Arizona and red flag laws

[shmogie]

What's wrong with my solution?

Use the fact that a person is trying to obtain a gun for "self defense" as evidence that their judgement is poor enough that they shouldn't be allowed a firearm.

Here in Ontario - like many other places - it's illegal for a bottle of alcohol to be in reach of the driver. There's no exemption for people who say they're planning not to drink it while they're driving.[/QUOTE
Wow, another law that I bet really works ! In the state where I worked there is a law against having any open, unsealed , alcohol container in a vehicle. We had no drunk drivers just like Ontario.

Nope !!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, another law that I bet really works ! In the state where I worked there is a law against having any open, unsealed , alcohol container in a vehicle. We had no drunk drivers just like Ontario.

Do you think Ontario has more or fewer drunk drivers than it would if there was an exception from this law for people who swear they aren't going to drink while they drive?

 

[shmogie]

Do you think Ontario has more or fewer drunk drivers than it would if there was an exception from this law for people who swear they aren't going to drink while they drive?

Why would anyone be exempt from the law ?

Are laws ironclad guarantees of controlling behavior ?

Who adheres to the laws, and who doesn´t ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would anyone be exempt from the law ?

Because we're making an analogy with the law for guns: you can get your gun as long as you declare that you don't have a mental illness that would preclude you from owning one legally.

Are laws ironclad guarantees of controlling behavior ?

Does something have to be perfect before it's worthwhile?

Who adheres to the laws, and who doesn´t ?

Everyone adheres to some laws and breaks some laws. It's all a question of degree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The opposite is true. Duels were still legal in some states but are illegal now. There were no background checks then, there are checks now.

What I said was accurate.
Burr–Hamilton duel - Wikipedia
Burr was charged with murder in New York and New Jersey,

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Completely subjective standard based on your opinion and monopolization of gun use for defense by the state and "

It is a public health issue and risk.

 

[Shad]

It is a public health issue and risk.

And the solutions are still subjective forcing all citizens to under go examination because of a few. You never addressed a single point. You just accepted for little reason beside rhetorical statements. Ends justify the means is all I see here.

 

[Shad]

What I said was accurate.
Burr–Hamilton duel - Wikipedia
Burr was charged with murder in New York and New Jersey,

Wrong. Duels are illegal now. There are checks one must follow to buy a weapon. None of those existed then at the federal level. Try again

 

[Curious George]

Here in Ontario - like many other places - it's illegal for a bottle of alcohol to be in reach of the driver. There's no exemption for people who say they're planning not to drink it while they're driving.

Well technically only if the seal is broken or it is "readily accessible."

Many states have open container laws as well. They are infractions not misdemeanors or felonies.

That really doesn't address the point though.

 

[Shad]

No; it will just make them less frequent and reduce their death toll.

While creating a right's issue by banning almost every firearm around.

 

[Shad]

-Go buy a gun at a gun shop and see firsthand what it takes.
-laws are in place and some are not enorced to the level they should be, that is not a failure of gun laws but the people enforcing them. The NRA has been saying for years that we need to enforce the laws already in place instead of creating new ones yet they are the "bad guys"
-we also have no need for high performance sports cars for civilians but does that mean we need to make them illegal?

If I remember correctly one mass shooter a year or few back was a convicted felon due to a charges and discharge in the Air Force. The Air Force didn't sent his paper down the line for the background checks. The Air Force. How the Fed handles databases is a major issue if there are separate criminal records; military, civilian.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Republican Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey was talking about being behind a so called red flag law in Arizona.

There apparently were discussions about bringing a red *** law to the floor of the state legislature.

The citizens of the state voiced their serious concerns about the absence of due process and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures,

The law has been abandoned.

Arizona for now will not have one of these laws.

Arizona remains a state that respects the rights of firearms owners, and respects the Constitution.

Explain why a red flag law is a bad idea.....

 

[fantome profane]

If I remember correctly one mass shooter a year or few back was a convicted felon due to a charges and discharge in the Air Force. The Air Force didn't sent his paper down the line for the background checks. The Air Force. How the Fed handles databases is a major issue if there are separate criminal records; military, civilian.

And in that case if the law had allowed the gun seller to make him wait a few extra days for the paperwork to come in that shooting might have been averted. But law was such that if there was a delay in processing, the person was allowed to purchase the gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well technically only if the seal is broken or it is "readily accessible."

That varies. Here, a container of alcohol, sealed or not, can't be in reach of any occupant of the vehicle.

Many states have open container laws as well. They are infractions not misdemeanors or felonies.

That really doesn't address the point though.

My point with all this was that the law treats every driver as if they might potentially decide to drive drunk even though the vast majority of drivers wouldn't do so even if they had the opportunity.

Treating gun purchasers as if they might potentially be buying the gun to murder someone is not really different from how many of our laws work.

 

[Curious George]

That varies. Here, a container of alcohol, sealed or not, can't be in reach of any occupant of the vehicle

Can you give me the statute? I looked only briefly and just found this:

32 (1) No person shall drive or have the care or control of a motor vehicle as defined in the Highway Traffic Act or a motorized snow vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, while there is contained in the vehicle any liquor, except under the authority of a licence or permit. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 32 (1).

Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the liquor in the vehicle,

(a) is in a container that is unopened and the seal unbroken; or

(b) is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, s. 32 (2).

 

[Curious George]

That varies. Here, a container of alcohol, sealed or not, can't be in reach of any occupant of the vehicle.


My point with all this was that the law treats every driver as if they might potentially decide to drive drunk even though the vast majority of drivers wouldn't do so even if they had the opportunity.

Treating gun purchasers as if they might potentially be buying the gun to murder someone is not really different from how many of our laws work.

Sure and you can't take your gun anywhere, need a license to conceal it, and in many places must adhere to strict rules in transporting your firearm in a vehicle.

What you failed to address was the difference between a conviction resulting in the infringement of a fundamental right (liberty) and the preemptive infringement (without just or reasonable cause) of a fundamental right (self defense).

A person convicted of drunk driving has been given due process. A person not convicted of any crime most likely has not received due process.

In the U.S. we usually do not infringe upon rights unless we have a specific actionable reason to do so.

 

[Curious George]

Explain why a red flag law is a bad idea.....

For the same reason taking someone's children based on a report to child protective services is a bad idea. Now if there is suspected abuse, that is a different story entirely.

I think it ultimately boils down to the language within the law, the evidentiary standards involved, the transparency of the reporting and the legal recourse and remedy for false reports, harrassment and unjust takings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure and you can't take your gun anywhere, need a license to conceal it, and in many places must adhere to strict rules in transporting your firearm in a vehicle.

What you failed to address was the difference between a conviction resulting in the infringement of a fundamental right (liberty) and the preemptive infringement (without just or reasonable cause) of a fundamental right (self defense).

I think you're conflating some things here. Self-defense - i.e. the right to use whatever is at hand to fend off an attacker - is different from premeditation to keep things on hand tp make any potential self-defense as deadly as possible.

Unless you're trying to buy the gun because someone is in the act of pursuing you while you're buying the gun, a gun purchase isn't really about self-defense.

A person convicted of drunk driving has been given due process. A person not convicted of any crime most likely has not received due process.

Are you still talking about this proposed red flag law? There's due process - a red flag order would only be issued on the order of a judge. AFAIK, it would be appealable like any judge's order.

In the U.S. we usually do not infringe upon rights unless we have a specific actionable reason to do so.

Which is the case with red flag laws. An order is only issued by a judge and only when there's compelling justification.

 

[Curious George]

Still waiting on a statute cite from ontario. (Curiosity is getting the better of me).

I think you're conflating some things here. Self-defense - i.e. the right to use whatever is at hand to fend off an attacker - is different from premeditation to keep things on hand tp make any potential self-defense as deadly as possible.

That is an incorrect assessment.

Unless you're trying to buy the gun because someone is in the act of pursuing you while you're buying the gun, a gun purchase isn't really about self-defense.

No more than brushing ones teeth is about dental healthcare.

Taking preventive and precautionary steps towards one's self defense is most assuredly about self defense.

Are you still talking about this proposed red flag law? There's due process - a red flag order would only be issued on the order of a judge. AFAIK, it would be appealable like any judge's order.

It would certainly be appealable (though the likelihood of winning such an appeal would be slim). Judiciary standards are of course another facet to consider. However, the order would likely only be temporary pending an investigation. And I would imagine one would be able to petition for rights to be restored.

Which is the case with red flag laws. An order is only issued by a judge and only when there's compelling justification.

Hmm i am not so sure that is true. Do you have a red flag law from which you are getting that?

Here is an example of the federal one proposed:

" (A) IN GENERAL.—A State court or magistrate (or other comparable judicial officer) may issue a gun violence prevention order upon a finding that there is a reasonable suspicion that possession of a firearm by the named individual poses a significant risk of personal injury to the named individual or others"

As you can see the evidentiary standard is not compelling justification but "reasonable suspicion." I know it may seem trivial but these words do matter.

On a side note, I hope others see the irony in the fact that Trump is supporting red flag laws, banned bump stocks (through executive order) and has contemplated banning silencers whereas Obama expanded gun rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still waiting on a statute cite from ontario. (Curiosity is getting the better of me).

Since at this point it's really irrelevant to the discussion, I wasn't going to reply.

That is an incorrect assessment.

No more than brushing ones teeth is about dental healthcare.

Taking preventive and precautionary steps towards one's self defense is most assuredly about self defense.

Taking steps to arm onesself with deadly weapons makes killing someone with those weapons a premeditated act.

It would certainly be appealable (though the likelihood of winning such an appeal would be slim). Judiciary standards are of course another facet to consider. However, the order would likely only be temporary pending an investigation. And I would imagine one would be able to petition for rights to be restored.

Right. This is similar to an arrest warrant: it's enough to detain you without trial temporarily, but you do have rights that allow you redress if the arrest was improper.

Hmm i am not so sure that is true. Do you have a red flag law from which you are getting that?

Here is an example of the federal one proposed:

" (A) IN GENERAL.—A State court or magistrate (or other comparable judicial officer) may issue a gun violence prevention order upon a finding that there is a reasonable suspicion that possession of a firearm by the named individual poses a significant risk of personal injury to the named individual or others"

As you can see the evidentiary standard is not compelling justification but "reasonable suspicion." I know it may seem trivial but these words do matter.

I think we're talking about the same thing with different words. "A reasonable suspicion of a significant risk of personal injury" is a compelling justification to remove the person's access to firearms.

On a side note, I hope others see the irony in the fact that Trump is supporting red flag laws, banned bump stocks (through executive order) and has contemplated banning silencers whereas Obama expanded gun rights.

Amazing that Trump got some things right. As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.