Defensive Carry banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,568 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There has been a political narrative almost since Red Flag laws have been proposed that the biggest problem with them is lack of due process. Supposedly pro-gun sources, such as GOP politicians and the NRA have proclaimed that "Red Flags must have due process," as if that would make them OK. I have to admit, I've gotten sucked into that narrative myself. The linked article does a good job of debunking that and essentially leaves us with the fact that we are being sold a bill of goods on the whole Red Flag thing.

The real problem with Red Flag, even with due process is that it is authorizing the taking of your guns without you ever having done anything, or threatened to do anything wrong with those guns. You may have just argued loudly with a significant other. You may have just bought a lot of books and visited a lot of websites on mass shootings...just because you are interested in the topic. You may have just bought a lot of guns or a lot of ammunition. You may be a gun owner who is suffering from mild depression, like 20% of the population does at some time in their life. The bottom line is you can have legal action taken against you, have your 2A rights infringed...even though you have done nothing.

So what they are trying to sell us is that if they can just get mandatory due process in these laws, we should accept them. A paragraph from the article really laid it out for me:

"Imagine if the government accused you of wanting to be a drug-dealer. You've never been charged with — or even accused of — having actually sold drugs. But still, someone thinks there's a good chance you may in the future. So you're given a hearing, allowed to hire a lawyer, and permitted to testify why you won't become a drug dealer in the future. But at the end of the day, a judge still believes there's an unreasonable risk that you will enter the drug business. So, in order to prevent that possibility, for the next year or so, you no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. The police may now stop your car and search it any time they wish and enter your home to search for drugs at will. What, that doesn't sound fair? What's the problem? You were given loads and loads of due process!"

Yeah, I know there are some distinctions between that hypothetical vs. guns and Red Flags. But it still illustrates a point. One should never lose their rights based on what they might do. It is too slippery a slope.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/red_flag_laws_and_the_misguided_worship_of_due_process.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,261 Posts
It'll be real interesting to see how many of these law makers will get nailed by their own legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frgood and M1911A1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,298 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,790 Posts
I'm all for police stopping criminals before the act. They don't often get lucky like that, but if a person has stated motive, means, opportunity, and proximity, that person deserves a stop. Like the person behind a convenience store, after hours, with a pry bar and a duffel bag. Our current laws are very restrictive on police for a reason. Suspicion by a relative is not enough. Too many decisions can be made by the individual between the impulse and the act.

Free choice, good or bad, is the result of a free society. Where statists miss the equation is my individual responsibility and right to respond to the individual choice of another. The statist believes the government should be the only authority to intervene.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,878 Posts
The big issue with RFlaws is that they are a bogus law, not in any way related to safety. If they were, then every dangerous thing in the victim's house would be confiscated, not just firearms.

These laws are just one more way of taking guns, just like the many incremental additions to the prohibited categories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
I'm all for police stopping criminals before the act. They don't often get lucky like that, but if a person has stated motive, means, opportunity, and proximity, that person deserves a stop. Like the person behind a convenience store, after hours, with a pry bar and a duffel bag. Our current laws are very restrictive on police for a reason. Suspicion by a relative is not enough. Too many decisions can be made by the individual between the impulse and the act.

Free choice, good or bad, is the result of a free society. Where statists miss the equation is my individual responsibility and right to respond to the individual choice of another. The statist believes the government should be the only authority to intervene.
Disagree, I think, being caught 'in the act' is a far cry from swearing at someone in a grumpy tone or angering a former colleague or girlfriend. Secondly, It is reasonable to watch our neighbor if they are self-destructive, assuming you have enough intelligence to
make that assessment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,903 Posts
I'm all for police stopping criminals before the act. They don't often get lucky like that, but if a person has stated motive, means, opportunity, and proximity, that person deserves a stop. Like the person behind a convenience store, after hours, with a pry bar and a duffel bag. Our current laws are very restrictive on police for a reason. Suspicion by a relative is not enough. Too many decisions can be made by the individual between the impulse and the act.

Free choice, good or bad, is the result of a free society. Where statists miss the equation is my individual responsibility and right to respond to the individual choice of another. The statist believes the government should be the only authority to intervene.
Kinda like Minority Report, minus the hocus pocus.

If they haven't acted yet, they aren't criminals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,790 Posts
Disagree, I think, being caught 'in the act' is a far cry from swearing at someone in a grumpy tone or angering a former colleague or girlfriend. Secondly, It is reasonable to watch our neighbor if they are self-destructive, assuming you have enough intelligence to
make that assessment.
Carrying a duffle bag is not a crime. What is the charge for a person who has not broken in to property? They are not yet in the act. (There is an actual crime, but it is not B&E).

If you think your neighbor is self destructive, you can call police to a welfare check. You cannot have their firearm rights revoked and property confiscated...unless your state has a red flag law. Which is the point of this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,790 Posts
Kinda like Minority Report, minus the hocus pocus.

If they haven't acted yet, they aren't criminals.
There are already laws allowing police to stop assault before it is assault, B&E before it is B&E, etc. These are lesser charges than the actual act. Again, it is luck for police to catch that. They may have reasonable suspicion, and find an unrelated crime (drugs, weapons) during the stop.

The conclusion was an individual right to defend against these crimes is more effective, in a free society, than statist solutions. Statist solutions rely on luck and loss of liberty: neighbors reporting on their neighbors, punishment before conviction...
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top