Posted on 02/09/2019 11:25:28 AM PST by Skywise
In the year since the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school, more and more states have passed laws making it easier to take guns away from people who may be suicidal or bent on violence against others, and courts are issuing an unprecedented number of seizure orders across the country.
Supporters say these “red flag” laws are among the most promising tools to reduce the nearly 40,000 suicides and homicides by firearm each year in the U.S. Gun advocates, though, say such measures undermine their constitutional rights and can result in people being stripped of their weapons on false or vindictive accusations.
Nine states have passed laws over the past year allowing police or household members to seek court orders requiring people deemed threatening to temporarily surrender their guns, bringing the total to 14. Several more are likely to follow in the months ahead.
More than 1,700 orders allowing guns to be seized for weeks, months or up to a year were issued in 2018 by the courts after they determined the individuals were a threat to themselves or others, according to data from several states obtained by The Associated Press. The actual number is probably much higher since the data was incomplete and didn’t include California.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
they may wish to just TRY seizing an American citizen’s property (let alone a firearm)... and see what happens to them ... or as our neighbor says,
“bring it on, Aholes, bring it on!”
Also watch for activists to use this to disarm targets by making false accusations. See a MAGA hat, turn him in.
They already have!
According to the article they’ve issued 1700 gun confiscation orders which I presume were execute successfully.
Gun confiscations for no other reason than a nosy neighbor saying “they seem suicidal”
EX-WIVES.
ex girlfriends!
Gun seizures can reduce gun suicides, but that is irrelevant to saving lives. In 1995 when Canada restricted the God-given right of its subjects to keep and bear arms, their gun suicide rate went way down - and their total suicide rate remained unchanged. People who wanted to succeed in killing themselves substituted other high-success-rate methods, such as hanging and falls from a great height, for suicide by firearms.
Of course, reducing suicide is not the goal of these laws. Disarming Americans and stigmatizing firearms is the point. The gun grabbers are not compassionate saints; they are evil tyrant-wannabes.
I wonder if all these gun free zone folks realize if someone is trying to break into their house and they call 911, it may be anywhere from 5 minutes to 35 minutes or longer before they get there.
ALL Oppression comes in the form of laws meant to “do goode”
Any “good” coming from “gun point” (which is what all laws are) is not good.
They seized our property decades ago, every heard of Zoning?
They always say a conservative was a liberal who was mugged....
Better inventory your firearms. Which ones have a paper trail and which ones don’t.
I remember, years ago, a man who had a registered mint condition Thompson machine gun.
One day the local police raided his home, and confiscated the legally owned weapon.
He sued and after a year or two he got his Thompson back, a rusted up wreck.
Don’t have any - but I fully support the right to purchase and own as many or as powerful a person wants, on demand.
So someone should mug Cortez? :)
LIEberal neighbors!
Different can of worms - eminent domain has always been written into the constitution. Government has ultimate right of land so long as they can show just cause and pay fair use for it. Kind of odd if you think of it as a conflict with the 4th amendment but also a necessary bureaucratic evil for things like military bases, government buildings, etc)
And, as always, ripe for abuse.
Many locales aren’t ‘taking’ the property, they’re choosing to re-zone it. The courts make it hard to prove you’ve suffered a financial loss by re-zoning. The favorite is changing from residential to conservation by lowering the altitude above which the land is considered conservation property.
Eminent domain also requires compensation for the taking of your private property for government use.
Zoning offer no compensation for the taking of your property through the acts of zoning. Lets say you have 30 acres of land and the current zoning allows for 30 homes to be built on that land. However the town changes that zoning from 1 acre per house to 5 acres per house, now you can only build 6 homes on that land. Now your land is less valuable because you can’t build 30 houses. Does the government compensate the land owner for the drastic lost of value? Nope
Explain how that is constitutional?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.