It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It Is Possible To Have Red Flag Laws That Respect Due Process

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
So why are all of the red flag laws written to infringe on due process?

I don't think there is anyone out there who will argue that red flag laws don't infringe upon due process. Instead they argue that it's acceptable to do "for the lives saved." But the thing is, they don't have to be written this way. You don't have to take the weapons first, then prove whether that was a good idea or not. These laws could simply create an avenue to report a close friend or family member you believe may harm themselves or others which then begins the process of determining if that is an accurate accusation. If it is determined to be accurate then you can legally remove their weapons from their possession.

Lest anyone be confused, I'm completely against red flag laws, but in my pondering this, I keep coming back to this problem.

There are also other problems with red flag laws, like the recourse. Where do these proceedings take place? Is it in a court? My understanding of the current red flag laws is that they take your weapons then make you prove your innocent. But what are you proving you're innocent of? Or more aptly, what has the government assumed you're guilty of which results in the removal of your rights? Obviously it's not something criminal, because if it were, the person would end up in jail or with fines. So what exactly is the violation???




posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

What's to keep a home invader or a rapist from anonymously calling the sheriff's department and saying their target is crazy and has guns? That is what I'd be afraid of. After the SD has confiscated everything gun related, the home invader and/or rapist just waltzes right in and has their way...

If the red flag law works both ways and locks up the tattle-tale if nothing is found wrong with the home owner, then maybe something could be said...

As long as the snitch gets twice the sentence normally given to false reports...



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Court hearings for mental case assessments bingo hit the bells 🎱



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
and maybe follywood follows the pied piper too because you know why right 💥🚬💥velcomm zi ad boyz vs valmartz


Ads Pulled for Gory Universal Thriller 'The Hunt' in Wake of Mass Shootings

In the wake of a trio of deadly massacres, the studio is evaluating its strategy for the R-rated Blumhouse satire in which elites stalk "deplorables."

"Did anyone see what our rat#er-in-chief just did?" one character asks early in the screenplay for The Hunt, a Universal Pictures thriller set to open Sept. 27. Another responds: "At least The Hunt's coming up. Nothing better than going out to the Manor and slaughtering a dozen deplorables."

In the aftermath of mass shootings within days of one another that shocked and traumatized the nation, Universal is re-evaluating its strategy for the certain-to-be-controversial satire. The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum's Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: NightFlight

From my understanding it has to be a family member or someone who can prove they are close to you. I don't live in a state with one of these laws so I'm not that well versed on the ins and outs, but it seems like they don't take anonymous referrals or neighbor/acquaintance referrals. Which helps a lot imo. But yes, false reports should definitely have a punishment.

ETA:
The other problem is that while today they don't take anonymous referrals, you can bet your ass that once they have these laws in place there will be shootings with anonymous referrals that they were unable to act upon. So then the push will be to assess any and all referrals. Which again isn't a problem if they respect due process with these laws and don't take weapons until it is proven that the person actually is unstable. But Like I pointed out in my other thread about these laws and background checks, who gets to decide who is mentally stable?
edit on 7-8-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
You answered your own question.



originally posted by: Dfairlite
But what are you proving you're innocent of? Or more aptly, what has the government assumed you're guilty of which results in the removal of your rights? Obviously it's not something criminal, because if it were, the person would end up in jail or with fines. So what exactly is the violation???


The very nature of Red Flag Laws is that you are forcing a legal action on someone who has yet to commit any crime.


Due Process:  a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual


Someone else arbitrarily deciding to investigate another person's actions because they might do something in the future is the antithesis of Due Process and a whole host of other Constitutional Protections. It doesn't matter if the person has their guns removed first or after; the very investigation is actually a violation of Due Process.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm a gun owner and believe that there are already resources in place to remove a potential menace from society. New York currently has had a "see something, say something" campaign since 2002, in the hope that people would stay vigilant after the 9/11 tragedy and report anyone who is acting suspicious.

There are three reasons, IMO, why there are dangerous individuals who go about their lives "under the radar." One...many times family members aren't "saying something" when they see suspicious activity from a loved one. Two...school officials aren't taking violent incidents, committed by their students, seriously enough. Three...law enforcement aren't doing enough in retaining, or charging individuals who have made verifiable threats.

Case in point, is the Dayton shooter and his history of threats. Classmates have come forward to say that this individual had made a "hit list" and a "rape list" targeting women that he wanted to rape and assault. This A-hole also was reported to police because of violent threats he made to a former classmate. A former principal confirmed that the shooter was briefly suspended from his high school for writing a hit list on a bathroom wall, but was still able to graduate. Recently, people mentioned that he was in a band that sang violent songs about raping and murdering women and that he often would look at people and pretend to shoot them with guns, with his hands.

It's obvious that the Dayton shooter showed signs of violence way back in high school and all he got was a slap on the hand. He was still able to purchase a firearm and several magazines containing 100 rounds. A background check would only show that he had a few traffic violations. This guy already was waving a "red flag" since his early days in high school. The system already in place failed in preventing the tragic shooting in Dayton, Ohio.

Adding another gun law, like the "Red Flag Law," wouldn't improve things. This new law would probably be abused by vengeful, anti-gun people, making up cr@p to target a gun owner they didn't like. It's also likely, that a person's right to due process could be eliminated as well. We already have a system in place to remove a dangerous individual and their guns from society. The problem is that "red flags" are being ignored, or are not being acted upon in a more serious manner.
edit on 8/7/2019 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Identified




Someone else arbitrarily deciding to investigate another person's actions because they might do something in the future is the antithesis of Due Process and a whole host of other Constitutional Protections. It doesn't matter if the person has their guns removed first or after; the very investigation is actually a violation of Due Process.


So cops should not follow up on tips? I mean, isn't part of NICS to check for certain mental health history as well as domestic violence? I mean, if you're mentally ill you're not allowed to own a gun, right? So getting tipped off that this guy is mentally ill and has guns so the cops can investigate the violation of law is no different than getting tipped off that a neighbor has been beating his wife, is it?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

I hear you, but nothing the dayton kid did was illegal (other than graffiti). Writing a hit list isn't illegal. Should it be? Singing violent songs isn't illegal. Should it be? Having a rape list isn't illegal. Should it be? Making threats can be illegal, but was determined not to be in this case. Should we reform those laws?

I think that's the purpose of red flag laws (in theory) isn't it? To address the gaps. To identify the criminally crazy before they shoot up a public place.

But you bring up a good point, these red flags get ignored often. So what good will these laws do?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

My opinion is that if you really want these red flag laws then there should be requirements similar to what most states have in place to have someone committed, like at least 2 immediate family members (parents, siblings,spouse, adult children) to sign off on it. Also a detailed, consistent protocol for the "flagged" to assert their competency and retrieve their weapons in a swift manner should little or no threat be assessed.

Personally I feel like red flag laws are a slippery slope and are ripe for abuse. Nasty divorces and custody battles are the first thing that comes to mind so I'm sure you get my drift.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk




Also a detailed, consistent protocol for the "flagged" to assert their competency and retrieve their weapons in a swift manner should little or no threat be assessed.

Personally I feel like red flag laws are a slippery slope and are ripe for abuse. Nasty divorces and custody battles are the first thing that comes to mind so I'm sure you get my drift.


That's why you don't stomp on due process. You make it be proved that the person is mentally unstable before you take the weapons. That way you can accuse all you want but if they're competent they are never deprived of their rights.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The idea of perfectly implemented red flag laws is fine. The problem is are Congress probably can't wipe themselves correctly let alone write a law that isn't ripe for abuse.

Honestly I don't think they can write it so it doesn't infringe on due process, emotional laws are typically bad.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

NICS checks if you have an actual conviction, court martal, or court orders. It doesn't check if you have a mental health problem. Yes, people who have been deemed a harm to themselves or others by a court will be or should be on NICS and those who have a protective order or a DV conviction should also be on it.

The difference is that those with a DV conviction do not have a conviction based on someone saying he might hit me in the future. People with a mental health order aren't on this list because someone said they might hurt themselves or someone else. These are people who a judge has already determined they are a risk and/or have a conviction. Granted there are arbitrary cases of those who were involuntarily committed who weren't actually a harm to anyone, and that is a problem, but it shows we already have a legal mechanism to get help for those people and to keep guns away from them.

Red Flag Laws are nothing more than a feel-good knee-jerk reaction that are already being written so vaguely as to incompass an entire spectrum of thought policing and future crime prediction.

These RF Laws are a badly disguised way to take guns from people or they would be using the Involuntary Commitment Laws that exist in every state Instead.

Tighten those laws, enshrine Due Process in those, don't add more laws.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Identified



People with a mental health order aren't on this list because someone said they might hurt themselves or someone else. These are people who a judge has already determined they are a risk and/or have a conviction.


Yes, but if there are people that should be on that list that aren't isn't that what the red flag laws address? Getting better coverage of the crazies rather than waiting for their craziness to cost someone (or many) their life?



Tighten those laws, enshrine Due Process in those, don't add more laws.


I'm not saying we should add these laws. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the whole idea. I get what a bad idea these laws are and how ripe for abuse they could be. I wrote a whole thread about it.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Amen.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I don't think any of those things should be illegal. There are bad people and we simply can not devolve into a nation of thought
crimes because they might lead someone somewhere down a bad path.

Besides my idea of someone being a threat may not be yours or my neighbors or my grandfather's.

I imagine in some areas of America it will become norm that anyone who even owns a gun must be a mental case and thus flagged; some people think only nutcases own guns. What do we do then? Ignore these tips? Now we start picking and choosing which tip is legit or important and that adds an entirely new level of inequality in applying the law.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Who pays for my lawyer? Who pays the court cases? This isn't just a matter of going in to a judge the next day and saying, "look I can tie my shoes and I hold down a job." And the judge saying you aren't a risk.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


So why are all of the red flag laws written to infringe on due process?

Because by their very nature, no actual crime has been committed by triggering a "red flag." The triggering of the "red flag" indicates that someone may commit a crime in the future. That's not even remotely legal.

I can understand a police department identifying an individual for suspicious activity and watching them closer than normal... if they show up outside a fence at a festival, immediately intercept and question, for instance. if they show up at a school, stop them at the door and politely ask why they are there while watching to see if there are any weapons. Police departments used to do this.

But the second a red flag means the removal of a right even though no crime has been committed, there is no more law and order. There is only political corruption and targeting of innocents. Someone needs to explain this to Trump before he does something really, really stupid. Like, say, breaking a major campaign promise by actually going after guns over red flags?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Nope, the RF Laws don't address that at all. The only reason people aren't on the NICS list that should be is because of bureaucratic F Ups or clerical errors, not because some law is keeping them off it.

I've posted on your other thread from the start.
I thought this one was more of a devil's advocate thing.
edit on 7-8-2019 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Identified



I've posted on your other thread from the start. I thought this one was more of a devil's advocate thing.


It is. I like to fully understand an issue and the best way to understand it is to defend both sides of it, for me.



Then only reason people aren't on the NICS list that should be is because of bureaucratic F UPS or clerical errors, not because some law is keeping them off it.


Which will still exist regardless of what law is proposed.



Who pays for my lawyer? Who pays the court cases?


This is why we need to follow the British model and make the losing party liable for legal costs. That shouldn't be a factor in determining if you can defend yourself and our public defender system sucks balls.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join