The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
I agree to a point, but there will come a time when we will have to address this. All of the recent mass shootings had one thing in common - the shooter had been previously known to have problems. To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
I fully agree that we need policies and laws in place that keep guns away from certain people. But, at the same time, we need to be careful how we accept those policies and laws.oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 amTo protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
The 2nd Amendment is all about building resilient, free, and empowered individuals and communities. I applaud The Atlantic for publishing this statement.And when you carry your weapon, you don’t feel intimidated, you feel empowered. In a way that’s tough to explain, the fact that you’re so much less dependent on the state for your personal security and safety makes you feel more “free” than you’ve ever felt before.
The problem with so-called "red flag laws" is that the term means different things to different people. Most "red flag" laws are promoted by anti-gun groups. Most do not require taking anyone into custody and/or having them evaluated for a mental disorder. In fact, most do not even have "mental illness" as an element of the law! Orders issued are simply firearm seizure orders based upon potentially bogus claims by persons with a motive to cause the target of the order as much trouble as possible. Ex-spouses, ex-in-laws, ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, neighbor, co-workers with grudges, etc.oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 amI agree to a point, but there will come a time when we will have to address this. All of the recent mass shootings had one thing in common - the shooter had been previously known to have problems. To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
That is exactly what I believe would happen. It would give new meaning to the "bad breakup" between spouses.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:32 pmThe problem with so-called "red flag laws" is that the term means different things to different people. Most "red flag" laws are promoted by anti-gun groups. Most do not require taking anyone into custody and/or having them evaluated for a mental disorder. In fact, most do not even have "mental illness" as an element of the law! Orders issued are simply firearm seizure orders based upon potentially bogus claims by persons with a motive to cause the target of the order as much trouble as possible. Ex-spouses, ex-in-laws, ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, neighbor, co-workers with grudges, etc.oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 amI agree to a point, but there will come a time when we will have to address this. All of the recent mass shootings had one thing in common - the shooter had been previously known to have problems. To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
Texas already has a procedure for obtaining mental health warrants to have people evaluated for mental health problems that require in-hospital treatment. That procedure does not require confiscation of all firearms. If any are seized from the person being taken into custody, then they must be returned to the individual if treatment is not needed. If the person does suffer from a disorder that requires hospitalization, then the guns must be 1) returned to a co-owner (ex. spouse); 2) given to anyone the patient designates (ex. son/daughter/friend); or 3) sold through an FFL with the money going to the patient/owner. The patient/owner chooses between these options, if he/she cannot have the guns returned.
Texas doesn't need a "red flag" law; we already have a good one that protects the patient/gun-owner.
Chas.
No warrant required in some circumstances and pretty strong/broad "red flag" law:Charles L. Cotton wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:32 pmThe problem with so-called "red flag laws" is that the term means different things to different people. Most "red flag" laws are promoted by anti-gun groups. Most do not require taking anyone into custody and/or having them evaluated for a mental disorder. In fact, most do not even have "mental illness" as an element of the law! Orders issued are simply firearm seizure orders based upon potentially bogus claims by persons with a motive to cause the target of the order as much trouble as possible. Ex-spouses, ex-in-laws, ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, neighbor, co-workers with grudges, etc.oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 amI agree to a point, but there will come a time when we will have to address this. All of the recent mass shootings had one thing in common - the shooter had been previously known to have problems. To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.
Texas already has a procedure for obtaining mental health warrants to have people evaluated for mental health problems that require in-hospital treatment. That procedure does not require confiscation of all firearms. If any are seized from the person being taken into custody, then they must be returned to the individual if treatment is not needed. If the person does suffer from a disorder that requires hospitalization, then the guns must be 1) returned to a co-owner (ex. spouse); 2) given to anyone the patient designates (ex. son/daughter/friend); or 3) sold through an FFL with the money going to the patient/owner. The patient/owner chooses between these options, if he/she cannot have the guns returned.
Texas doesn't need a "red flag" law; we already have a good one that protects the patient/gun-owner.
Chas.
These “gun violence restraining orders” are the same as the “Red Flag” restraining orders we’ve discussed in other threads, and they are RIFE for abuse by busybodies who see them as a backhanded way to disarm someone - whether or not that person actually IS a threat - without application of due process and a chance for the individual to defend their competence in court. I don’t like having to have a background check, but I accept it as established law. But I think that “red flag/gun-violence restraining orders” are a singularly BAD idea. EVEN IF the subject of the order is legitimately believed to be a disturbed individual, the correct response ought to be something like a 5150 referral (that’s what it was called in California, but I’m sure Texas has an equivalent), in which the subject is put on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, which can be extended for another 14 days if necessary, during which time the person is kept in a psychiatric institution for observation/treatment. ONLY THEN, if the person has been adjudicated as mentally ill, should his/her firearms be confiscated. But until then, there is NO REASON not to simply allow his/her family to assume control of the guns. Police confiscation is not only not necessary and places an additional burden on law enforcement, but there is always the risk - especially in a leftist city/state - that police will not return the firearms if the person should be determined to not be a threat. And, it means that if your neighbor doesn’t like your politics, he can complain to authorities saying that you’re crazy, and they’ll take your guns away, without you having your day in court first.It’s a myth that gun owners despise regulation. Instead, they tend to believe that government regulation should have two purposes—deny guns to the dangerous while protecting rights of access for the law-abiding. The formula is simple: Criminals and the dangerously mentally ill make our nation more violent. Law-abiding gun owners save and protect lives.
Thus the overwhelming support for background checks, the insistence from gun-rights supporters that the government enforce existing laws and lock up violent offenders, and the openness to solutions—like so-called “gun violence restraining orders” that specifically target troubled individuals for intervention.
And if you choose “safety guaranteed” by the government then don’t be surprised when the government appointed “protectors” aren’t there when you need your safety protected.The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:31 pm I don’t like such laws, and the consequence of not having them is no difference than the consequences attached to other liberties - which is to say that you can have safety guaranteed, or you can have liberty guaranteed, but not both.