Defensive Carry banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,142 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As reported by the VCDL:

The red flag law just signed by Gov. Newsom will allow co-workers, employers, and teachers to seek a "red flag" firearm restraining order against anyone they believe is a threat to themselves or others. Previously, only law enforcement or immediate family members could seek such an order. Newsom also signed a companion bill that allows the restraining orders to remain in place for one to five years, the Associated Press reported. The same bill allows a judge to also issue a search warrant at the same time the restraining order is issued. Keep in mind, the subject of the order need not have said or done anything threatening to anyone, at any time. And if the law can do something, it probably will.

The bill is so extreme that the American Civil Liberties Union is speaking out against it. The ACLU says it "poses a significant threat to civil liberties" because a restraining order can be sought before a gun owner has an opportunity to dispute the request. Additionally, those making a request under the new law may "lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment." As you probably know, clinical psychologists are generally not involved in red flag proceedings.

I'm glad the ACLU is saying that, but where I think they fall short is they are not saying that is true of every red flag law. As was reported in other threads, Florida, whose laws are not as extreme as CA's have red flagged over 2,500 people over the year or so it's been in effect, including over 100 minors, one of them an 8-year-old. Do they really think they have prevented 2,500 mass shootings? Do they really think that 8-year-old was a threat? Really?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
Kommiefornia is now like Berlin 1933.
More like Stalins Russia or Mao's China.

I read that California Democrats https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/13/ca-democrats-expand-red-flag-law-again-lengthen-confiscatory-period/?fbclid=IwAR2l7gGbd7lvzJAx_AsXYY3WP1F5q-u6D3g6JR8J55Mb6QGS5OdKLfWXsCs wanted the new upgrade to the Red Flag Laws because " California Democrat lawmakers complained that not enough family members were availing themselves of the confiscatory law".
Then when someone reacts to a volatile situation with violence that action will be used to "JUSTIFY" the new law. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that will get people/LEO killed unnecissarily.
Reminds me of the Governments reaction to issues at Waco. Instead of waiting on Koresh to go to town, where they could arrest him alone, they made a full on military assault that virtually guaranteed the reaction that happened. Leading to a massacre and tragedy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
Dealing with a law as egregious as the CA law I am glad to have any opposition to it by anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M1911A1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,240 Posts
The legislature in Commifornia is emboldened by the failure of the Federal Courts in their area to actually honor their oaths to the US Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Struckat

·
Banned
Joined
·
250 Posts
- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
- retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
- that is the ideology here
- to correct people's behaviors
- before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
- since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

- the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense...
From my personal viewpoint, I believe that you have a misplaced faith in government and its minions.

I suggest that if abuse is possible, then abuse will happen.
Many government functionaries bend in the direction in which their political beliefs (or their bosses' political beliefs) blow them, and do not respect the law, the state constitution, the US Constitution, or the natural rights of the individual.

Personally speaking, I fear zealots.
And all it takes to wreak havoc is one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,118 Posts
- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
- retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
- that is the ideology here
- to correct people's behaviors
- before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
- since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

- the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals

.
No, red flag laws are not about helping people or altering dangerous behavior, they are about disarming people, assuming that guns are the problem rather than troubled people.

There are existing means to actually help people: involuntary commitment (aka. Baker Act). If someone is likely to be an active shooter they need mental health attention.

Red flag laws are just a convenient way for anti gun politicians to push more gun control by harnessing emotions of the masses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,895 Posts
- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
- retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
- that is the ideology here
- to correct people's behaviors
- before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
- since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

- the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








.
You have been shown proof of abuse that has already happened and you continue to state there will be no abuse......

You're not going to convince anyone here that red flag laws are good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense
- retraining orders in general have succeeded in PREVENTING in preventing creepy behavior (threats, stalking, harassment, etc)
- that is the ideology here
- to correct people's behaviors
- before restraining orders in the 1980s there were LOTS of incidents of stalking, threats, phone harrasment, etc of women
- since restraining orders became legal such harrasment has DRASTICALLY reduced and so has the subsequent crime that would've come of such criminal behaviors

- the idea with red-flag is to help people BEHAVE like civil, orderly individuals








.
Yep just like the USSR and China sent people to re-education camps and/or gulags because they needed to be saved from themselves due to some quaint ideas on a God or heaven forbid think they can speak their minds and disagree with their bettors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
I'm glad the ACLU is saying that, but where I think they fall short is they are not saying that is true of every red flag law. As was reported in other threads, Florida, whose laws are not as extreme as CA's have red flagged over 2,500 people over the year or so it's been in effect, including over 100 minors, one of them an 8-year-old. Do they really think they have prevented 2,500 mass shootings? Do they really think that 8-year-old was a threat? Really?
Of course no one believes that every instance where a red flag is performed prevents a mass shooting or even a suicide. It does us no favor to try and argue such extremes. Their belief is that such measures will prevent "some" number of incidents. I wouldn't even debate against that argument. Assuming that many/most of the people that get flagged to exhibit some behavior that is worrisome, then it is reasonable to believe that some percentage of them would be capable of causing harm with a firearm. There is some data that suggests that Red Flag laws can have an impact on suicides. My response to that would be "So what?". I bet we could geatly reduce all types of crime by selectively ignoring the 6th or 8th amendments ("right to counsel", "cruel and unusual punishment") if the defendant meets some arbitrary conditions (especially heinous crimes, repeat offender, etc.). But, rights are not meant to be given/taken away by the government (as many seem to think these days). Government's role is to protect the rights of all citizens. Only when it has been proven that (i.e. a conviction) it is justified should the government be compelled to restrict a person's rights.


- if a person is NOT a threat to themselves or others then they have nothing to worry about
- cops and judges who deal with restraining orders are WELL AWARE of the potential for abuse and will use common sense...
From my personal viewpoint, I believe that you have a misplaced faith in government and its minions.

I suggest that if abuse is possible, then abuse will happen.
Many government functionaries bend in the direction in which their political beliefs (or their bosses' political beliefs) blow them, and do not respect the law, the state constitution, the US Constitution, or the natural rights of the individual.
To add to @M1911A1 - Let's say most Cops/Judges will perform some due diligence in receiving such claims. Everything that can be abused IS abused, it is just a matter of how much. So, we would be allowing the government to take away a person's constitutional right based on the assertion of someone who may have an ax to grind. Think of it this way: If a cop receives such a report they can either 1) Put in additional effort to ensure it is not bogus or 2) Do the easy thing and just kick it up for enforcement. I'd rather not have my rights be decided by some union employee who is just biding his time to retirement.

Also, restraining orders are typically about not interacting with another person. Not exactly the same thing as taking away a constitutional right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
849 Posts
...Government's role is to protect the rights of all citizens...
Well, actually government's role (I believe according to Jefferson) is to "smooth the intercourse among its people."

Of course, protecting the rights of its citizens is certainly a major part of doing this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,142 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Well, actually government's role (I believe according to Jefferson) is to "smooth the intercourse among its people."

Of course, protecting the rights of its citizens is certainly a major part of doing this.
Some of the people are apparently trying do "forced intercourse" on the rest of us!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top