Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. No crime has been committed. An abusive accuser can go to court without confronting the accused. The process to recover one's guns is ill-defined (prove one's innocence?), expensive (ever hire an attorney?), and very time consuming. If someone is psychologically disturbed, there is an involuntary c…
Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. No crime has been committed. An abusive accuser can go to court without confronting the accused. The process to recover one's guns is ill-defined (prove one's innocence?), expensive (ever hire an attorney?), and very time consuming. If someone is psychologically disturbed, there is an involuntary commitment process that is constitutional unlike "red flag" processes. Why not use that process to get help for the person?
I think "red flag" laws may have their place, despite their potential for abuse. However, I don't see any liberals willing to compromise on any of our proposals. For example, you want mandatory background checks and red flag laws, I want national CCW reciprocity and DOE funding for gun safety and shooting clubs in schools.
When Democrats ask for compromise on this issue what they mean is capitulation. (And why should they compromise. Our team's representatives are so weak kneed they will give away the farm and get nothing in return.)
I agree with all of that. And I don’t know what the answer is. I unfortunately live in a bluer than blue state (WA) where we have a red flag law and I looked into our state’s stats. In 2021, there were 34 red flag requests submitted and 30 of those were submitted by police officers who had encountered the subjects and subsequently submitted the request. I had not considered this scenario but I see how this is a situation that may make sense. I also see the threat of putting even more power in a state’s hands but law enforcement frequently encounter situations in which nobody is charged but the likelihood of repeat violence is high (think DV situations in which the victim won’t press charges, a suicidal person talked down, etc). I’m no expert on the process but I guess I just envision some kind of process akin to reporting suspected child abuse to CPS. Definitely potential for abuse, but may save some lives too.
I don't think it's fair that I compromise to change laws and make it harder for people to exercise a Constitutional right just to get the Democrats to enforce the laws that they already voted to put on the books.
I agree that red flag laws are fraught with opportunity for abuse but I think there are scenarios in which they can be a good short-term solution. Having someone involuntarily committed is dependent upon mental health beds being available, of which there is currently a major National shortage of. I work for a hospital system and patients often wait weeks for an available bed or are boarded in an ED for days until being released. The system does not function as ideally as we’d all like.
I agree. But as a practical matter the involuntary commitment process has no teeth. It is virtually impossible to commit someone for any significant period of time.
I’ll also add that minors that are involuntarily committed, which is still very hard since many states allow minors as young as 13 to make their own healthcare decisions, often have their record sealed. And of course, any minor that agrees to voluntary commitment (which is often coerced) does not have their hospitalization records shared or distributed. These are your high risk, mentally unstable juveniles that eventually age into adults and have zero trouble buying guns because their mental health records occurred as minors.
So, perhaps the mental health laws, that the Dems eliminated, need to be re examined, and psych hospitals need to return. There are people on the streets who are a danger to society, and need to be controlled, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The problem with Dem solutions, is that they seek to control the people who aren't part of the problem.
Hence the demise of SF, that was the subject of the last, most excellent, CS post.
On the one hand, I think that would work well for determining whether people in the 18-20 range can buy guns, it begins to look too much like a social credit system if applied to adults.
Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. No crime has been committed. An abusive accuser can go to court without confronting the accused. The process to recover one's guns is ill-defined (prove one's innocence?), expensive (ever hire an attorney?), and very time consuming. If someone is psychologically disturbed, there is an involuntary commitment process that is constitutional unlike "red flag" processes. Why not use that process to get help for the person?
I think "red flag" laws may have their place, despite their potential for abuse. However, I don't see any liberals willing to compromise on any of our proposals. For example, you want mandatory background checks and red flag laws, I want national CCW reciprocity and DOE funding for gun safety and shooting clubs in schools.
When Democrats ask for compromise on this issue what they mean is capitulation. (And why should they compromise. Our team's representatives are so weak kneed they will give away the farm and get nothing in return.)
I agree with all of that. And I don’t know what the answer is. I unfortunately live in a bluer than blue state (WA) where we have a red flag law and I looked into our state’s stats. In 2021, there were 34 red flag requests submitted and 30 of those were submitted by police officers who had encountered the subjects and subsequently submitted the request. I had not considered this scenario but I see how this is a situation that may make sense. I also see the threat of putting even more power in a state’s hands but law enforcement frequently encounter situations in which nobody is charged but the likelihood of repeat violence is high (think DV situations in which the victim won’t press charges, a suicidal person talked down, etc). I’m no expert on the process but I guess I just envision some kind of process akin to reporting suspected child abuse to CPS. Definitely potential for abuse, but may save some lives too.
I don't think it's fair that I compromise to change laws and make it harder for people to exercise a Constitutional right just to get the Democrats to enforce the laws that they already voted to put on the books.
I agree that red flag laws are fraught with opportunity for abuse but I think there are scenarios in which they can be a good short-term solution. Having someone involuntarily committed is dependent upon mental health beds being available, of which there is currently a major National shortage of. I work for a hospital system and patients often wait weeks for an available bed or are boarded in an ED for days until being released. The system does not function as ideally as we’d all like.
I agree. But as a practical matter the involuntary commitment process has no teeth. It is virtually impossible to commit someone for any significant period of time.
Maybe it's short term, but at least it's constitutional.
I’ll also add that minors that are involuntarily committed, which is still very hard since many states allow minors as young as 13 to make their own healthcare decisions, often have their record sealed. And of course, any minor that agrees to voluntary commitment (which is often coerced) does not have their hospitalization records shared or distributed. These are your high risk, mentally unstable juveniles that eventually age into adults and have zero trouble buying guns because their mental health records occurred as minors.
So, perhaps the mental health laws, that the Dems eliminated, need to be re examined, and psych hospitals need to return. There are people on the streets who are a danger to society, and need to be controlled, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The problem with Dem solutions, is that they seek to control the people who aren't part of the problem.
Hence the demise of SF, that was the subject of the last, most excellent, CS post.
I wholeheartedly agree.
On the one hand, I think that would work well for determining whether people in the 18-20 range can buy guns, it begins to look too much like a social credit system if applied to adults.
But driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right.