Trump Calls For A National ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law

[Miradus]

I always have something important to say.

IF there is an election... as usual, the choice is between the "lesser of two evils."

Some refuse to play Big Brother's psy-op game and don't vote for either evil.

Vote or not... God is in total control and places in power whomsoever He wills for good or for ill.

I don't believe that. It doesn't make logical sense. So God put Hitler in power?

God already told us what He thinks of kings in 1st Samuel.

I think it far more logical that God simply allows us to choose our leaders. A moral people would pick moral leaders. An immoral people clearly will pick immoral leaders.

If there can be said to be a theme to the bible in general, I would say it's one of "do not fear". And every time we see a leader emerge amongst the people, it's always a response to fear.

God could have clearly just said, "If you succumb to fear, you're going to make bad choices and suffer the consequences."

[Bezukhov]

Per Luke 17, the evil end of the age is like the evil "days of Noah" [race-mixing] and evil "days of Lot" [Lot lived in Sodom]... twin examples of societies long past the point of no return... so God destroyed them all except a chosen untainted few. Also in Luke 17, Jesus compares His return to the fire from heaven that destroyed Sodom. In Ezekiel 38/39 and Rev 20, fire from heaven also destroys Gog/Magog whose global hordes have invaded the homelands of God's people to try to destroy God's the last faithful righteous remnant, "the camp of the saints."

Delete

[Mugwump]

isn't a red flag law a punishment not passed down by a court of law with no crime being committed

It depends on what you mean by that. So would it be a "red flag law" to make it illegal for people to own firearms if they have a mental health condition that might make them a threat to themselves or others? Maybe. But the other approach is that you put no restrictions on firearms ownership, but instead you incarcerate the mentally ill in a mental institution. Which of these approaches represents a greater restriction on people with mental health problems?

As I say, it's a bizarre solution whose purpose is to prevent implementing firearms ownership restrictions (Oh no! "Shall not be infringed" has been violated!), but in order to achieve the same basic goal (i.e., you want to minimize the ability of crazy people to harm themselves or others), you imprison people and pretend that you live in a society with more freedom. This is not sane.

[Hoppalong]

Wow what a imagination God is now in control of everyone and everything??? WOW what is that all about. No HE is NOT in control of everyone OR Everything that happens on this earth. Man get off this high horse of Bible thumping you are no good at it.

[KingsX]

I think it far more logical that God simply allows us to choose our leaders

YOU think ??


... the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men.

Daniel 4:17

The context is important.

In context, the reference is to the Babylonian ruler King Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The God of Israel had raised up Babylon to conquer and punish His sinful rebellious Israelites.

This is from Daniel's interpretation of the dream:

... the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will.

Daniel 4:25

In the next verse, Daniel 4:26, Daniel tells King Nebuchadnezzar he must acknowledge that Heaven rules.

King Nebuchadnezzar did acknowledge this:

At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, What have you done?

Daniel 4:34-35

Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.

Daniel 4:37

[Mugwump]

Never have I seen a straw man constructed out of such flimsy material.

Hey, just picking up on the implications of your question: "But why are those people walking around free in our population if they represent such an ambient risk?"

Aren't you proposing locking up people we deem to be a threat, rather than simply preventing them from owning firearms?

[Bezukhov]

YOU think ??

Think? Now I know

It's all His fault.

[Miradus]

Hey, just picking up on the implications of your question: "But why are those people walking around free in our population if they represent such an ambient risk?"

Aren't you proposing locking up people we deem to be a threat, rather than simply preventing them from owning firearms?

No, you're taking an extreme angle to what I said. You've demonstrated before you're not interested in honest conversation. You're interested in building up a straw man and tearing it down.

But for the cheap seats ...

Many of these shooters have expressed to someone beforehand what they were going to do. Often it was a loved one, but in some cases it was actual authorities. They CLEARLY wanted, at least at some level, to be stopped before it went too far. You don't just randomly mention to your mother that you're having thoughts of shooting a bunch of people before turning the gun on yourself. That's a cry for help.

If one of my loved ones came to me and expressed that they'd been having thoughts of getting a gun and going to kill a lot of people ... I would want to get them help. I'd certainly secure the weapons, but I'd want to address the underlying issue.

Unfortunately there's not an easy system to do so. I can't call the police without the risk of five police cars squealing into my driveway and shooting my loved one. I can't take them quietly to a mental health professional because all of those are required by law to report such discussions to the police. I can't take them to a mental institution because they're going to be locked up and dosed with psychotropic drugs which are barely understood and in most cases extremely harmful both short and long term.

Why is there not a zero consequence environment for people to be safely evaluated? Why is there not a comfortable location where a person could go check themselves in for a few days without stigma or fear of discovery?

Look ... if a person is hell-bent on causing destruction then they're going to do so. If they've reached some spiritual or psychological precipice and want to jump then they're going to do so and there's not a damned law out there which could possibly prevent it. They can't get a gun then they'll get a knife. They can't get a knife then they'll get a car. Or go on a rock-throwing spree. Whatever. Evil exists in the world. You can't legislate it away.

But in a lot of these cases, the shooter is ALSO a victim. They were a victim of a system which ignored numerous pleas for help. They were a victim of doctors and prescription drugs and the FDA. They were victims of a system which didn't listen or care and the victim of gun grabbing politicians who show up before the last shell casing has even hit the floor in order to dance in the blood and promote themselves.

I would like to see a mechanism for people who want to seek help to get actual help. Without fear of losing their liberty, or their career, or their reputation, or whatever is important to them that they fear being taken away if they go seek actual help.

You have to also understand that there are bad people out there who are perfectly willing to call the cops, a judge, CPS, etc. out there in order to hurt their neighbor. Estranged girlfriends are going to make it a standard to use a red flag law to punish their ex. Your dog craps on your neighbor's petunias? Your neighbor may deem you a threat and make a call.

And let's look at the mechanics of any red flag law. The police show up to take your weapons. If you're sane ... you'll give them up rather than stare down the barrels of a SWAT team. If you're not sane, well, the police are going to have a shootout in which you likely end up dead (and maybe your family members too). It literally is going to create a Catch-22 situation. You have to give up your guns to prove your sane. Refusal, or possibly even verbal objection, is going to be considered evidence that you were NOT sane and possible justification in why some trigger-happy cop put a bullet through your head, or worse, put 19 bullets through your front door ... three of which found their way into your toddler.

[Christian]

The red flag laws are almost certain to be abused to some degree by disgruntled associates falsely reporting non-existant problems that are signed off on by liberal judges hating our constitutionally recognized freedom of self defense. Then we get a 5-AM screaming visit from the police (10% of which are clinically psychotic) stealing our guns. If the process were somehow able to prevent all of that from becoming prevalent and only target people with official medically diagnosed mental health issues divorced from all political considerations, then I could see the value in it. Otherwise, it is infringement = treason.

[KingsX]

The enforcement problems
with gun-grabbing 'red flag' laws
are even worse than you think



Donald Kilmer **

" Everyone is debating "red flag" laws like they're some new thing, but California has had variations of them for decades. We call them domestic violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, workplace restraining orders, elder abuse restraining orders, mental health seizures and prohibition orders, and, more recently, gun violence restraining orders.

They're all meant to disarm dangerous people - but they're all fundamentally flawed.

None of these red flag laws would have prevented recent mass shootings. And in my 23 years practicing law in the heart of Silicon Valley, I have litigated dozens of these cases. I've seen firsthand the practical enforcement problems that emerge in real-life cases.

These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. Thats fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You'll get your "full due process" hearing, but not until later.

And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the "red flag" order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges.

The initial temporary orders are usually "self-executing." That means you might get served with a court order that tells you to take your guns and surrender them to the police or a local dealer within the next 24 to 48 hours.

You are, of course, expected to comply. But since you cannot legally possess guns upon being served with the order, how are you supposed to transport your guns to surrender them? Perhaps you could just call the police and tell them you were served with a "red flag" order - marking you a "dangerous and volatile" person (even if you're not) - and ask them to come pick up your guns.

That kind of situation is ripe for danger. In one situation in Baltimore, police ended up shooting a man when they came to collect his guns under a "red flag" law.

Or perhaps you could take your guns to a local gun dealer and ask them to store them for you - that is, if you can find one that's willing. In my experience, storage will cost you about $200 per month for a couple of guns. And that might be the best deal you can get. Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.

In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial "offer" of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

Experienced counsel to defend you in a "due process" hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

As a practical matter, if the government's interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

Think that's a fantasy?

Ask Lori Rodriguez, a plaintiff in a case that has been kicking around the California and federal courts for six years. The Ninth Circuit Court recently invented a new exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court approved the police seizing Rodriguez's firearm which was owned, registered, and locked in a gun safe, from her, while the police were at the home seizing firearms from a different family member.

Even if you win, the judge isn't going to just hand your guns back to you at the end of the hearing. It's probably a good idea to "lawyer up" just to go through the process of recovering your guns, so you don't go to jail or prison for accidentally breaking an obscure firearm law or regulation. You wouldn't want to set off a red flag. "

** Donald Kilmer is a law professor and practicing attorney who has litigated dozens of restraining order matters, defended against state and federal gun charges, and prosecuted several Second Amendment public interest cases.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...than-you-think