Arizona and red flag laws

[shmogie]

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

I have in another post in this thread.

In essence, they violate the right to due process, and subject someone to unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Which demonstrates my rebuttal of the claim that there were guns back then without the gun problems. And with Hamilton-Burr, it wast entirely legal as Burr was charged with murder. But since we have cracked down in the law and enforcing it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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 ex

I tend to not har them mention those. He's probably been the toughest on guns president since Clinton. Which is in stark contrast to Obama, the president who was coming for our guns.

 

[Curious George]

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

Yes, but if there is such a statute it should be really quick and not distract too much.

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

You are trying to stretch legal terms in ways that are not applicable.

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.

Similar, except warrants require probable cause which is a higher evidentiary standard.

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.

A reasonable suspicion is not compelling justification. But i can understand that you were not being precise with terms and were just trying to convey that it was justified in your point of view.

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

Well some might feel this is right some might feel this is wrong, i just think it is funny and ironic that it is Trump whereas Obama was in fact more expansive of gun rights.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have in another post in this thread.

In essence, they violate the right to due process, and subject someone to unreasonable searches and seizures.

I do understand your concern about due process.

Due process is not always the first priority. There are other areas where ordinary due process might be sacrificed for the good of society or even the good of the individual.

My mother-in-law was schizophrenic and had massive auditory and visual hallucinations. She was uncontrollable at times and had to be picked up by the local Sheriff's department and taken to a lock down facility. This was done with a signed order from a judge, just like in the red flag laws. Would you suggest that we wait for due process to proceed through the courts while she ranted about invisible tormentors?

 

[Curious George]

I do understand your concern about due process.

Due process is not always the first priority. There are other areas where ordinary due process might be sacrificed for the good of society or even the good of the individual.

My mother-in-law was schizophrenic and had massive auditory and visual hallucinations. She was uncontrollable at times and had to be picked up by the local Sheriff's department and taken to a lock down facility. This was done with a signed order from a judge, just like in the red flag laws. Would you suggest that we wait for due process to proceed through the courts while she ranted about invisible tormentors?

Do you happen to know the standard of proof for such an action?

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you happen to know the standard of proof for such an action?

can't say as I do, as a matter of legality. We called the Sheriff's department and they handled the details. They would go to where she was and see that she was clearly incompetent and take take her into custody. I think the line to cross was "is she a danger to herself or others".

 

[Curious George]

can't say as I do, as a matter of legality. We called the Sheriff's department and they handled the details. They would go to where she was and see that she was clearly incompetent and take take her into custody. I think the line to cross was "is she a danger to herself or others".

It is usually probable cause. This is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion (which many red flag laws use). Now if an officer had probable cause to believe a person was planning to commit mass murder do you think they could do nothing?

I ask because it seems people believe that officers can only act after an incident.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is usually probable cause. This is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion (which many red flag laws use). Now if an officer had probable cause to believe a person was planning to commit mass murder do you think they could do nothing?

I ask because it seems people believe that officers can only act after an incident.

I would think he could act. I'm sure we agree on that.
But what if a person who owns a gun becomes mentally incompetent. should they be allowed to keep the gun? More importantly, how do we judge mental competence?

 

[Curious George]

I would think he could act. I'm sure we agree on that.
But what if a person who owns a gun becomes mentally incompetent. should they be allowed to keep the gun? More importantly, how do we judge mental competence?

Well that is a very different conversation than simply red flag laws.

I would hope we agree that there should be a high threshold to overcome to start denying fundamental rights.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well that is a very different conversation than simply red flag laws.

I would hope we agree that there should be a high threshold to overcome to start denying fundamental rights.

Certainly. To be clear, I am neither anti rights nor anti gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are trying to stretch legal terms in ways that are not applicable.

I was using the term "premeditated" in a literal sense.

If someone:

- gets training,
- obtains a license,
- gets a gun,
- works to maintain their skills, and
- is diligent about they keep or carry their gun

... then they've put a LOT of thought and effort - i.e. premeditation - into being ready to kill people.

Similar, except warrants require probable cause which is a higher evidentiary standard.

A reasonable suspicion is not compelling justification.

... to you. It is to me.

But i can understand that you were not being precise with terms and were just trying to convey that it was justified in your point of view.

And I understand that you're having trouble with telling the difference between your own subjective opinion and objective facts. "Compelling" is a personal judgement.

 

[Curious George]

I was using the term "premeditated" in a literal sense.

If someone:

- gets training,
- obtains a license,
- gets a gun,
- works to maintain their skills, and
- is diligent about they keep or carry their gun

... then they've put a LOT of thought and effort - i.e. premeditation - into being ready to kill people.

I guess the same way the police have put a lot of thought and effort into being ready to kill someone.

... to you. It is to me.


And I understand that you're having trouble with telling the difference between your own subjective opinion and objective facts. "Compelling" is a personal judgement.

Here is the problem. We are discussing a legal basis to act. The law works when it is consistent. I understand you want a subjective standard wherein the law could act to take guns for any reason at anytime but i prefer rights protected.

 

[Shad]

Which demonstrates my rebuttal of the claim that there were guns back then without the gun problems.

What claim?

And with Hamilton-Burr, it wast entirely legal as Burr was charged with murder. But since we have cracked down in the law and enforcing it.

Ergo my point. Gun control has expanded far more than it was in the past. Duels are not gun control.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What claim?

I mentioned the claim in that post you quoted.

 

[Shad]

I do understand your concern about due process.

Due process is not always the first priority. There are other areas where ordinary due process might be sacrificed for the good of society or even the good of the individual.

My mother-in-law was schizophrenic and had massive auditory and visual hallucinations. She was uncontrollable at times and had to be picked up by the local Sheriff's department and taken to a lock down facility. This was done with a signed order from a judge, just like in the red flag laws. Would you suggest that we wait for due process to proceed through the courts while she ranted about invisible tormentors?

That is still due process as she has a medical condition justifying the judge's order. More so it was done by a judge not a random cop.

 

[Shad]

I mentioned the claim in that post you quoted.

Sorry I mean "what claim" as in who made it.

*Found it.*

Again as per the above (my previous comment to you) a duel isn't the same problem today. You missed your mark. Duels are not only about guns. Swords can be used. You conflated two different things as the same.

 

[Shad]

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.

Wrong solution as the government didn't have the guy's criminal record listing him as a felon. Air Force dropped the ball, ie existing laws. Now you want more laws to cover government incompetence which does not address the issue I pointed out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

*Found it.*

Good! Cuz I don't remember who, lol.

 

[Shad]

Good! Cuz I don't remember who, lol.

This post.

Arizona and red flag laws