PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 10, 2019, 09:15:50 AM
-
So, a number of states have so-called Red Flag laws which remove guns from people who are somehow deemed a threat to themselves or others.
All they do is take away the girl's firearms? That's it?
If these people really are threats to themselves or others, why don't they take other actions? Of course, that leads to questions about what else can they do?
I've read the Massachusetts law and that's all I could find in the law, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Do the "Red Flag" laws in other states provide anything meaningful?
-
So, a number of states have so-called Red Flag laws which remove guns from people who are somehow deemed a threat to themselves or others.
All they do is take away the girl's firearms? That's it?
If these people really are threats to themselves or others, why don't they take other actions? Of course, that leads to questions about what else can they do?
I've read the Massachusetts law and that's all I could find in the law, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Do the "Red Flag" laws in other states provide anything meaningful?
No.
Ask yourself this question. What does it take to enact a “red flag” law, and why don’t other laws apply?
Our judicial rights are explicit. “Innocent until proven guilty”. How does enacting a law to prevent “what someone may do” comply with judicial rights?
-
And what about penalties for false accusations? My neighbor has a Trump sign in his yard so I think he's a white supremacist and I'm triggered. You should come and take his guns away. No due process. And the poor neighbor has to prove that he's not a threat.
Good to see threats before they actually become deaths. But how do you also protect rights of the innocent?
-
And what about penalties for false accusations? My neighbor has a Trump sign in his yard so I think he's a white supremacist and I'm triggered. You should come and take his guns away. No due process. And the poor neighbor has to prove that he's not a threat.
Good to see threats before they actually become deaths. But how do you also protect rights of the innocent?
We already have that with PFA's in my state. Protection from Abuse orders, I guess they are also called restraining orders. These are now used by women as tools in divorce cases to get custody of kids or extort more money and assets from the husband. His guns are taken away immediately, with NO DUE PROCESS. Often the husband capitulates and the PFA is lifted. Attorneys encourage this with their female clients.
This is a scary slippery slope.
-
This is not going to happen on a federal level unless concerns about due process are addressed to everyone's satisfaction. So I think it's an overreaction to be too concerned at this point.
I haven't researched other states' ERPO laws, but in Vermont, the court that has jurisdiction in granting or refusing orders to surrender weapons (firearms or explosives) is the Family Division of Superior Court. The burden is on the petitioner to convince the court with "clear and convincing evidence" that the person poses an extreme risk to himself or others.
Yes, the burden of proof is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the petition can't just be based on suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations by a relative or a neighbor.
As I said, I don't know about other states. But I would be astonished (and alarmed) if the federal version, if it ever passes, didn't require at least as much due process as this.
-
My observation over the last few years is that we seem to be getting away from the 'Innocent until proven guilty' to Guilty until you prove yourself innocent'. I really do hope I'm wrong.
-
My observation over the last few years is that we seem to be getting away from the 'Innocent until proven guilty' to Guilty until you prove yourself innocent'. I really do hope I'm wrong.
The progressive left keeps pushing this. And of course, for them they want “innocent until proven guilty” but everyone else shall be guilty and they shall have to prove themselves innocent.
-
The progressive left keeps pushing this. And of course, for them they want “innocent until proven guilty” but everyone else shall be guilty and they shall have to prove themselves innocent.
They are also pushing Hate Speech Laws, the removal of Second Amendment Rights, and now removal of Due Process. They are convinced that total government control, and dependency is a good thing and that government is benevolent. They are wrong.
-
Part of the problem with the "Red Flag" laws is the ex parte aspect of it. The person who is the subject of the petition doesn't have an opportunity to defend herself.
-
Part of the problem with the "Red Flag" laws is the ex parte aspect of it. The person who is the subject of the petition doesn't have an opportunity to defend herself.
Exactly.
-
The progressive left keeps pushing this. And of course, for them they want “innocent until proven guilty” but everyone else shall be guilty and they shall have to prove themselves innocent.
What I've noticed is the separation of "Innocent until proven guilty" into the legal sense and the social sense. Legally the State must hold the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is not proven beyond some standard then the accused is by default innocent. But that's only for state action.
We the People don't have that legal obligation. We can assume anything we want about the accused. Where Right and Left differ is in the assumption. Generally the Right assumes innocence and is (more or less) content to let the case play out in court.
The Left on the other hand assumes that the accusation (of a conservative) is enough to prove guilt. The accused must be punished right away by any means possible. The MSM is complicit in this as well. The accusation is front page news for weeks, and the eventual decision of innocence is buried. We see this time after time after time. If someone on the Left is accused that accusation is buried, witnesses are suicided, and the whole thing disappears.
-
Part of the problem with the "Red Flag" laws is the ex parte aspect of it. The person who is the subject of the petition doesn't have an opportunity to defend herself.
Agreed. In VT the respondent does have an avenue to appeal the order, but it's not clear to me whether they can keep their weapons while the appeal process goes through or whether they have to surrender them until then (I suspect they have to surrender).
The due process side needs to be refined, no question about it. But the alternative is NO means of disarming someone who is a genuine threat, until they have already killed someone.
-
Agreed. In VT the respondent does have an avenue to appeal the order, but it's not clear to me whether they can keep their weapons while the appeal process goes through or whether they have to surrender them until then (I suspect they have to surrender).
The due process side needs to be refined, no question about it. But the alternative is NO means of disarming someone who is a genuine threat, until they have already killed someone.
Define genuine threat, and why current laws don’t already cover this?
-
Agreed. In VT the respondent does have an avenue to appeal the order, but it's not clear to me whether they can keep their weapons while the appeal process goes through or whether they have to surrender them until then (I suspect they have to surrender).
The due process side needs to be refined, no question about it. But the alternative is NO means of disarming someone who is a genuine threat, until they have already killed someone.
The problem is determining who is a genuine threat. In many of these cases (mass shootings, and family annihilators too) the person has zero criminal record and no prior history of violence. We can’t be taking people’s rights, guns, and property away based on somebody’s opinion that they are acting a little weird, or even a lot weird. What yardstick do we use and where do we draw the line?
-
The problem is determining who is a genuine threat. In many of these cases (mass shootings, and family annihilators too) the person has zero criminal record and no prior history of violence. We can’t be taking people’s rights, guns, and property away based on somebody’s opinion that they are acting a little weird, or even a lot weird. What yardstick do we use and where do we draw the line?
Exactly. Everyone deserves due process.
-
The problem is determining who is a genuine threat. In many of these cases (mass shootings, and family annihilators too) the person has zero criminal record and no prior history of violence. We can’t be taking people’s rights, guns, and property away based on somebody’s opinion that they are acting a little weird, or even a lot weird. What yardstick do we use and where do we draw the line?
Another problem is that people use these accusations for nefarious reasons, then even if they ADMIT they lied, they don't get prosecuted, nor pay any penalty. In my state, it is specifically not allowed to sue someone if they falsely accuse you.
-
The problem is determining who is a genuine threat. In many of these cases (mass shootings, and family annihilators too) the person has zero criminal record and no prior history of violence. We can’t be taking people’s rights, guns, and property away based on somebody’s opinion that they are acting a little weird, or even a lot weird. What yardstick do we use and where do we draw the line?
I agree. But there have been clear cases where someone was amassing weapons and saying that they are going to shoot up a school, or some other public place. One very sick person here was stopped by an ERPO; unfortunately, the governor then went further and signed a bill which infringes (albeit minimally) on the 2A. But that ERPO arguably prevented another school shooting.
The problem of determining who is a genuine, credible threat is always going to be a thorny one. I like the wording of the VT ERPO bill which requires "clear and convincing evidence". Such cases need to be reviewed whenever an order is issued, and if an ERPO is issued by mistake, the respondent has to have an avenue for redress of grievance. Such ex parte orders also need to be temporary, as I believe they are here.
But yeah, I agree it's a tough question. That is not a reason to dismiss the idea out of hand though.
The progressive Left wants far more drastic measures. At some point we are going to have to compromise.
-
I agree. But there have been clear cases where someone was amassing weapons and saying that they are going to shoot up a school, or some other public place. One very sick person here was stopped by an ERPO; unfortunately, the governor then went further and signed a bill which infringes (albeit minimally) on the 2A. But that ERPO arguably prevented another school shooting.
The problem of determining who is a genuine, credible threat is always going to be a thorny one. I like the wording of the VT ERPO bill which requires "clear and convincing evidence". Such cases need to be reviewed whenever an order is issued, and if an ERPO is issued by mistake, the respondent has to have an avenue for redress of grievance. Such ex parte orders also need to be temporary, as I believe they are here.
But yeah, I agree it's a tough question. That is not a reason to dismiss the idea out of hand though.
The progressive Left wants far more drastic measures. At some point we are going to have to compromise.
Why compromise? The left refuses to compromise on many issues. Why is it incumbent on conservatives to compromise to the lefts demands?
As far as someone who is armed and has levied threats towards a school or public venue, there are already laws in place to deal with this.
-
The due process side needs to be refined, no question about it. But the alternative is NO means of disarming someone who is a genuine threat, until they have already killed someone.
The only "disarming" that goes on with current "Red Flag" laws is the removal of firearms. No other items that could be used as weapons are removed from the person of interest.
And, let's be clear, someone who conspires to commit murder has in fact committed a crime. This isn't quite as binary as you seem to think.
-
Do people remember the movie "Minority Report"?
As much as we'd like to prevent crime, until someone actually commits a crime that person is still innocent, is still not a criminal.
-
Trump needs to say that he will pass gun control laws when Congress fully funds the border wall. The lefts heads will explode with not knowing what to do.
-
Trump needs to say that he will pass gun control laws when Congress fully funds the border wall. The lefts heads will explode with not knowing what to do.
Oh, they'd know exactly what to do. They'd spin it to make it look like he likes and protects mass murderers and is anti-immigration.
-
The only "disarming" that goes on with current "Red Flag" laws is the removal of firearms. No other items that could be used as weapons are removed from the person of interest.
And, let's be clear, someone who conspires to commit murder has in fact committed a crime. This isn't quite as binary as you seem to think.
In VT the law is written so explosives are covered too... so it doesn't HAVE to be just firearms.
-
In VT the law is written so explosives are covered too... so it doesn't HAVE to be just firearms.
ok. Explosives too. But aren't there other items that can be used as weapons?
And once the person of interest has her guns and explosives taken, nothing else happens?
-
MOST people don't keep explosive devices beyond the gasoline can in their garage for the lawn mower. However, MANY people own guns. This is all about yet another way to remove guns from the law abiding. That's what these laws, upon laws, upon laws are all about. Every one.
-
Part of the problem with the "Red Flag" laws is the ex parte aspect of it. The person who is the subject of the petition doesn't have an opportunity to defend herself.
My problem with them too. However, I believe there are ways around that by creating risk for the accuser. If you "red flag" someone and it is baseless, then you are on the hook for whatever the penalty is - jail time and/or a fine. I think that makes it work.
-
My problem with them too. However, I believe there are ways around that by creating risk for the accuser. If you "red flag" someone and it is baseless, then you are on the hook for whatever the penalty is - jail time and/or a fine. I think that makes it work.
I like the idea, but it would basically render the red flag law useless. Nobody would report anybody under those conditions.
-
I like the idea, but it would basically render the red flag law useless. Nobody would report anybody under those conditions.
They could cover only malicious, knowingly false reports.
-
Do people remember the movie "Minority Report"?
As much as we'd like to prevent crime, until someone actually commits a crime that person is still innocent, is still not a criminal.
Maybe I'm missing something, isn't the above mentioned someone still considered innocent until they have been thru due process?
-
Maybe I'm missing something, isn't the above mentioned someone still considered innocent until they have been thru due process?
Correct. But red flag laws remove the due process.
-
They could cover only malicious, knowingly false reports.
I like that - also remember that it takes more than a complaint, it takes hard, convincing evidence to get an ERPO if the law is anything like ours.
Bob: it depends on whether the person's actions were actionable up until the ERPO was executed. In the VT case, the young man was arrested and charged with attempted murder, but that charge was later dropped when the judge found that there was preparation, but nothing beyond that, and preparation does not by itself constitute an "attempt". In the end he was only charged and convicted on a handful of misdemeanors. I think he was remanded to a correctional facility only until he turns 22.
That's why, you are correct that "conspiracy" to commit murder is a crime, a felony in fact. But when a lunatic plans to commit some horrific mass murder all by his lonesome, at what point do his actions become criminal, and under what conditions does that crime constitute a felony?
People in VT have been debating these issues ever since.
-
I agree. But there have been clear cases where someone was amassing weapons and saying that they are going to shoot up a school, or some other public place. One very sick person here was stopped by an ERPO; unfortunately, the governor then went further and signed a bill which infringes (albeit minimally) on the 2A. But that ERPO arguably prevented another school shooting.
The problem of determining who is a genuine, credible threat is always going to be a thorny one. I like the wording of the VT ERPO bill which requires "clear and convincing evidence". Such cases need to be reviewed whenever an order is issued, and if an ERPO is issued by mistake, the respondent has to have an avenue for redress of grievance. Such ex parte orders also need to be temporary, as I believe they are here.
But yeah, I agree it's a tough question. That is not a reason to dismiss the idea out of hand though.
The progressive Left wants far more drastic measures. At some point we are going to have to compromise.
The problem with compromising with the progressive left is they will never let it alone. You give an inch and compromise they will demand the next thing, and then the next, and eat away at your freedoms bit by bit.
The left will never thank you for compromising. They will never give the right any credit but will only continue moving the bar. They don’t really want these little compromises, they want total disarmament of the American citizen, especially the conservative and libertarian ones.
Red flag laws will result in persecuting many more innocent people than stopping actual dangerous people. These mass shooters are so rare it’s not even worth the time we are spending on the subject. The best way to minimize harm by these sickos is to legalize and promote conceal carry everywhere so you automatically have defenders present when a shooter enters a place. This includes schools. Instead of capitulation to demands for more restrictions we should be screaming for loosening of restrictions because that is the real and logical solution.
-
The problem with compromising with the progressive left is they will never let it alone. You give an inch and compromise they will demand the next thing, and then the next, and eat away at your freedoms bit by bit.
The left will never thank you for compromising. They will never give the right any credit but will only continue moving the bar. They don’t really want these little compromises, they want total disarmament of the American citizen, especially the conservative and libertarian ones.
Red flag laws will result in persecuting many more innocent people than stopping actual dangerous people. These mass shooters are so rare it’s not even worth the time we are spending on the subject. The best way to minimize harm by these sickos is to legalize and promote conceal carry everywhere so you automatically have defenders present when a shooter enters a place. This includes schools. Instead of capitulation to demands for more restrictions we should be screaming for loosening of restrictions because that is the real and logical solution.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/415ef5c8f9cf505bf6f79b1399b86de0/tenor.gif)
-
I like the idea, but it would basically render the red flag law useless. Nobody would report anybody under those conditions.
This is a problem?
They would not be be useless, people would still report. But there has to be teeth to prevent abuse.
-
I'll ask again, is thinking about committing a crime actually a crime? Are we going to have Thought Police?
Is thinking about having sexual relations with your neighbor's wife actually adultery?
Is thinking about physically harming someone a crime?
Is thinking about running the stop sign a violation of traffic laws?
Where does this stop?
-
I'll ask again, is thinking about committing a crime actually a crime? Are we going to have Thought Police?
Is thinking about having sexual relations with your neighbor's wife actually adultery?
Is thinking about physically harming someone a crime?
Is thinking about running the stop sign a violation of traffic laws?
Where does this stop?
This is pretty much the crux of the problem. I suppose nobody argues that at the very end of the crazy spectrum we should remove freedom from the very mentally ill for the safety of themselves and others. Ultimately this means locking them up. This takes away their ability to cause harm not only with guns but also knives, poisons, chainsaws, motor vehicles and probably also their own fists because they would be medicated or isolated or physically restrained. There is a very high bar for doing this and there should be. Even so there have been cases historically where normal sane people were institutionalized against their will, usually by crazy family members for such “dangerous” crimes as getting pregnant out of wedlock. But I digress.
Between what we all agree is “normal” and the above crazy there’s a whole spectrum of partially crazy and what defines that? And who gets to decide? That agreed upon “normal” is itself moving ever lower as the country becomes ever more dichotomized culturally.
For example, those on the right might consider being transgender mentally ill, those on the left don’t. Those on the left might consider claiming you had a vision and saw Jesus as a sign of mental illness, those on the right might not.
So what both the right and the left agree is “normal” might be shrinking, and most of the population sits somewhere on the spectrum of insanity, opening the door a crack for someone to make a case to the right judge and take away their guns... but not institutionalize them? Because they’re not that sick and dangerous? There’s a logic disconnect there.
There are many people who thought playing Doom (first person shooter video game if you just fell off the turnip truck) caused the Columbine massacre but serious study later disproved that theory. Playing video games is not associated with an increased risk of actual violent behavior but there is a strong cadre out there who still believes that.
So if you own more than 5 guns including “assault” rifles and you have stockpiled ammunition AND you play FPS video games, there are a lot of people who would believe that’s clear and convincing evidence you are thinking about going on a spree shooting.
Suppose you own fictionalized novels about domestic terrorists? Suppose you fly commercial jets into the twin towers in MS Flight Sim? There are people who would insist this is evidence you are going to go postal, yet this probably describes hundreds of thousands of perfectly normal sane individuals who would never actually commit violence in real life.
It’s a very dangerous slippery slope; if we started this, with time the net would be cast ever wider because once you accept the idea that we can predict future crimes based on thought (as opposed to past behavior) then you have discarded “innocent until proven guilty”. I don’t think we want to go there.
-
(https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/6d653abef47cda0e28b9db5c0eddd7452052f9d5969231a1bd5fbbc87f85eeb0-300x264.jpg)
-
Here’s the fundamental hypocrisy of all gun control. The politicians and the rich use guns (via bodyguards) to defend and protect themselves and their families. Why can’t the average person? “Well because we are targets,” says them. Okay more of a target than say a prostitute on the street? I think not; the prostitute is more likely to be killed than your average famous or powerful person, yet they think she shouldn’t have a gun. Excuse me, the low life prostitute has as much god given right to defend her own life as the rich elite who by the way whore political favors or sneaker endorsements and are hardly more moral.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190812/b0e84a523e611b5d98a107764005942e.jpg)