Red Flag Laws and Due Process

[+and-then]

Gideon J. Tucker — 'No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.' 

I agree with this statement completely.  Now that the legislators are coming back from summer break we can expect the Red Flag ideas to be snapping smartly in the echo chamber media.  Soon after, we will be treated to a bill or three and the one that gets passed and signed will be heralded with a general round of self congratulations that they finally "DID something" about gun violence. 

At first glance, this extension of "see something, say something" seems like an idea whose time has come.  The all too common refrain after the slaughter du jour is - "he was acting really weird" or "the guy was angry and making threats online" so why not encourage friends, family or other "concerned" parties to drop a dime and stop it before the trigger gets pulled?

Because, as usual, the devil is in the details.  Remember that for such laws to be effective, they have to be timely.  There will usually be a rush to "control" a potential "situation" before it can get sideways and leave a bunch of bodies on the ground.  So, how can we craft an effective law that can identify and remove a threat that has popped up on someone's radar while also protecting citizens rights to freedom of speech, due process under law and the right to keep and bear arms?

This could devolve into a typical snark-fest but I'd really like to hear serious, well considered ideas about how we could go about making this early warning system work without giving government yet another means to abuse the rights of innocent citizens.

So, is it possible to have both?  I don't trust government to play fairly and I'd expect the LEOs and "concerned citizens" to create a very hurried assault on our rights in the guise of "keeping us safe".

So...how would YOU protect the community from a gun wielding nutter while making sure that his right to an assumption of innocence is protected?

 

[Hankenhunter]

29 minutes ago, and then said:

Gideon J. Tucker — 'No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.' 

I agree with this statement completely.  Now that the legislators are coming back from summer break we can expect the Red Flag ideas to be snapping smartly in the echo chamber media.  Soon after, we will be treated to a bill or three and the one that gets passed and signed will be heralded with a general round of self congratulations that they finally "DID something" about gun violence. 

At first glance, this extension of "see something, say something" seems like an idea whose time has come.  The all too common refrain after the slaughter du jour is - "he was acting really weird" or "the guy was angry and making threats online" so why not encourage friends, family or other "concerned" parties to drop a dime and stop it before the trigger gets pulled?

Because, as usual, the devil is in the details.  Remember that for such laws to be effective, they have to be timely.  There will usually be a rush to "control" a potential "situation" before it can get sideways and leave a bunch of bodies on the ground.  So, how can we craft an effective law that can identify and remove a threat that has popped up on someone's radar while also protecting citizens rights to freedom of speech, due process under law and the right to keep and bear arms?

This could devolve into a typical snark-fest but I'd really like to hear serious, well considered ideas about how we could go about making this early warning system work without giving government yet another means to abuse the rights of innocent citizens.

So, is it possible to have both?  I don't trust government to play fairly and I'd expect the LEOs and "concerned citizens" to create a very hurried assault on our rights in the guise of "keeping us safe".

So...how would YOU protect the community from a gun wielding nutter while making sure that his right to an assumption of innocence is protected?

 

Slaughter du jour? Thats low even for you, used in this context. You whole post was disingenuously disguised. It should have been titled snitches get stitches. I see nothing wrong with reporting someone who's obviously unhinged and has firearms. Making death threats is no minor thing. If I didnt do something and the person snapped,  killing people,  I wouldn't be able to live with myself. The person would get treated, discharged to go on with his life. No second chances with firearms either. If you came unhinged once, you may do it again. It's not worth the risk. Seems you're a little worried. Are you scared someone will snitch on you? Maybe some things you posted in the past? 

Also a "gun wielding nutter" doesn't get the assumption of innocence if they're shooting people. They get shot.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Hankenhunter

[Tatetopa]

You bring up some interesting points.

The Second Amendment has been a topic of discussion for the last 250 years.  It mentions a well regulated militia and citizen's rights to keep and bear arms.

We have interpreted that over the generations.   Convicted criminals and  domestic abusers are not allowed firearms, mentally incompetent people are not allowed firearms, underage children are not allowed .to independently purchase firearms as far as I know.

Machine guns, bazookas, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, automatic weapons are not allowed in the general public.  Those restrictions have come over the years.  In future times battlefield weapons may be developed of more potency that will not be allowed among the civilian public.

Currently assault rifles are allowed, in the past they have been banned.  It would seem that the restriction of these weapons may not violate the Second Amendment.  The Supreme Court may be called on to decide that matter.

An argument can be made that civilian assault weapons have only one purpose; civilians killing other civilians.  They are not  a weapon of choice for hunting or self defense.  They will not be sufficient for civilians to fight a military force.    Those who want to protect the right to own and use them will most likely use them on other civilians: different colors, different political persuasions, different religions, different ethnic backgrounds.  That is where the rage and violence will focus.  Whether that is a basic freedom or threat and intimidation depends on which side of the question you are on.

Red Flag laws may also have their weak points as well as do background checks, but they might provide some mitigation.  Red Flag laws tend to be more of a 911 hurry up situation where rights can be abridged at least temporarily.  Background checks can be done in a less hurried manner. Neither is going to eliminate all occurrences, but maybe we are looking for some progress somewhere.

School counselors and mental health workers might be able to detect and diffuse situations before they become violent.  It is a shortcoming of many insurance plans not to cover mental health.  One of my friends is a volunteer on a crisis line.  It is mostly suicide calls not angry persons considering a shooting spree.   At some point counseling and referral to mental health assistance  becomes an invasion of privacy too, but perhaps the least  outrageous to most of us.   If I had 100 billion dollars of government funding to spend, I would put a billion  into background checks and red flag support and 99 billion into mental health.  That is my view.

 

[Gwynbleidd]

You don't have to agree with it.  But whichever way you look at it, it's true. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Gwynbleidd

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Gideon J. Tucker — 'No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.' 

I agree with this statement completely.  Now that the legislators are coming back from summer break we can expect the Red Flag ideas to be snapping smartly in the echo chamber media.  Soon after, we will be treated to a bill or three and the one that gets passed and signed will be heralded with a general round of self congratulations that they finally "DID something" about gun violence. 

At first glance, this extension of "see something, say something" seems like an idea whose time has come.  The all too common refrain after the slaughter du jour is - "he was acting really weird" or "the guy was angry and making threats online" so why not encourage friends, family or other "concerned" parties to drop a dime and stop it before the trigger gets pulled?

Because, as usual, the devil is in the details.  Remember that for such laws to be effective, they have to be timely.  There will usually be a rush to "control" a potential "situation" before it can get sideways and leave a bunch of bodies on the ground.  So, how can we craft an effective law that can identify and remove a threat that has popped up on someone's radar while also protecting citizens rights to freedom of speech, due process under law and the right to keep and bear arms?

This could devolve into a typical snark-fest but I'd really like to hear serious, well considered ideas about how we could go about making this early warning system work without giving government yet another means to abuse the rights of innocent citizens.

So, is it possible to have both?  I don't trust government to play fairly and I'd expect the LEOs and "concerned citizens" to create a very hurried assault on our rights in the guise of "keeping us safe".

So...how would YOU protect the community from a gun wielding nutter while making sure that his right to an assumption of innocence is protected?

 

I think the Government is already taking steps to catch these people before they can attack. Agencies with in our Government have had the ability to type in key words and search the entire internet for anyone using those words. Such as, mass shooting once that is complete and they have every post where someone mentions mass shooting they move on to the next step. 

They search for I want to commit a mass shooting, then all those posts will pop up. Then they investigate all those individuals making those comments. They check to see how old they are, if they have a criminal record, and if they are registered gun owners. If anyone falls into this group they pick them up and question them. The same thing can be done for ammunition, large capacity magazines, and just about anything else they chose to check. 

Is the type of monitoring the internet legal, I don't know. Will people rights be protected again I don't know. I suppose that in all cases people rights will not be protected as outlined in the Bill of Rights. My question is should they be? I think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never ment to be set in stone, I think they were intended to be updated with the times. I also beleive that our founding fathers would agree with this do to the current situations that face our country. I do think though if we as a nation head down this road Amendments to these documents should be started. I think without amendments the Government will not stop and things will get worst.

However, in the end nothing that can be done will satisfy everyone, all that we can hope for is that more people are satisfied than are not

Edited September 14, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Slaughter du jour? Thats low even for you, used in this context. You whole post was disingenuously disguised. It should have been titled snitches get stitches. I see nothing wrong with reporting someone who's obviously unhinged and has firearms. Making death threats is no minor thing. If I didnt do something and the person snapped,  killing people,  I wouldn't be able to live with myself. The person would get treated, discharged to go on with his life. No second chances with firearms either. If you came unhinged once, you may do it again. It's not worth the risk. Seems you're a little worried. Are you scared someone will snitch on you? Maybe some things you posted in the past? 

Also a "gun wielding nutter" doesn't get the assumption of innocence if they're shooting people. They get shot.

Dude, I tried my best to post a thread worthy of some serious discussion.  You are a disgusting, small-minded *******.

[+and-then]

43 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I think they were intended to be updated with the times. I also beleive that our founding fathers would agree with this do to the current situations that face our country.

The Founders definitely realized that the will of the people would necessitate changes to the original blueprint that they crafted.  They made a provision for amendments to be made and the Constitution has had many amendments through that process.  The reason Progressives ignore that route is that it is too deliberative and time-consuming for them.  They want their changes NOW, not after the measured discussions and debates within the states.

As to "not knowing" about "people's rights being protected", seriously?  You say that as if there is something more important.  

Here is a totally reasonable possible misuse of this type of law:

Some numbnuts with an attitude of pure hate based on simply disliking and disagreeing with a stranger's OPINIONS that are expressed online, uses this law to anonymously make an accusation against citizen A.  Should the law demand more than a single individual to corroborate the accusation?  How many individuals should be required to witness the potentially dangerous online behavior?  

Think about the future and look at the type of pure hatred and vitriol that people are spewing these days.  Would YOU want to be subjected to arrest,a search of your home, confiscation of your property - not JUST guns, mind you.  They'd certainly take your computer and phone(s).  IOW, these kinds of laws, unless they are severely restricted to protect individuals who are being accused, could be used to deprive citizens of their First, Second and Fourth Amendment freedoms with no recourse or remedy unless the individual was wealthy and could afford lengthy legal action.  

Let's say you offend someone here at UM and they decide to drop a dime on you with made up accusations of erratic behavior or threatened violence that you DID NOT DO.  I assume at a minimum such a law would require actual posted statements to be put into evidence.  Who would be responsible for evaluating those statements and determining if they actually constituted a threat?  If the references were vague and could easily be understood in more than one way, can law enforcement err on the side of "caution" and treat you to all those sanctions I mentioned earlier?  Would you ever get your property back without having to hire attorneys?  

I've already drafted a response for my Senators and my House Representative as well as my State Governor.  NO ONE who votes for a red flag provision without SERIOUS civil protections in place will never get another vote of mine.

[Gwynbleidd]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Currently assault rifles are allowed, in the past they have been banned. 

What reason were they "unbanned?"

If I may ask another question, just out of curiosity really, therefore, please do not take offense.  

It is directed at those people that support gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment and were born/raised in the USA.

Quote

How many times in your life, have you had to get out your gun to defend yourself, and/or your family against the Govt?

Also, @and then are you thinking this might be what's going to happen when they all get back to work and into the swing of things again?

Edited September 14, 2019 by Gwynbleidd

[Hankenhunter]

48 minutes ago, and then said:

Dude, I tried my best to post a thread worthy of some serious discussion.  You are a disgusting, small-minded *******.

No, you didn't. What you did is post what's called an end run. Words have consequences, and a lot of people are finding out what those consequences are. Reporting armed and very unstable people is a natural evolution when guns become more important than innocent peoples lives. Your post was insincere from beginning to end and deserved a berating.

I am neither disgusting, nor small minded. Small minded is refusing to accede too some simple and common sense gun restrictions for the greater good because of some infantile fear of your fellow man.

[Grim Reaper 6]

36 minutes ago, and then said:

The Founders definitely realized that the will of the people would necessitate changes to the original blueprint that they crafted.  They made a provision for amendments to be made and the Constitution has had many amendments through that process.  The reason Progressives ignore that route is that it is too deliberative and time-consuming for them.  They want their changes NOW, not after the measured discussions and debates within the states.

As to "not knowing" about "people's rights being protected", seriously?  You say that as if there is something more important.  

Here is a totally reasonable possible misuse of this type of law:

Some numbnuts with an attitude of pure hate based on simply disliking and disagreeing with a stranger's OPINIONS that are expressed online, uses this law to anonymously make an accusation against citizen A.  Should the law demand more than a single individual to corroborate the accusation?  How many individuals should be required to witness the potentially dangerous online behavior?  

Think about the future and look at the type of pure hatred and vitriol that people are spewing these days.  Would YOU want to be subjected to arrest,a search of your home, confiscation of your property - not JUST guns, mind you.  They'd certainly take your computer and phone(s).  IOW, these kinds of laws, unless they are severely restricted to protect individuals who are being accused, could be used to deprive citizens of their First, Second and Fourth Amendment freedoms with no recourse or remedy unless the individual was wealthy and could afford lengthy legal action.  

Let's say you offend someone here at UM and they decide to drop a dime on you with made up accusations of erratic behavior or threatened violence that you DID NOT DO.  I assume at a minimum such a law would require actual posted statements to be put into evidence.  Who would be responsible for evaluating those statements and determining if they actually constituted a threat?  If the references were vague and could easily be understood in more than one way, can law enforcement err on the side of "caution" and treat you to all those sanctions I mentioned earlier?  Would you ever get your property back without having to hire attorneys?  

I've already drafted a response for my Senators and my House Representative as well as my State Governor.  NO ONE who votes for a red flag provision without SERIOUS civil protections in place will never get another vote of mine.

To you my friend peoples rights are more important than anything else in this world, including premeditated murder. This is where we disagree I would rather see someone inconvenienced than have nothing happen, and see the same guy on the news as a Mass Shooter. If people make completely false accusations against some one they should also suffer under penalties of law. 

As far as, you saying if some one is found not guilty they will never get their property back without lawyers, at this point that is nothing but your opinion it may be correct or it may be false. I like you, but I have to say that you appear more than a little paranoid. Now that fine by me, but don't say things are going to happen until they do or have happened. 

I would appreciate it you would stick to things that have actually happened and not what you might happen, I mean that's only fair.

Take Care

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

To you my friend peoples rights are more important than anything else in this world, including premeditated murder.

Here's the difference between us on this.  I am a gun owner, a U.S. citizen with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that my forebears fought and died to defend.  I am not now nor would I EVER be a premeditated murderer.  I will not yield my rights to a corrupt government in exchange for some perceived "safety" for myself or others.  People who think that outlawing a semi-automatic rifle primarily due to its APPEARANCE, is going to stop evil people from killing with guns, are deluded and they will quickly be proven to be deluded.

So, Manwon, when the next person decides to take that ride to fame by mowing down 15 or 20 human beings with say, a Ruger 10-22 or a Glock 43 or an FN Five Seven, what then?  What scary weapon will you next hand over to your government?  Are you aware that FAR more people are killed with semi-auto handguns than long guns?  Only about 2-3 percent of gun deaths are due to rifles and shotguns.

No, Manwon, I won't ignore the obvious next step in this game and those who do are just fools.  I'm not a gambler but if I were I'd bet BIG money that the call to ban all semi-autos will follow the next big tragedy where guns are used.

[+and-then]

To get back on topic - I believe that it might be possible to structure a law that allows individuals to be detained for questioning while accusations of threatening the public are investigated.  If that person has clearly threatened violence against the general public or specific groups of people then at that point a clear threat has been established and it would be foolish not to arrest the person and take any weapons that are owned BY THAT PERSON and keep them stored until the case is adjudicated.  If they are convicted of menacing the public then i could see causing them to forfeit those weapons but unless they are proven to have some intractable mental illness I would not support stripping them of their second amendment rights in perpetuity.

Is it possible that such rules could lead to a nutter slipping through the cracks and killing people?  Of course.  Is it the most likely outcome?  No.  

What I find interesting and a little confusing is the willingness to accept in principle, a system where anonymous reporting could lead to a knock on your door and a trip down the rabbit hole with Federal agencies when something you say in an online discussion gets misrepresented or misunderstood.  That is what we all should fear.  I have no problem at all with rounding up these savages that go online making open threats and publishing their little diatribes.  As the Patriot Act should have proven to us all, funny detours can happen on the road to universal safety.

[brian100]

Savages used to come unglued during the Wild West and all you could was protect yourself or let God handle it. Everybody wants to install a gestapo so you can report your neighbors now.

[Gunn]

7 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

No, you didn't. What you did is post what's called an end run. Words have consequences, and a lot of people are finding out what those consequences are. Reporting armed and very unstable people is a natural evolution when guns become more important than innocent peoples lives. Your post was insincere from beginning to end and deserved a berating.

I am neither disgusting, nor small minded. Small minded is refusing to accede too some simple and common sense gun restrictions for the greater good because of some infantile fear of your fellow man.

Yeah but you don't have to be a dick about it and make other flying personal accusations about his post, besides his constitutional concern on red flag laws. That's like me making personal flying accusations about your reply as being politically bias towards him, just because you don't like his other political opinions on other political subjects in the past.  Hell, if your post had just stick to - there being no excuse for death threats, (except a warning in defense in your own home from a perp in order to try and scare them away, but besides that), should be arrested with gun confiscations, even I would have given your post a 'Like'.

 

8 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

What reason were they "unbanned?"

 

Gwyn, not trying to answer for Tat, but it was only put into effect for ten years (1994 - 2004) and banned semi-autos from being imported into the U.S. that were made after 1994. But it didn't work because mass shootings still occurred during the assault weapons ban, although not as many, and guns made after 1994 still got imported into the U.S. through the blackmarket sale from local gunrunners under the government's radar; even fully automatic machine guns.

[Michelle]

With more incidents of swatting happening, I can see where these red flag laws could go.

An Ohio gamer is sent to prison over a 'swatting' call that killed a man

An Ohio video gamer who played a role in a hoax phone call that led police to kill a man in Kansas was sentenced Friday to 15 months in prison, authorities said.

Casey S. Viner, 19, was one of three defendants in a case of "swatting" -- making a false report to send police somewhere -- that led Wichita police to erroneously shoot and kill 28-year-old Andrew Finch at his front door in December 2017.

Authorities said Viner asked one of the co-defendants to make the call because of an argument over an online video game -- an argument that turned out not even to have involved Finch.

cont...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/swatting-sentence-casey-viner/index.html

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, and then said:

What I find interesting and a little confusing is the willingness to accept in principle, a system where anonymous reporting could lead to a knock on your door and a trip down the rabbit hole with Federal agencies when something you say in an online discussion gets misrepresented or misunderstood.  That is what we all should fear.  I have no problem at all with rounding up these savages that go online making open threats and publishing their little diatribes.  As the Patriot Act should have proven to us all, funny detours can happen on the road to universal safety.

On this we certainly agree.  I imagine you have heard of "Swatting"  people die from those misuses of power and no doubt there are people out there who would use that  tool to harm others.

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, Gwynbleidd said:

You don't have to agree with it.  But whichever way you look at it, it's true. 

Really good point.  I don't think if you got to interview mass shooters they would fall into the mentally ill categories we normally think about.  We like to call these folks monsters and crazy, but I reckon there are a lot of alienated, confused, angry people out there that need some help and socialization but are not mentally ill.  

Kids are cliquish and can be really mean especially in high school.  Being a teenager is hard enough with all of the social pressure and insecurity.  A few kill themselves, sa few kill their tormentors.   That is something proper intervention could reduce.  When you get into your 20's and 30's  and still carry that rage society has a problem.  We might still be able to deal with it

[aztek]

red flags laws effectively cancel due process,   when politicians get a taste of it, there will be more laws disregarding due process completely unrelated to guns. first guns, then property, then freedom.

Edited September 14, 2019 by aztek

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, and then said:

I am a gun owner, a U.S. citizen with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that my forebears fought and died to defend.  I am not now nor would I EVER be a premeditated murderer. 

So then if you own a Ruger 10-22, a Glock  43, a  FN Five Seven or an assault rifle  what are your plans for them?

[aztek]

12 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

So then if you own a Ruger 10-22, a Glock  43, a  FN Five Seven or an assault rifle  what are your plans for them?

what are your plans for the rape tool you have between your legs?

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

So then if you own a Ruger 10-22, a Glock  43, a  FN Five Seven or an assault rifle  what are your plans for them?

Not speaking for And Then, Tat, but any one of those are nice to have along for self defense against panthers, cougars, grizzly bears when hunting for deer or elk. A hunter may only need a single bolt action for the deer, because you can take your time shooting and hone your aim, but that doesn't always work with a 500 pound bear charging at you in a close encounter, when you are in a panic and one shot doesn't stop the sucker from coming at you to maul you to death. Try to imagine shooting at bear coming at you with seconds to spare, and you are using a single bolt action rifle. You better be cool as a cucumber and a damn good shot. Most people are not in those situations.

[Hankenhunter]

Your hypotheticals are just that. I can't imagine how First nations and pioneers managed to survive using primitive hunting bows, and single shot rifles with all those dangerous beasts that were far more populous than today.((sarc.) 

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

what are your plans for the rape tool you have between your legs?

Stay on topic. Your fantasies have nothing to do with and then's op.

[Hankenhunter]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

red flags laws effectively cancel due process,   when politicians get a taste of it, there will be more laws disregarding due process completely unrelated to guns. first guns, then property, then freedom.

Not if there are controls in place to prevent abuse. Do you guys live for, and in worst case scenarios? Because that's all you see.

[Hankenhunter]

10 hours ago, brian100 said:

Savages used to come unglued during the Wild West and all you could was protect yourself or let God handle it. Everybody wants to install a gestapo so you can report your neighbors now.

You should study some history. Wouldnt you come unglued if someone was trying and succeeding to steal your land out from under you? How bout deliberately handing out pox blankets to eradicate a population of people? Your immature posts are just that. Try to remember that everything you spew on the internet is there forever for anyone to see, including prospective employers who would pass you over for the tripe you've been posting on this site and others.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Hankenhunter