Replies

But lets say you are falsely accused, like maybe you are accused of working with the Russians. What will come of the law enforcement agents making the false accusation? How much time and money will it take to defend yourself? They say they have protections in place and the courts will act with great care. This is the song that never ends.

I don’t see why adding police as petitioners makes it better.

They are agents of the state. So when you have cities like SF declaring NRA terrorists, or Feds relying on the SPLC to say who’s dangerous, this is ripe for abuse.

Plus the cases typically are not up for public review. They are secret courts - FISA anybody?

Also note they took over 2000, does this mean they’ve stopped 2000 mass shootings or is that a sign that the law is applied to liberally?

Since Parkland, at least six states and the District of Columbia have passed red flag laws, which allow law enforcement agencies that have gotten a court order to remove guns from people considered a harm to themselves or others.

So if these people are such a risk, why not arrest them and charge them? Commit them? Obviously they aren't that bad if there's no reason to lock them up.
And, Why are only firearms being stolen? If they truly are that much of a risk to others (but not enough to lock em up!), why wouldn't you also steal all their knives, their gas can, any fertilizer in the back shed, any rope they might have, their car keys (hell take the whole car), and of course, should also remove their bathtubs/toasters!

Between March 2018 and March 2019, courts granted 233 risk protection orders in Pinellas County, according to state data. In that period, courts denied only one.

So they're batting .9957 on this? That's amazingly 'good'. Either they have a lot of really bad people in that area, or the courts don't have very high standards to let the cops steal all your guns..

In one case, the Connecticut Appellate Court found in 2016 that the state’s red flag law “does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”

Oh, so they're still allowed to use firearms, they just can't own any. Right, because that's what the 2nd means. But until these people have actually done something that breaks the law, how are they not "law-abiding, responsible citizens"? The 2nd doesn't say "shall not be infringed, unless you have a red flag"...

~snip~
In one case, the Connecticut Appellate Court found in 2016 that the state’s red flag law “does not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”
~snip~

How can they say the red flag law “does not implicate the second amendment” and base that specious claim on a TOTAL MISQUOTE, and MISREPRESENTATION of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment pertains to the right to “keep and bear” not the “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of their homes.”

Red fag laws are ALL ABOUT denying the right to “keep” arms! That they DIRECTLY implicate the Second Amendment is patently OBVIOUS as the Sun in the Noonday sky!

Dana Loesch Explains Hidden Dangers Of Red Flag Laws | Daily Wire

’ Ten reasons why you should oppose #RedFlagLaws, a brief thread. 1) #RedFlagLaws are an inversion of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ The standard of evidence is low and while state laws vary, many different people, not just family, can report you,” Loesch began. “2) You don’t have to be in the room (and advance notice isn’t required) for the petition to be granted meaning you must wait to defend yourself. Most laws provide no penalty for abuse and no state law allows for civil cause of action against false accusers.”

More at ...
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51667/dana-loesch-explains-hidden-dangers-red-flag-laws-ryan-saavedra