/elites are pushing on people.
Last edited by Levi.Dunn; 09-02-2019 at 12:55 PM..
Here's a quote from someone AGAINST the proposed law: "You know, committing a crime is not relevant to having this done,” Hannon said. “This is basically pre-crime, we haven't really heard a lot of testimony about pre-crime. This is someone being punished and having their rights restricted because they may commit a crime."
Well, um, those people who COULD HAVE been red-flagged were seriously mentally ill. The law would not, as far as I can tell, red-flag anyone who is not seriously mentally ill or otherwise a danger to himself or others.
Again, from the NPR story: Under the proposed law, a family member, roommate, law enforcement officer and others could petition a court to look at factors like evidence of serious mental illness before issuing what's called an extreme risk protection order."
I am NOT just being argumentative here: I am trying to understand what the problem is? Do you really think that, for example, some random person will report their random neighbor as being "mentally ill" so the neighbor is reviewed by the court? And even if so, why on earth would the court accept some random person's "testimony"? I don't think they would.
It seems like common sense to me, so I am trying to understand the opposition. And please keep in mind, I am NOT some total anti-gun person.
If they were seriously mentally ill, should they be institutionalized? I don't think it's possible to make the world a safe place for mentally ill people to roam around freely yet have access to nothing that can harm other people. London has a problem with knife and acid attacks.
And meanwhile in Chicago 4 homicides tallied in the first 6 hours of Sept.
Just another weekend there.
Hundreds are dying in Chicago every year from gun violence. Yet we want to make firearms harder to purchase? Chicago is proof, if someone wants to commit a murder and get a gun, they will. Ill. Has some of the toughest laws in the land, and yet, hundreds are dying but you don't here peep about it.
New Hampshire's proposed "red flag" bill is broken at best, unconstitutional at worst
If somebody is truly dangerous, shouldn't we be locking up the person (pending a psych eval), not their property?
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
Well, um, those people who COULD HAVE been red-flagged were seriously mentally ill. The law would not, as far as I can tell, red-flag anyone who is not seriously mentally ill or otherwise a danger to himself or others.
Read HB 687 for yourself. " A petitioner may request, and court may enter, a temporary extreme risk protection order with or without actual notice to respondent. Upon a showing by the petitioner that there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate risk of causing bodily injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue a temporary extreme risk protection order.". So no psych eval just file a request claiming "reasonable cause", and you can swat your ex or your annoying neighbor with pretty much zero risk of being called out for false claims.
We already have laws to deal with people who are seriously mentally ill., the proposed "red flag" laws go much further than that, and have no requirement for any sort of psychiatric diagnosis prior to revoking rights. HB 687 will take real psych evidence into account, but real factual evidence is not a requirement for issuing a red flag order and confiscation (usually destroying) property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
I am NOT just being argumentative here: I am trying to understand what the problem is? Do you really think that, for example, some random person will report their random neighbor as being "mentally ill" so the neighbor is reviewed by the court? And even if so, why on earth would the court accept some random person's "testimony"? I don't think they would.
I've seen neighbors do worse in a escalating conflict over something petty than lie on an affidavit.
Courts would pretty much have to accept some random person's "testimony" under the proposed red flag law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012
It seems like common sense to me, so I am trying to understand the opposition. And please keep in mind, I am NOT some total anti-gun person.
Yes, that's exactly what will happen. An accusation is made, the home is searched and property is confiscated, and only afterwards is there a hearing to attempt to get it back.
Those are just the somewhat local ones with articles supporting them, there are anecdotes about abuse of Red Flag in Massachusetts, but no good articles on the exact cases (with the "suitability" factor in Mass firearms license law, the innocent have a strong incentive not to talk to the media if they want any chance of getting their license to possess reissued by the local chief of police).
My understanding is that Red Flag laws have had some success in preventing suicides and domestic violence-related shootings. Ironically, it's neither designed nor effective in preventing mass shootings, which is the main reason it's coming up for discussion nationally right now.
For the record, I grew up around guns, my family hunts, I've done target shooting in the past, and I generally support the right to own them. However, if someone is threatening to kill themselves, an estranged significant other, or neighbor, the police say they can't arrest him/her until s/he actually does something, and restraining orders have been completely ineffective, I wouldn't have a problem with the police confiscating the guns as long as a hearing occurs promptly. The hearing process should include a psych eval and admission to an appropriate treatment program.
Anybody know how much support there is in Concord for the proposed law?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New Hampshire's proposed "red flag" bill is broken at best, unconstitutional at worst
