Posted on 11/07/2025 8:43:43 AM PST by Wayne07
Just use their own rules against them. Report every crazy liberal socialist...flood the zone, tie up the courts.
Another Snitches and Squealers law
This!......................
Too many nuts out there and red flags just don’t get addressed. Too much buck passing. I sat go for it.
Gun owners are no voting for gun issues. If every gun owner in New York voting for pro gun Republicans, it would be a Red state. The voting lobby is pathetic.
Just like BLM wanting badge cams on police. Not too many “He was unarmed with his hands up!” protests anymore.
Hate your neighbor? Call a Red Flag on them.
Sounds like it could be a good market for lawyers specializing in defamation lawsuits.
Yep
“Another front on the assault on the second amendment.”
Not exactly. It is more in support of the intent of the amendment by identifying the people that should not have access to dangerous weapons. And it is, at least, trying to use investigation to determine the possibility of another nut getting their hands on a weapon to use it for unlawful acts. The process is not fast and encompasses a lot of identifying work if done properly will make the decision in the best interest of everyone to include the individual identified.
Question 2 permitted citizens to request an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), sometimes referred to as a red-flag law, against another individual. Under the measure, law enforcement, the person’s family, and household members are qualified individuals to submit an ERPO. An ERPO prohibits that individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapons. In terms of Question 2, a dangerous weapon is a weapon “capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.” To file an ERPO, the petitioner is required to produce an affidavit that lists the allegations of the danger the individual poses to themselves or others, as well as the dangerous weapons in the individual’s possession and the location of the weapons, if known.
Most ERPOs require that a court hearing take place within two weeks of the filing date, after which a judge can require the surrender of dangerous weapons. An emergency ERPO, however, allows automatic seizure of firearms and dangerous weapons if the district court determines they pose an immediate or significant danger. The court hearing then takes place within 14 days of the seizure. ERPOs require the responding individual to voluntarily turn over all dangerous weapons, but if the court determines he or she is unlikely to do so, a search warrant can be issued to seize all dangerous weapons.
At or before the termination of an ERPO, an individual is permitted to provide proof that he or she no longer poses a risk of danger and have the weapons returned. Alternatively, the court can determine that the risk of danger is maintained and renew the ERPO. So if the threat is not there, and in today’s society we have many of them, then the individual gets the weapons, and the ability to get more, available. No harm/no foul.
Giving a blanket clearance to anyone in the name of an amendment is foolhardy. Should a blind man be given a driver’s license? Should a mentally ill person be given access to weapons? Same/same.
wy69
It should be very easy to browse their social media to find a post or retweet that hints at violence.
Since the entire US Constitution is in play, violent religions should be disarmed also.
I’d like to see Jay Jones visit Maine.
EC
Sort of like those people who call in SWAT teams on those they don’t like.
You are full of B.S. what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
OK, if you want this to work, and quickly...
Since there is no statute of limitations on murder:
All shrinks and psychologists of whackjobs who went on to kill someone with a gun, should be named as accomplices, since they didn’t report the potential murderers to the police.
The current crop of RAT-clergy will have to say “ska-rew doctor/patient confidentiality” I’m not going down for this crap.
Let them try to sue.
“what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?”
Think about that when some crazy neighbor walks into your house, church, or school and just opens fire. Using the amendment as a catch all to just open the door to every fool that can buy or steal a gun and not going through a long process of making sure he is safe to own one is foolhardy. And that includes follow up after he gets one if there is an indication of a problem.
This process identifies a specific person, not a group, and is reversable if determined it should be. And before you start in on me, I’m a 37 year retired combat vet, decorated, and I own a weapon for home defense. But I don’t want to get into a fire fight with the mentally ill guy next door who needs to be investigated by a court of law through a request by even family and an applied hearing says he may not be safe. If he is, he’ll get his weapons back if he has them. I won’t get my wife or kids back if he does and is not capable of determining their proper use.
wy69
“I don’t want to get into a fire fight with the mentally ill guy next door who needs to be investigated by a court of law through a request by even family and an applied hearing says he may not be safe.”
A person should be detained and a hearing held to determine if they are an imminent threat in these circumstances. They can still attack and murder someone if their weapons are confiscated.
Red flag laws such as this one are inadequate. A feel good law that doesn’t protect anyone but gives the illusion of having accomplished something to protect individuals who are under imminent threat.
Maine has one of the highest suicide rates and gun suicide rates in the Northeast U.S.
The vast majority (over 85%) of firearm deaths in Maine are suicides.
A high percentage of all suicides in Maine involve a firearm (over 50%).
Rural areas in Maine, like Piscataquis County, have particularly elevated rates of gun suicides, especially among older adults, which reflects a national trend in rural communities.
States like Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska have gun suicide rates that are significantly higher than Maine’s, sometimes by a factor of two or more.
- Google/AI breakdown
“The effectiveness of Maine’s current yellow flag law was called into question after the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston after an independent commission found that it could have been used on the perpetrator, Robert Card II, months before he killed 18 people and injured 13 more.
Margaret Groban, a former federal prosecutor and Maine Gun Safety Coalition board member, said the citizen-led initiative “will go a long way to trying to prevent suicide and homicide in the state.”
“It’s a commonsense response to Lewiston and it’s our best way to honor the victims,” she said.“
Documenting the crap they have to put up with and actual behavior of criminals in the field totally destroys the BLM and Defund the Police propaganda.
Some of the crazy and nasty stuff I have seen from body cam footage simply defies description. It's really nice stuff to have for juries so they can learn the true nature and levels of guilt of theat now clean cut guy in a suit sitting next to the defense lawyer and to see how things play out in true context.
It also has the added effect of making the police more effective in dealing with the community and some of them are even becoming very accomplished actors that put Hollywood to shame :-).
Which begs the question - is it manufacturing evidence when you are filming a crime and apprehension in progress?
And if you express outrage in the court hearing that your guns were unconstitutionally taken,.. that proves you shouldn’t have them.
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.