Defensive Carry banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
How will this come out? Probably with you standing by while the cops haul your safe away, unless you are willing to open it up for them to take just the firearms. Then you will need a lawyer, both you and every member of your family will probably have to undergo extensive psychiatric examinations (maybe some treatment programs, since over half of all pshrinks are in therapy themselves and can't imagine anyone who doesn't need a mental tune-up), and in the meantime any job you hold that requires background checks or security clearance is probably at risk. Shouldn't take more than a year or two to get your "expedited" petition for redress on the court's docket and a hearing scheduled, and hopefully you won't have to file an appeal (another year or two at best). And all at your expense, of course.

Well, you asked.
Yes I did ask.

What you have laid out gives good reason to hide/bury your guns, at least some of them, and also have some which you have purchased in private sales where there is no "official" paper trail, in states where this is legal.

Fortunately for me, I have no children living at home and even if either of them were, they are fine people. However, this rush to pass Red Flag Laws has me deeply worried. I see them as clear violations of several of our rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which makes any such laws illegal by definition.

But then, as I am fond of saying, nothing really surprises me anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,875 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
@SpringerXD: I hope you are aware that Psychiatry and Psychology are generally not involved in Red Flag proceedings, at least not in the ex parte (pre due process) part of it. And they really can't be. For a psyc professional to diagnose a dangerous condition, they would need to examine the patient, generally of over multiple sessions. They are not going to testify to a person's mental health without that and of course that could not be done without that person's knowledge and cooperation. They are not going to base a diagnosis on hearsay.

Generally with Red Flag proceedings, the determination that someone is a danger is done solely by the judge, who is not a psyc professional. Also, keep in mind that only about a third of mass killers are diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness. The other two-thirds are technically "sane" so a psyc determination would make no difference. You do no have to have a dangerous mental illness to be Red Flagged. You don't have to have violated any laws, or threatened violence against anyone. It only requires that family members or LE think you might be a threat and a judge buys off on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
@SouthernBoyVA - Sandy Hook shooter ring a bell?
The Sandy Hook situation has nothing to do with anything. That was a situation that occurred because the dead person, the mother, failed in every aspect. The father and the shooters brother, amongst others, tried to get him committed full time. The mother stopped that. She even taught him to shoot, and allowed him to have access to the safe. Whether or not he knew the combination, or he found it, is irrelevant.

Her failure cost many lives. She can never screw up like that again. Her son, who was born broken, can never harm anyone again.

To use the Sandy Hook case as proof anything needs to be done is ludicrous. One of two people who should have done something failed, and enabled, things to happen. NOTHING can prevent that without grossly violating the rights of everyone. Which is what red flag laws are designed to do. They are clearly violating the 4th amendment like NYCs Stop and Frisk policy did.

Freedom has a price. Just as the gift of free will does. It gives people the option to do good, bad, and everything in between choices. We just have to be prepared to handle things so the bad choices don't cause us problems.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,894 Posts
"Polk County Judge Bruce Smith attributed the number of orders against children to "the aggressive nature of our sheriff's department.""

Uhhhh...... You signed them right? Sounds like you are just as aggressive.
Sounds more like the judge is simply the rubber stamp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret and OldVet

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,894 Posts
You have twenty guns locked in your safe? You're mentally ill.

Several thousand rounds of ammo? You must be planning a mass shooting.

Shoot regularly? Practicing for the real thing.

Advocate for Second Amendment rights, against gun restrictions? Right wing racist who needs to be disarmed.

Post frequently on gun forums? Fixated on firearms.

Vote Republican? Mentally ill.


It shouldn't be too tough for anyone to convince a sympathetic judge that you are dangerous, and have no business possessing guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
He killed his mom, then got into her safe for the guns he used.
Yes I knew he killed his mother but somehow missed the part about him getting into her safe. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
@SpringerXD: I hope you are aware that Psychiatry and Psychology are generally not involved in Red Flag proceedings, at least not in the ex parte (pre due process) part of it. And they really can't be. For a psyc professional to diagnose a dangerous condition, they would need to examine the patient, generally of over multiple sessions. They are not going to testify to a person's mental health without that and of course that could not be done without that person's knowledge and cooperation. They are not going to base a diagnosis on hearsay.

Generally with Red Flag proceedings, the determination that someone is a danger is done solely by the judge, who is not a psyc professional. Also, keep in mind that only about a third of mass killers are diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness. The other two-thirds are technically "sane" so a psyc determination would make no difference. You do no have to have a dangerous mental illness to be Red Flagged. You don't have to have violated any laws, or threatened violence against anyone. It only requires that family members or LE think you might be a threat and a judge buys off on it.
Excellent description of a star chamber if there ever was one. Welcome to the Middle Ages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
You have twenty guns locked in your safe? You're mentally ill.

Several thousand rounds of ammo? You must be planning a mass shooting.

Shoot regularly? Practicing for the real thing.

Advocate for Second Amendment rights, against gun restrictions? Right wing racist who needs to be disarmed.

Post frequently on gun forums? Fixated on firearms.

Vote Republican? Mentally ill.


It shouldn't be too tough for anyone to convince a sympathetic judge that you are dangerous, and have no business possessing guns.
Gee, sounds like the cries of many of the demo candidates when ranting on about firearms control and what to do about the "epidemic of gun violence".

Remember, we are all in that "basket of deplorables" to those people. They disdain us and only tolerate us to get votes. Were they to have the power and opportunity, we would lose a lot more than just our 2A rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
I have lived in the UK/Australia/Canada and owned pistols in all 3. I holster a 9mm Glock 43X, every day here in God's Country. And the weather is great!

This I could not have ever done in those 3 Countries, ever. So as I have done every day, for many years, I wake up with a smile, and go about my life, with my lovely wife of 26 years.

The above still allows me to be watchful as I go about my daily activities. Take a booth, face the entrance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
908 Posts
@SpringerXD: I hope you are aware that Psychiatry and Psychology are generally not involved in Red Flag proceedings, at least not in the ex parte (pre due process) part of it. And they really can't be. For a psyc professional to diagnose a dangerous condition, they would need to examine the patient, generally of over multiple sessions. They are not going to testify to a person's mental health without that and of course that could not be done without that person's knowledge and cooperation. They are not going to base a diagnosis on hearsay.

Generally with Red Flag proceedings, the determination that someone is a danger is done solely by the judge, who is not a psyc professional. Also, keep in mind that only about a third of mass killers are diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness. The other two-thirds are technically "sane" so a psyc determination would make no difference. You do no have to have a dangerous mental illness to be Red Flagged. You don't have to have violated any laws, or threatened violence against anyone. It only requires that family members or LE think you might be a threat and a judge buys off on it.
^^^THIS^^^ is a very well written and succinct commentary on the subject under discussion.

How long do you think it will be until the political critters pass another law that provides a legal presumption of mental illness to permit involuntary commitments of anyone who owns firearms, has ammunition, participates on firearm-related internet forums, or expresses disagreement with the government in any way, shape, or form? I think that day is closer than any of us might wish to consider.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
@SpringerXD: I hope you are aware that Psychiatry and Psychology are generally not involved in Red Flag proceedings, at least not in the ex parte (pre due process) part of it. And they really can't be. For a psyc professional to diagnose a dangerous condition, they would need to examine the patient, generally of over multiple sessions. They are not going to testify to a person's mental health without that and of course that could not be done without that person's knowledge and cooperation. They are not going to base a diagnosis on hearsay.

Generally with Red Flag proceedings, the determination that someone is a danger is done solely by the judge, who is not a psyc professional. Also, keep in mind that only about a third of mass killers are diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness. The other two-thirds are technically "sane" so a psyc determination would make no difference. You do no have to have a dangerous mental illness to be Red Flagged. You don't have to have violated any laws, or threatened violence against anyone. It only requires that family members or LE think you might be a threat and a judge buys off on it.
That's correct, but where I was coming from is that psychology has been given a certain amount of "validity" over the years that it really doesn't deserve. My memory is fuzzy on this, but one of the leftist idiots (Feinstein, maybe?) pushed a law saying that ALL returning Gulf War vets were to be denied gun ownership because they "might" have PTSD.

And as for judges? They have gotten WAY out of hand in legislating from the bench, so in your scenario above, anyone anywhere can declare someone they don't like as a "threat" and some boneheaded judge can then trample all over that person's rights.

This will seem off-topic, but it's actually quite relevant here and it has happened in all 50 states. There have been cases where a man dated a single mom, never married or even engaged to her, just dated or saw her socially. Then the couple broke up and the guy was ordered by a judge to pay child support for her kid(s) until they turned 18. That's because the guy was seen as a "father figure" to the children for a while. Note that there is NO law behind this, only the orders of a judge. And if that man fails to pay or falls behind on his payments, he goes to jail as a "deadbeat dad." Again, it has happened in all 50 states.

So one solution to the problem is to reign in these out-of-control judges, once and for all.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top