Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I have no problem with the concept of so-called "Red Flag" laws, just as I have no problem with "restraining orders" that prohibit a person from going to a particular place or places and/or stay away from a particular person or persons.

Of course, there must be quick due process ability for an individual to challenge this kind of law as there is with restraining orders. Yes, it will be enforced wrongly & abused on occasion as all laws are. But I believe that a certain due process mechanism and steps can be set in place to safeguard against this in nearly all cases.

1 posted on 03/02/2018 6:04:37 AM PST by Az Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Az Joe

Welp, you’re a hell of a lot more trusting than I am.


2 posted on 03/02/2018 6:07:03 AM PST by onona (Bull - my rights are sacrosanct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

Because criminals and nuts are famous for obeying pieces of paper handed to them by a process server....


3 posted on 03/02/2018 6:12:40 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

The physical appearance of our local schools have also been addressed. We have new entrances with real security! Also have employed school guards. Indiana has gotten serious about school security and domestic security. THe gun issue is a very small part of the plan.


4 posted on 03/02/2018 6:13:45 AM PST by hoosiermama (When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

There is no such “red-flag” law in FL and relatives did try to use other processes to make law enforcement aware of the threat, only to be dismissed. I have my doubts about the enforcement priority of such restraining orders in the course of an LEO’s day, even with a law. And, as already pointed out, there are plenty of abused wives who can relate the uselessness of spousal restraining orders.


8 posted on 03/02/2018 6:18:27 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe
Totally unconstitutional and quite frankly so anti American it's downright creepy.

We are headed the wrong direction folks.

We are dividing up, socialist dupes vs American's.

9 posted on 03/02/2018 6:20:50 AM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

This is insane. Anyone can curtail anyone else’s rights because they “think” someone might be violent?


12 posted on 03/02/2018 6:23:17 AM PST by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

Sounds like Nazi Germany


23 posted on 03/02/2018 6:40:42 AM PST by ronnie raygun (Trump plays chess the rest are still playing checkers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

To the extent that false accusations are punished and that disproven accusations are quickly cleared, with weapons returned in good condition and without delay, this may be tolerable. To the extent that this is weaponized by America’s enemies on the socialist left, it is completely unacceptable.

My guess? Unacceptable. I am in general a peaceful person with no temper at all. If someone reported me under this sort of law, it would at best permanently end our relationship. Such a report would be crossing an unforgivable line. I may someday seem “stressed” because of a perceived or even real threat to my physical safety. Disarm me when I am in danger, and we have a problem.


24 posted on 03/02/2018 6:47:28 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

It seems liberal policies have made it almost impossible to institutionalize someone with severe mental illness. So, as a result, these same people roam free, most are fine, some wreak havoc.

I do agree that some middle ground with a short term loss of some rights may be warranted, but there also MUST be absolute protections for the accused.

Off the top of my head:

The accuser is responsible for court costs.
The accused is allowed to mount a vigorous defense and is to be given every benefit of doubt.
Such cases may not be used in divorce cases with no prior documented violent behavior

It’s a tough road to go down to protect society as well as the rights of the accused. Wrong accusations must be given the benefit of the doubt and clearly identified as being complete innocent of improper accusations.

I think this is worth a serious look but must be done with due diligence. lots of it.


25 posted on 03/02/2018 6:47:46 AM PST by cyclotic (Trump tweets are the only news source you can trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

The folks in Florida ignored laws on several occasions allowing the shooter to get a gun and shoot up the school. The new laws can be ignored in the same way.

It’s more likely these states will use the their new laws to harass and intimidate legal gun owners rather than criminals.


26 posted on 03/02/2018 6:56:57 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe
In 2015, firearms were used in about half of 44,000 suicides in the United States. A study led by Duke University researchers found that in Connecticut, which enacted a red-flag law in 1999, the measure averted at least 70 suicides over a 14-year period.

+/-40,000 suicides nationwide every year and Connecticut's law is claimed to have prevented about 70 suicides over fourteen years. And the WaPo uses this as an argument for passing "Red Flag" Laws. Talk about figures lying and liars figuring.

Using rough arithmetic and available numbers, if all 50 states enact "Red Flag" Laws, the number of successful suicides nation-wide will drop by about 1-2%. I hardly think this is a valid argument for passing laws which endanger everybody's Constitutional rights.

29 posted on 03/02/2018 7:08:07 AM PST by WayneS (An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

Then I won’t keep any human friends.

No problem.


31 posted on 03/02/2018 7:46:24 AM PST by chris37 (Take a week off racist >;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe; All
”… that empower relatives and close friends, ..."

Does / did Nicolaus Cruz have close friends?

Cruz was expressive in cyberspace. But I understand that computer algorithms still can’t recognize pictures of firearms well enough to flag possible problems with people like him.

The opinion about somebody’s stability to reasonably handle firearms that I would respect, because they would respect 2nd Amendment rights, is a “jury” of NRA members.

Insights welcome.

33 posted on 03/02/2018 9:35:59 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Az Joe

Viz. “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

This, in theory, apparently does not apply in civil cases, but actually, in reality, it has been used successfully in civil court.

Federal Law On Child Support Enforcement. ... If, under the same circumstances, the child support payment is overdue for longer than 2 years, or the amount exceeds $10,000, the violation is a criminal felony, and convicted offenders face fines and up to 2 years in prison (See 18 U.S.C.§ 228(a)(3))

I knew of a case wherein a divorced man was accused of
non-support by his ex-wife. He was arrested, his bank accounts frozen by the county, and his car was confiscated, merely upon a complaint by the ex-wife.

He immediately called from his jail cell a public defender for a judge-only hearing. His demand was immediately met under a right to speedy trial adjunct. He appealed to the Judge that the county had never checked the ex-wife`s bank account for cash and check deposits, the defendant`s bank draft records showing payees of checks, his IRS tax returns showing support deductions, nor the ex-wife`s filed IRS forms. Both the ex-wife and the county did a no-show at the hearing. In that event, the judge dismissed the case, stating that the defendant`s case against the county was legitimate and weighs much more heavily due to lack of evidence of the plaintiffs and accusers in this case and their lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law by denying the defendant`s right to face his accusers in court. The county was accused of forging hearsay as accusatory evidence and denying due process to the defendant. The county was ordered to release all frozen accounts and the vehicle. The Judge recommended the defendant sue the county for harassment, damages, loss of reputation & good name and illegal search and seizure of properties, but he did not do so. He was vindicated when similar subsequent cases took the same judicial route with similar victories.


35 posted on 03/02/2018 12:48:36 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ((((("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")))))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson