Jump to content

National Red Flag Law looking probable?


cybermgk

Recommended Posts

It sure seems likely, as usual, that the recent events ait the CA festival, El Paso and Dayton are going to drive National level legislation. My gut feeling is that Republicans as well as POTUS will get behind a Red Flag Law for political reasons, with an election year coming up. I also think they see it as the least 'onerous' option to assuage the screeching anti-gunners. I also think POTUS and some Republicans expect the Dems to not laud it, but go extreme, NOT ENOUGH BAN BAN BAN, and show their true beliefs (as they have on Healthcare, Immigration and Borders).

 

Yes, I agree, it's another chipping away at our rights. It also may give an opportunity for SCOTUS to rule all such violate several Bill of Rights Amendments.

 

But, if it is inevitable to become a law, how can we insure it is atleast as least damaging as what we have here (Thanks again Moly et al), if not everything Moly at al tried to get in place here?

 

Would Illinois' law take precedence over a national one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this mechanism already exist? If you are involuntarily committed you automatically become a prohibited person, no? Getting someone involuntarily committed is not a simple process and has some protections to help prevent abuse. Aren't red flag laws just another version of the same old same old and yet another example that we already have laws to address an issue, it just isn't being used? A huge part of the problem is the persistent misconception that laws prevent crime. They don't, they never have and that is not their purpose. Laws exist to provide a punishment AFTER someone breaks the law.

 

Every gun control law being proposed has a penalty that is less than the penalty for murder. No one willing to commit murder and face the death penalty or life in prison is going to not commit murder because they might face 5 or 10 years in prison on a gun charge. The overwhelming vast majority of legal gun owners don't commit any crimes. The commonality isn't the gun, it's mental illness and people that either are already prohibited from owning firearms or would be if they were being treated as the system is designed. How many times does someone have to pop onto the radar of a school or law enforcement and nothing is done, then they go on to commit heinous crimes because no one did anything? Many of these acts should have been prevented using existing laws. Until we address that fact, all the new laws in the world are going to do nothing to address the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this mechanism already exist? If you are involuntarily committed you automatically become a prohibited person, no? Getting someone involuntarily committed is not a simple process and has some protections to help prevent abuse. Aren't red flag laws just another version of the same old same old and yet another example that we already have laws to address an issue, it just isn't being used?

 

That's the problem. We could be using the civil commitment process. Someone says "I'm gonna shoot up a...." so call cops, cops haul subject to hospital for eval, if evaluator says "this person needs help" then give them the option of checking in themselves (voluntarily, triggering a five-year prohibition on firearm possession). It's EXACTLY like what happens when someone threatens suicide.

 

Why do we need another law that does the exact same thing, plus stripping due process BEFORE adjudication, as what an emergency certification or voluntary admission would do? People just need to speak the eff up instead of ignoring all of these "red flags" then say "uh oh well hindsight is 20/20."

 

These people who get red flag orders should be committed. Voluntarily or not. Period. If someone is too dangerous to have guns then they're too dangerous to be in public and the government has a duty to protect the public. Because it's not like someone could hit up a hardware store and make something that will cause more death and general mayhem than just a gun.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems dumb and inevitable. I can't wait for some online warriors to start targeting anyone for simply having pictures of guns or being part of some gun group.

Several members on this forum have admitted here and elsewhere they intend to do just that...

 

The moderators have stated that behavior does not violate the code of conduct, so they're welcome to operate out in the open.

 

Any member who advocates red flagging anyone publicly without due process should be banned as a liability. If the moderators truly opposed these laws and cared about their members freedoms it would be written into the COC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems dumb and inevitable. I can't wait for some online warriors to start targeting anyone for simply having pictures of guns or being part of some gun group.Several members on this forum have admitted here and elsewhere they intend to do just that...The moderators have stated that behavior does not violate the code of conduct, so they're welcome to operate out in the open.Any member who advocates red flagging anyone publicly without due process should be banned as a liability. If the moderators truly opposed these laws and cared about their members freedoms it would be written into the COC.
Wait...so if I come here, promise I'm going to commit a felony, that's fine. But we can't use the acronym "w t f." Makes total sense. You can be Antifa, ISIS, whatever, threatening to commit crimes, that's all good and dandy but four letter words are a huge no-no. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems dumb and inevitable. I can't wait for some online warriors to start targeting anyone for simply having pictures of guns or being part of some gun group.

Several members on this forum have admitted here and elsewhere they intend to do just that...

They have? I havent seen those. Guess Im not spending enough time here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people make specific threats that they're going to shoot someone, blow something up, etc., then obviously they can be arrested. No red flag law is required for that. The threat itself is an indicator of a crime about to be committed, and police can act on it.

 

Red flag laws are for when someone is demonstrating the kind of disturbing behavior that mass shooters have previously exhibited without making specific threats. Without the specific threat, the (eventual) perpetrator has not committed a crime and is not necessarily clearly planning one, therefore police cannot act on that (nor should they be empowered to do so). However, a judge can rule on a petition if sufficient evidence is presented that someone is about to become a danger, and police can execute the resulting judicial order.

 

Most red flag laws were passed after Parkland, when many people, including many gun owners on this forum, expressed outrage that police "didn't do something" when Cruz was clearly exhibiting signs he was a (non-specific) danger to someone and after anonymous tipsters reported him to the FBI as a potential domestic threat, including when his foster mother called for local cops as essentially unlicensed psychological counselors to "talk sense into him."

 

You don't get to have it both ways, where "the system" acts to stop the Nikolas Cruzes of the world before they strike, but doesn't subject everyone else (including you) to the same critical scrutiny. If a particular red flag law is implemented poorly (as any legislation written and passed too quickly is likely to be), then the objective should be determining how to implement it so that it protects the rights of the innocent from abuse and targets only truly dangerous individuals for enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people make specific threats that they're going to shoot someone, blow something up, etc., then obviously they can be arrested. No red flag law is required for that. The threat itself is an indicator of a crime about to be committed, and police can act on it.Red flag laws are for when someone is demonstrating the kind of disturbing behavior that mass shooters have previously exhibited without making specific threats. Without the specific threat, the (eventual) perpetrator has not committed a crime and is not necessarily clearly planning one, therefore police cannot act on that (nor should they be empowered to do so). However, a judge can rule on a petition if sufficient evidence is presented that someone is about to become a danger, and police can execute the resulting judicial order.Most red flag laws were passed after Parkland, when many people, including many gun owners on this forum, expressed outrage that police "didn't do something" when Cruz was clearly exhibiting signs he was a (non-specific) danger to someone and after anonymous tipsters reported him to the FBI as a potential domestic threat, including when his foster mother called for local cops as essentially unlicensed psychological counselors to "talk sense into him."You don't get to have it both ways, where "the system" acts to stop the Nikolas Cruzes of the world before they strike, but doesn't subject everyone else (including you) to the same critical scrutiny. If a particular red flag law is implemented poorly (as any legislation written and passed too quickly is likely to be), then the objective should be determining how to implement it so that it protects the rights of the innocent from abuse and targets only truly dangerous individuals for enforcement.

^^^This. A credible threat is an arrestable chargeable offense. If proven in court it results in jail time.

 

A red flag says there is no credible threat, but this guy just made a large ammo purchase, took a picture of it, and tweeted "suck it libs, this is 'Merica". It's doubly bad because it uses a first ammendment to infringe on the 2nd ammendment.

 

I know many boomers will have died of old age by the time Trump gets term limited out, but your government will not always protect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seems dumb and inevitable. I can't wait for some online warriors to start targeting anyone for simply having pictures of guns or being part of some gun group.

Several members on this forum have admitted here and elsewhere they intend to do just that...

 

The moderators have stated that behavior does not violate the code of conduct, so they're welcome to operate out in the open.

 

Any member who advocates red flagging anyone publicly without due process should be banned as a liability. If the moderators truly opposed these laws and cared about their members freedoms it would be written into the COC.

 

No, we haven't stated that.

 

We've repeatedly asked you for forum links. Consider this another request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Seems dumb and inevitable. I can't wait for some online warriors to start targeting anyone for simply having pictures of guns or being part of some gun group.

Several members on this forum have admitted here and elsewhere they intend to do just that...The moderators have stated that behavior does not violate the code of conduct, so they're welcome to operate out in the open.Any member who advocates red flagging anyone publicly without due process should be banned as a liability. If the moderators truly opposed these laws and cared about their members freedoms it would be written into the COC.
No, we haven't stated that.We've repeatedly asked you for forum links. Consider this another request.
Is this permission to post links in a public forum outing a certain member? Because you have typically deleted those posts in the past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would like to review them without embarrassing any of our members. We would do the same for you.You could simply respond with links to the PM you sent us earlier today.

Perhaps a change to the code of conduct that says any member that advocates for unconstitutional gun control is banned.

 

I would think the member that bought the "assault weapon" off this member that supports red flag laws, universal background checks, registration, and semiautomatic bans would like to know. As they will immediately be fingered for any noncompliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We would like to review them without embarrassing any of our members. We would do the same for you.You could simply respond with links to the PM you sent us earlier today.

Perhaps a change to the code of conduct that says any member that advocates for unconstitutional gun control is banned.

 

I would think the member that bought the "assault weapon" off this member that supports red flag laws, universal background checks, registration, and semiautomatic bans would like to know. As they will immediately be fingered for any noncompliance.

 

Did you support or oppose HB888?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We would like to review them without embarrassing any of our members. We would do the same for you.You could simply respond with links to the PM you sent us earlier today.

Perhaps a change to the code of conduct that says any member that advocates for unconstitutional gun control is banned.I would think the member that bought the "assault weapon" off this member that supports red flag laws, universal background checks, registration, and semiautomatic bans would like to know. As they will immediately be fingered for any noncompliance.
Did you support or oppose HB888?
Yes I get where you're going. But I'm also not inviting Tom Dart into my house just because he's a fellow gun owner.

 

A website devoted to advancing your right to carry in Illinois.

 

IllinoisCarry is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing educational information about the lawful acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms in Illinois as well as actively preserving, protecting, and advancing the Second Amendment Right to Carry for personal safety of self and others

 

I also wouldn't red flag this member, or any other gun owner, even my worst enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ (Chicagoresident)

 

This member (if same one) just publicly stated support for HR8 and HR112 as well the other day

 

Edited by steveTA84, Today, 05:11 PM.

Do you still believe that doxing people is the moral equivalent of tyranny, or has that changed for you in the last 2 days?

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=72702&hl=

 

No words. This is what tyrants do

Accuses of fueling a campaign of hate, doxes his constituents in order for them to be harassed and attacked.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not a politician holding elected office, nor am I posting full names and places of business in an attempt to have a mob harass.

 

If alerting you about a mole (that has admitted to monitoring this forum) in an attempt to preserve/protect this site and its true 2A supportive members is a bad thing, then boot me off the site and carry on. Ive proved my support for the 2A and that Im willing to fight to preserve it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that a statement about someone's position on proposed legislation is anywhere close to "doxxing" them. If that is indeed what happened. Now, if he had posted a name, number, employer, and/or home address then that'd be a different story.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe that a statement about someone's position on proposed legislation is anywhere close to "doxxing" them. If that is indeed what happened. Now, if he had posted a name, number, employer, and/or home address then that'd be a different story.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Exactly
But you know that what you're doing goes beyond that.

 

And realistically, we would lose more than a few members if we required agreement on every bill. It's a given that there will be differences on things that touch on environmental issues, like the lead ammo ban, and any sentencing bill that involves mandatory minimums or penalty enhancements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't believe that a statement about someone's position on proposed legislation is anywhere close to "doxxing" them. If that is indeed what happened. Now, if he had posted a name, number, employer, and/or home address then that'd be a different story.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Exactly
But you know that what you're doing goes beyond that.

And realistically, we would lose more than a few members if we required agreement on every bill. It's a given that there will be differences on things that touch on environmental issues, like the lead ammo ban, and any sentencing bill that involves mandatory minimums or penalty enhancements.

If informing admins of moles via PM and providing evidence of such is a bad thing just say so. Many posters here dont change the tune of their stances in other forums, but some do here in order to blend in and monitor and attempt to divide by making people question their beliefs.

 

And yes, we will have differences on some bills, but shouldnt we all be on the same page for the big ones that affect us all (like when call to actions go out)?

 

 

 

 

That said, sidetracked enough.

 

 

Red flags laws suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If informing admins of moles via PM and providing evidence of such is a bad thing just say so. Many posters here dont change the tune of their stances in other forums, but some do here in order to blend in and monitor and attempt to divide by making people question their beliefs.

 

And yes, we will have differences on some bills, but shouldnt we all be on the same page for the big ones that affect us all (like when call to actions go out)?

 

 

 

 

That said, sidetracked enough.

 

 

Red flags laws suck

 

Edited by steveTA84, Today, 06:52 PM.

 

 

If informing admins of moles via PM and providing evidence of such is a bad thing just say so. Many posters here dont change the tune of their stances in other forums, but some do here in order to blend in and monitor and attempt to divide by making people question their beliefs.

Contacting staff about any of your concerns via PM or by using the report button is always a correct course of action. And, when discussing concerns about a member, those private means of contact are preferable to the open forum.

 

But I think you've misunderstood the process. Contact made with a moderator will always be looked at, reviewed fairly, and dealt with as appropriate within IllinoisCarry's Code of Conduct and policies. It isn't a guarantee that we will take the action you demand.

 

And, as a matter of courtesy, if contact is made with staff, follow up questions asked by staff should be responded to. Going public with one's complaints without having replied diminishes the credibility of the complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If informing admins of moles via PM and providing evidence of such is a bad thing just say so. Many posters here dont change the tune of their stances in other forums, but some do here in order to blend in and monitor and attempt to divide by making people question their beliefs.And yes, we will have differences on some bills, but shouldnt we all be on the same page for the big ones that affect us all (like when call to actions go out)?That said, sidetracked enough.Red flags laws suckEdited by steveTA84, Today, 06:52 PM.

 

If informing admins of moles via PM and providing evidence of such is a bad thing just say so. Many posters here dont change the tune of their stances in other forums, but some do here in order to blend in and monitor and attempt to divide by making people question their beliefs.
Contacting staff about any of your concerns via PM or by using the report button is always a correct course of action. And, when discussing concerns about a member, those private means of contact are preferable to the open forum.But I think you've misunderstood the process. Contact made with a moderator will always be looked at, reviewed fairly, and dealt with as appropriate within IllinoisCarry's Code of Conduct and policies. It isn't a guarantee that we will take the action you demand.And, as a matter of courtesy, if contact is made with staff, follow up questions asked by staff should be responded to. Going public with one's complaints without having replied diminishes the credibility of the complaint.

 

 

 

I’ve always responded to all interactions w/mods.

 

 

action you demand

 

.............I’m a mom, and I Demand Action.......

 

Had to, sorry :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most red flag laws were passed after Parkland, when many people, including many gun owners on this forum, expressed outrage that police "didn't do something" when Cruz was clearly exhibiting signs he was a (non-specific) danger to someone and after anonymous tipsters reported him to the FBI as a potential domestic threat, including when his foster mother called for local cops as essentially unlicensed psychological counselors to "talk sense into him."

 

No, this is revisionist. He committed several acts that could have and should have been charged as a crime and prosecuted. However, because of an Obama policy, aimed stupidly at reducing pipeline from school to prison, had both ethe Sherriff's office and school, together, not arrest him, and instead use 'in school' discipline. Had they NOT, he would have been ineligible to legally buy the firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Most red flag laws were passed after Parkland, when many people, including many gun owners on this forum, expressed outrage that police "didn't do something" when Cruz was clearly exhibiting signs he was a (non-specific) danger to someone and after anonymous tipsters reported him to the FBI as a potential domestic threat, including when his foster mother called for local cops as essentially unlicensed psychological counselors to "talk sense into him."

No, this is revisionist. He committed several acts that could have and should have been charged as a crime and prosecuted. However, because of an Obama policy, aimed stupidly at reducing pipeline from school to prison, had both ethe Sherriff's office and school, together, not arrest him, and instead use 'in school' discipline. Had they NOT, he would have been ineligible to legally buy the firearm.

 

Two states (CT and CA) had red flag laws before Parkland. 17 now have them. Parkland definitely provided the impetus to pass the recent 15.

 

If you mean so-called diversionary programs keeping minors from getting juvenile records, that would only add weight to my point. That's not an Obama thing. That's a local thing everywhere it exists. The idea is that juvenile detention only teaches kids how to become career criminals and/or to forsake anything but a life of crime when they reach majority. Whether you buy the argument or not, a juvenile record is a juvenile record. It would be sealed and irrelevant to Cruz being able to buy a firearm. It's possible a juvenile record could have added weight to a red flag intervention (if FL had had a red flag law at the time), but having a juvenile record is not itself an arrestable offense. The only possible exception would be if he were committing crimes for which he should have been charged as an adult, like rape and murder, which he wasn't, nor can I imagine that they'd qualify as "divertible" crimes, even if he was.

 

Also, although it was the prototype incident for red flag laws, Parkland is only a single example of a perpetrator behaving dangerously but non-specifically before a mass shooting. An FBI study (which was discussed in these forums) of all quantifiable mass shootings in the US since 2000 concluded that all shooters telegraphed their intent for at least a week, and sometimes for over 2 years, before the shooting itself.

 

None of that is revisionist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw Tom Cotton on Fox & Friends talking about this. Impossible at federal level

Apparently they're talking about providing funds and whatnot to states that have red flag laws that comply with certain federal guidelines such as...the law must seriously punish anyone who falsely reports someone. I guess that means Illinois won't get any federal funding since the false report subsection simply states the person "may" be charged with a crime. Not "shall."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Most red flag laws were passed after Parkland, when many people, including many gun owners on this forum, expressed outrage that police "didn't do something" when Cruz was clearly exhibiting signs he was a (non-specific) danger to someone and after anonymous tipsters reported him to the FBI as a potential domestic threat, including when his foster mother called for local cops as essentially unlicensed psychological counselors to "talk sense into him."

No, this is revisionist. He committed several acts that could have and should have been charged as a crime and prosecuted. However, because of an Obama policy, aimed stupidly at reducing pipeline from school to prison, had both ethe Sherriff's office and school, together, not arrest him, and instead use 'in school' discipline. Had they NOT, he would have been ineligible to legally buy the firearm.

 

Two states (CT and CA) had red flag laws before Parkland. 17 now have them. Parkland definitely provided the impetus to pass the recent 15.

 

If you mean so-called diversionary programs keeping minors from getting juvenile records, that would only add weight to my point. That's not an Obama thing. That's a local thing everywhere it exists. The idea is that juvenile detention only teaches kids how to become career criminals and/or to forsake anything but a life of crime when they reach majority. Whether you buy the argument or not, a juvenile record is a juvenile record. It would be sealed and irrelevant to Cruz being able to buy a firearm. It's possible a juvenile record could have added weight to a red flag intervention (if FL had had a red flag law at the time), but having a juvenile record is not itself an arrestable offense. The only possible exception would be if he were committing crimes for which he should have been charged as an adult, like rape and murder, which he wasn't, nor can I imagine that they'd qualify as "divertible" crimes, even if he was.

 

Also, although it was the prototype incident for red flag laws, Parkland is only a single example of a perpetrator behaving dangerously but non-specifically before a mass shooting. An FBI study (which was discussed in these forums) of all quantifiable mass shootings in the US since 2000 concluded that all shooters telegraphed their intent for at least a week, and sometimes for over 2 years, before the shooting itself.

 

None of that is revisionist.

 

Was an 'Obama thing'

 

https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-obama-stop-school-prison-pipeline-20140210-story.html

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2018-03-06/did-an-obama-era-school-discipline-policy-contribute-to-the-parkland-shooting

 

And he was given only school discipline for bringing weapons to school on 2 occasions, both prosecutable, and both would have invalidated him from firearm purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...