What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gun Debate: Red Flag Laws (1 Viewer)

The Commish

Footballguy
This is what we (the country) are up against...no idea who crafted the actual text here as everyone that I have seen post it on their facebook feed has cut/paste from somewhere.  I'm sure that's by design.

This IS the way it will happen. It already has in a few states...

It’s a Sunday night and your family has all gone to bed. You let the dogs back in and lock the deadbolt like you do every night. All the lights are off now except a couple of night lights scattered throughout the house leaving that dim glow throughout your home. It’s bedtime and work and school are going to come early in the morning. You crawl in bed, kiss your wife and drift off to sleep being thankful for the air conditioning that allows you to pull that heavy quilt up over your shoulder despite the fact it’s still 85 degrees outside. A few hours pass...

0200 Monday morning and your wife taps your leg and says, “baby I heard something outside”. As you sit up in bed you hear the dog growling in the living room and you know something isn’t right. You grab that trusty 'ol 870 and head into the living room. Your wife grabs her 9mm and heads down the hall to the kids rooms just like you have rehearsed. “Good boy” you say as you enter the living room, trying to calm both the dog and your wife just as splinters fly across the room and the front door flies open. “Oh ####!” As you shoulder your weapon and send a load of 00 Buck across your living room and see the perpetrator fall in a heap. Before the “thank God” can even run across your brain, you see a second man coming in the door and you fire again. This time you hear the pop of your wife’s 9mm as she has joined in the fight. It has to be those damn meth heads from down in town! Just then you are consumed by a wall of bullets as you see multiple muzzle flashes from just outside the door and you realize something isn’t right. You turn to yell at your wife to “get down” just in time to see her take a load of buckshot to the face and her brain matter splatter the wall behind her. You feel the burning as 5.56 rounds riddle your body. One clips your spine as you’re scrambling away and paralyzes your lower body. The last thing you see before you bleed out is a SWAT guy from your local PD holding your teenage daughter on the floor with a knee in her back as she screams and cry’s because she just watched her parents being murdered.

Why did this happen? You’re no criminal. You’re a Conservative and an honest family man. Your wife is a school teacher and your daughters are on honor roll. Why did this happen?

Well two days ago, you and your wife went down to welcome the new neighbors to the community. Your wife made them some of her “world famous” cookies and you invited them to church on Sunday. Later that afternoon, you got a friend request on Facebook from your new neighbor, which you gladly accepted. They seemed a little odd, but in the few minutes you talked they were pleasant enough. The next day while you and your family sat in church, your new neighbor scrolled through your Facebook profile. He saw that “Trump 2020” post and got infuriated because he’s a staunch liberal and he hates your kind. The next thing he sees are the hunting pictures you took last fall when your daughter bagged her first buck. Now he’s seething with fury because he is wholeheartedly against the “slaughter of innocent animals”. Next he sees your post from the last range day with your buddy and sees those scary black assault weapons on the table and that does it! He has to do something about the racist, right wing extremist, domestic terrorist living next door. He picks up the phone, calls the local Sheriffs Office and reports you as a threat under the new Red Flag law. The Sheriffs Office follows their SOP’s and conducts a no knock warrant because you have now been denied due process and you are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Now you, your lovely wife and two deputies have been killed for nothing. Your daughter will have absolute hell for the rest of her life. She will never be that successful person you dreamed for her to be because of the mental tragedy caused from seeing her parents murdered. The local news paper will report that you were killed after firing-on, and killing, two deputies and that “over a thousand rounds of ammo and 22 guns were confiscated from your residence”.

Oh... those two deputies were just following orders. They left behind families as well and had served their community for over a decade. They didn’t know you were a stand-up guy with a great family. They weren’t allowed time to investigate things under due process. They were told you had threatened your neighbor and were out in the street waving an AR15 around.

This is the reality of Red Flag gun laws. Innocent people will lose their lives, including police serving these unconstitutional no-knock warrants. Red Flag laws will be used for petty and vengeful reasons without merit by gun hating liberals who believe if you own guns, that it somehow automatically makes you a threat to society and therefore you are a right wing extremist domestic terrorist who MUST be stopped and neutralized at all costs (for the safety of others).

Do not forget that ALL gun laws are an infringement of your rights! Now, call and write all of your elected officials including the president, and let them know how you feel! Yes, it’s that important!
Please spare me that the people irrational in the gun debate are "the liberals".  There seems to be plenty of crazy to go around.  This thread should be used to discuss the approach to the laws as well as an "understand exactly what you're up against" in getting things like this passed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what we (the country) are up against...no idea who crafted the actual text here as everyone that I have seen post it on their facebook feed has cut/paste from somewhere.  I'm sure that's by design.

Please spare me that the people irrational in the gun debate are "the liberals".  There seems to be plenty of crazy to go around.
I agree with the bolded. And the story is TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL. 

@McJose posted this in the gun thread yesterday. The hate he's spreading is not hypothetical. 

All I know is that...TOTALLY HYPOTHETICALLY...if I frequented (and compulsively posted to)  a messageboard  where the only person that agreed with me was some paranoid, Neo-Confederate, gun-fetishist...I might take some time out for self-reflection.

 
This is what we (the country) are up against...no idea who crafted the actual text here as everyone that I have seen post it on their facebook feed has cut/paste from somewhere.  I'm sure that's by design.

Please spare me that the people irrational in the gun debate are "the liberals".  There seems to be plenty of crazy to go around.
whoever wrote that drivel should be red-flagged.

 
whoever wrote that drivel should be red-flagged.
Funny...said the same thing to my wife.  It takes a special kind of person to sit down and think about this sort of deep seeded hateful activity and assume that it's the norm enough that "this is how it WILL happen".  The more I sit back and observe people, the more I regret not going into psychology.  This sort of thing is absolutely fascinating to me.

 
My friend posted this on facebook and I almost, almost responded and explain just how dumb it is from a legal-perspective. 

Of course, this facebook friend is really only an arms-length friend of mine, is very pleasant to be around in person, and has previously referred me some business so I just said #### it and left it alone. 

 
What a bunch of trash - not much to debate there.  
Don't disagree and I will not be shocked even a little bit if this turns out to be something that was created by a foreign entity.  Curious if any of you who have seen it on your feeds paid attention to it being from a source vs from a cut/paste job.  Seems like the new approach moving forward is not to "share" things rather get the talking point and paste it into your thoughts as if you typed it yourselves.

 
Don't disagree and I will not be shocked even a little bit if this turns out to be something that was created by a foreign entity.  Curious if any of you who have seen it on your feeds paid attention to it being from a source vs from a cut/paste job.  Seems like the new approach moving forward is not to "share" things rather get the talking point and paste it into your thoughts as if you typed it yourselves.
Dunno.  This is a huge reason why I barely go on Facebook anymore and cant stand Twitter.  

 
Doesn’t matter does it? They’ve won for now. Trump was supposed to come up with a plan (by today) but that’s not happening. McConnell says he won’t lift a finger until Trump approves (which means never.) 

Even if a Democrat wins next year they need control of the Senate to get this or background checks past. Possible but not likely. And even if that happens will the Democrats really use their political capital on this issue, risking swing areas? Who knows? They haven’t before. 

 We’re almost certainly looking at several more years of total inaction. Hope I’m wrong. 

 
Don't disagree and I will not be shocked even a little bit if this turns out to be something that was created by a foreign entity.  Curious if any of you who have seen it on your feeds paid attention to it being from a source vs from a cut/paste job.  Seems like the new approach moving forward is not to "share" things rather get the talking point and paste it into your thoughts as if you typed it yourselves.
This is not something new to Facebook. (not this specific comment, but copy/paste from somewhere else). I have a cousin that is always posting some type of garbage just like this. He has a brother that's not quite as bad, but pretty close. 

Looking at his most recent posts,

7 hrs ago - Shared some long rambling about how the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to specific types of guns, it RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT. The original person (Joseph L Roberts) looks like it's nothing but pro gun, anti government postings. No BBQ's or concerts. 

22 hrs ago - Shared a post from Dailymail about how heroin kills more people than guns. 

23 hrs ago - Shared a post from The Federalist Papers about how Tlaib is going to fly a defaced American flag in front of her house.

I could go on. 3-4 times a day he posts some type of pro gun, anti muslim, anti democrats, pro American thing. Rarely is it an original thought, usually just a share or copy and paste. During 9/11 he was posting what felt like every 15 minutes making sure nobody forgot to remember. Since 9/12, he hasn't posted once. I guess he's forgotten about 9/11. 

 
Doesn’t matter does it? They’ve won for now. Trump was supposed to come up with a plan (by today) but that’s not happening. McConnell says he won’t lift a finger until Trump approves (which means never.) 

Even if a Democrat wins next year they need control of the Senate to get this or background checks past. Possible but not likely. And even if that happens will the Democrats really use their political capital on this issue, risking swing areas? Who knows? They haven’t before. 

 We’re almost certainly looking at several more years of total inaction. Hope I’m wrong. 
No...you are correct, that it doesn't matter in the short term.  It matters greatly in the long term.  As much as I ##### and complain about how slowly government moves and how unnecessary it is, it IS our reality.  If this movement is successful it will be successful in the same pattern that everything is.  We continue to drag our politicians along on the ride eventually forcing them to act.  The first part could take years, but once it starts in earnest, the change will come rather quickly.  I have said for years that this specific issue is better fought at the state/local levels first...then bubble up.  I still believe that's the best way.

 
timschochet said:
Doesn’t matter does it? They’ve won for now. Trump was supposed to come up with a plan (by today) but that’s not happening. McConnell says he won’t lift a finger until Trump approves (which means never.) 

Even if a Democrat wins next year they need control of the Senate to get this or background checks past. Possible but not likely. And even if that happens will the Democrats really use their political capital on this issue, risking swing areas? Who knows? They haven’t before. 

 We’re almost certainly looking at several more years of total inaction. Hope I’m wrong. 
States.   Federal government is broken and will remain broken until one party controls the house and senate.   But states are passing meaningful legislation.

 
In Florida, where we have some of the laxest gun laws in the country, we have red flag laws.  Last I saw, those laws were used, on average, 5 times a day.  It got me thinking.  Is it really logical to take the reactionary approach that red flag laws provide or is it better to have stricter laws and not have to be in the business of reacting all the time?

 
Are these laws subject to abuse, probably.  Have they been abused, I am guessing maybe, occasionally, but not routinely.  Do I have Constitutional concerns about them, certainly.  Will I form opinions about them based upon fiction, no. 

Our constitutional experiment is ongoing.  It is too early for me to make any conclusions whatsoever on these laws.  The data is sketchy at best at this point.  Legally I like due process, notice and an opportunity to be meaningfully heard.  As a practical matter I understand that LEO appearing at ones home with warrants, ready to confiscate property when one has not had an opportunity to be heard will generate confusion and conflict.  Worse yet if that happened at night which is why there are some presumptions about serving warrants during daylight hours in many jurisdictions.    Still, I also understand the desire to not announce to a potentially unstable and heavily armed person that L.E. is coming.

On this matter I wait and watch, concluding nothing as of yet.

 
In Florida, where we have some of the laxest gun laws in the country, we have red flag laws.  Last I saw, those laws were used, on average, 5 times a day.  It got me thinking.  Is it really logical to take the reactionary approach that red flag laws provide or is it better to have stricter laws and not have to be in the business of reacting all the time?
Five times a day sounded like a lot to me, so I looked for numbers and read this article: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/crime/fl-ne-red-flag-law-review-20190921-ygedayoyybaczmpzrrsy7kssdu-story.html

I was surprised to find out that, initially,  the weapons can go into the care of trusted family or friends and are not immediately seized by law enforcement.

 
Are these laws subject to abuse, probably.  Have they been abused, I am guessing maybe, occasionally, but not routinely.  Do I have Constitutional concerns about them, certainly.  Will I form opinions about them based upon fiction, no. 

Our constitutional experiment is ongoing.  It is too early for me to make any conclusions whatsoever on these laws.  The data is sketchy at best at this point.  Legally I like due process, notice and an opportunity to be meaningfully heard.  As a practical matter I understand that LEO appearing at ones home with warrants, ready to confiscate property when one has not had an opportunity to be heard will generate confusion and conflict.  Worse yet if that happened at night which is why there are some presumptions about serving warrants during daylight hours in many jurisdictions.    Still, I also understand the desire to not announce to a potentially unstable and heavily armed person that L.E. is coming.

On this matter I wait and watch, concluding nothing as of yet.
I think the most interesting aspect of this entire debate will be the justification by the gun nut who aren't good with trampling on the second amendment but are ok with trampling on due process offered in the 5th amendment to allow such laws.  I suppose they will argue their hypocrisy doesn't exist because these laws are mainly at the state level?  I've long said working the gun problem from the top down is never going to work, so I'm good with the states beginning to take action.  

 
Five times a day sounded like a lot to me, so I looked for numbers and read this article: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/crime/fl-ne-red-flag-law-review-20190921-ygedayoyybaczmpzrrsy7kssdu-story.html

I was surprised to find out that, initially,  the weapons can go into the care of trusted family or friends and are not immediately seized by law enforcement.
As I said before, it's been a little bit since I looked at it, so it might be different now.  Any yes, there are plenty of issues with the law.  It seemed like an "attempt" to show they were doing something.  It's the smallest of cracks in the door and by no means as comprehensive as it needs to be.....this is one example of "things that make you go hmmmmm" with our law specifically.

 
While I find the op to be way over the top. Lets not forget our own FBG Red Flag story..... 

Someone please dust of the notebook and tell the tale of Mr Ham calling the FBI on..... was it  Otis  or was it someone else. 

 
if written in such a way that reporting something unsubstantiated gets a middle of the night police raid ? 

no - those laws shouldn't ever exist, nobody can support that surely

red flag laws IF there is a bunch of proof someone is violent and dangerous to the public yes, I'd support those and in fact people are caught every week by authorities who've been given all the information they need to undoubtedly go knocking on a door. 

 
Stealthycat said:
if written in such a way that reporting something unsubstantiated gets a middle of the night police raid ? 

no - those laws shouldn't ever exist, nobody can support that surely

red flag laws IF there is a bunch of proof someone is violent and dangerous to the public yes, I'd support those and in fact people are caught every week by authorities who've been given all the information they need to undoubtedly go knocking on a door. 
 Proof like THIS ?

 
I have an anecdotal experience that is somewhat relevant, to me at least, though admittedly it did not arise under a red flag law.  I am of the habit of undertaking a few chores after finishing my taxes.  I change the batteries in the smoke detectors, I flush my hot water heater, and I clean and oil my guns as some may have not been used in that year and I like to keep them up just the same. Now the solvents and the oils are not the most volatile stuff in the world but I prefer to do this outside where there is greater ventilation and better light.  One year a new neighbor, the neighbor with a view into my backyard if they are in their second story and standing on their toes called the police when I was out cleaning my guns on the patio table. To them it looked like a frightening arsenal.  To me it was just what I have.  I was able to reach an accord with the police after a bit of intrusive interaction.  Partially, I believe we reached an accord because the police where there to investigate, not confiscate.  They knew they had to speak with me, to reason with me.  Would that have been different under different laws, perhaps.  Certainly I will never know for certain.

I did go over after to the reporting neighbor and introduce myself.  He seemed apprehensive at first to greet me.  Over the years we became fairly cordial, mostly based upon our wives striking up a bit of a friendship.  He even asked me to take him shooting one time when he was contemplating purchasing a handgun.  I obliged him.  I hope he practiced if he ever bought one, he was going to need it.  They have now moved out and we have new neighbors in that house.  The landscaping has now grown to the point where there is not much of a view from their home into our yard anymore.

 
I have an anecdotal experience that is somewhat relevant, to me at least, though admittedly it did not arise under a red flag law.  I am of the habit of undertaking a few chores after finishing my taxes.  I change the batteries in the smoke detectors, I flush my hot water heater, and I clean and oil my guns as some may have not been used in that year and I like to keep them up just the same. Now the solvents and the oils are not the most volatile stuff in the world but I prefer to do this outside where there is greater ventilation and better light.  One year a new neighbor, the neighbor with a view into my backyard if they are in their second story and standing on their toes called the police when I was out cleaning my guns on the patio table. To them it looked like a frightening arsenal.  To me it was just what I have.  I was able to reach an accord with the police after a bit of intrusive interaction.  Partially, I believe we reached an accord because the police where there to investigate, not confiscate.  They knew they had to speak with me, to reason with me.  Would that have been different under different laws, perhaps.  Certainly I will never know for certain.

I did go over after to the reporting neighbor and introduce myself.  He seemed apprehensive at first to greet me.  Over the years we became fairly cordial, mostly based upon our wives striking up a bit of a friendship.  He even asked me to take him shooting one time when he was contemplating purchasing a handgun.  I obliged him.  I hope he practiced if he ever bought one, he was going to need it.  They have now moved out and we have new neighbors in that house.  The landscaping has now grown to the point where there is not much of a view from their home into our yard anymore.
See...in my mind, this is how it should work and I suspect it "worked" because you are a responsible gun owner are self aware and have empathy for those who don't understand guns the way you do.  Often times, things start out innocent enough and it escalates because the person being engaged is lacking in one of these areas.

 
See...in my mind, this is how it should work and I suspect it "worked" because you are a responsible gun owner are self aware and have empathy for those who don't understand guns the way you do.  Often times, things start out innocent enough and it escalates because the person being engaged is lacking in one of these areas.
But this isn't how some of the proposed Red Flag laws will work. The way I understand it, a family or friend will make a claim that a gun owner is a danger to others. It will be decided by law enforcement or a judge (or both) that the person would forfeit their gun(s) until a hearing is complete. The punishment (gun confiscation) is applied before the gun owner has the opportunity for due process. Is the gun owner being charged with a crime? Will they be awarded legal counsel if they can't afford it? If not, then they could be railroaded into forfeiting their gun(s) if they are not able to plead their case successfully. What happens if it ends up being a he said/she said situation? Do we default to one side?

My sisters ex husband would fall into this category. After a nasty divorce, one of my nieces refused visitation because he had a handgun in his bedroom. She didn't feel safe. My sister, being vindictive, could use the Red Flag laws, and anything ugliness stated during the divorce process to request he lose his right own a firearm. There needs to be a checks and balance to make sure the process is fair. I'm all for removing guns from people that pose a threat to society. Not to remove guns from society.  

 
Oh, the new neighbor is a hunter.  He has tags for elk, antelope, and deer this year.  Last weekend he was reconditioning a used ATV for use this fall.  I was doing some maintenance outside.  He came bye and asked if I wanted to go to the range with him.  I did.  He wanted to go to cherry Creek, a 100 yard range.  I took him instead to Ben Lomond, a 600 yard range.  We enjoyed ourselves and he got sighted in for his hunts.  I think, particularly for antelope, that he will do better sighted in at 300 yards rather than 100. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But this isn't how some of the proposed Red Flag laws will work. The way I understand it, a family or friend will make a claim that a gun owner is a danger to others. It will be decided by law enforcement or a judge (or both) that the person would forfeit their gun(s) until a hearing is complete. The punishment (gun confiscation) is applied before the gun owner has the opportunity for due process. Is the gun owner being charged with a crime? Will they be awarded legal counsel if they can't afford it? If not, then they could be railroaded into forfeiting their gun(s) if they are not able to plead their case successfully. What happens if it ends up being a he said/she said situation? Do we default to one side?

My sisters ex husband would fall into this category. After a nasty divorce, one of my nieces refused visitation because he had a handgun in his bedroom. She didn't feel safe. My sister, being vindictive, could use the Red Flag laws, and anything ugliness stated during the divorce process to request he lose his right own a firearm. There needs to be a checks and balance to make sure the process is fair. I'm all for removing guns from people that pose a threat to society. Not to remove guns from society.  
Your thought process is very spot on here. You identify several difficult legal issues. 

This is, of course, a very good example of why Stealthy Cat's argument for prevention ahead of time isn't a good one. It's really, really, damn hard to implement, will create even more litigation, and, inevitably, otherwise lawful gun owners may lose their right to possess in the event they are falsely accused. 

So, from a law-making perspective, arguably banning certain types of weapons of which there is a compelling state interest to ban (such as automatic weapons, guns with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a short period of time, limiting the number of weapons one can possess, limiting the amount of sheer firepower one can possess, etc.) is the more efficient route if the goal is to prevent mass murders. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what we (the country) are up against...no idea who crafted the actual text here as everyone that I have seen post it on their facebook feed has cut/paste from somewhere.  I'm sure that's by design.

Please spare me that the people irrational in the gun debate are "the liberals".  There seems to be plenty of crazy to go around.  This thread should be used to discuss the approach to the laws as well as an "understand exactly what you're up against" in getting things like this passed.
Guy in the story should have MORE guns.  How else was he supposed to defend against illegal government search and seizure?

 
This is, of course, a very good example of why Stealthy Cat's argument for prevention ahead of time isn't a good one. It's really, really, damn hard to implement, will create even more litigation, and, inevitably, otherwise lawful gun owners may lose their right to possess in the event they are falsely accused. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/18/us/three-potential-attacks-foiled/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/21/us/preventing-shootings-say-something-trnd/index.html

https://www.fatherly.com/news/north-carolina-mass-shooting-prevented-what-to-know/

https://www.kxan.com/news/fort-worth-police-say-mass-shooting-prevented-by-father-who-reported-own-son/

use the google ............ it works, the more people interact to stop these exceptionally few violent people, the more it will work. Funny that huh ?

 
So, from a law-making perspective, arguably banning certain types of weapons of which there is a compelling state interest to ban (such as automatic weapons, guns with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a short period of time, limiting the number of weapons one can possess, limiting the amount of sheer firepower one can possess, etc.) is the more efficient route if the goal is to prevent mass murders.
in red ...those have not been legal in like 40 years, you know that right ?

in blue - you would then take my turkey hunting shotgun, my deer rifles and anything else if your definition fit ..... no thank you, confiscation/ban's are not the solution

 
in red ...those have not been legal in like 40 years, you know that right ?

in blue - you would then take my turkey hunting shotgun, my deer rifles and anything else if your definition fit ..... no thank you, confiscation/ban's are not the solution
I'm not suggesting it is the solution. It's just the better of the two poor solution proffered when compared to your Minority Report style solution. 

 
Your thought process is very spot on here. You identify several difficult legal issues. 

This is, of course, a very good example of why Stealthy Cat's argument for prevention ahead of time isn't a good one. It's really, really, damn hard to implement, will create even more litigation, and, inevitably, otherwise lawful gun owners may lose their right to possess in the event they are falsely accused. 

So, from a law-making perspective, arguably banning certain types of weapons of which there is a compelling state interest to ban (such as automatic weapons, guns with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a short period of time, limiting the number of weapons one can possess, limiting the amount of sheer firepower one can possess, etc.) is the more efficient route if the goal is to prevent mass murders. 
Does the bolded mean that someone who owns one gun, say an AR15, is less of a threat than a person that owns 10 bolt action rifles? 

 
Does the bolded mean that someone who owns one gun, say an AR15, is less of a threat than a person that owns 10 bolt action rifles? 
I don't know.  I wasn't trying to suggest or say one way or another. I was trying to think of examples of the type of gun legislation that may not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your thought process is very spot on here. You identify several difficult legal issues. 

This is, of course, a very good example of why Stealthy Cat's argument for prevention ahead of time isn't a good one. It's really, really, damn hard to implement, will create even more litigation, and, inevitably, otherwise lawful gun owners may lose their right to possess in the event they are falsely accused. 

So, from a law-making perspective, arguably banning certain types of weapons of which there is a compelling state interest to ban (such as automatic weapons, guns with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a short period of time, limiting the number of weapons one can possess, limiting the amount of sheer firepower one can possess, etc.) is the more efficient route if the goal is to prevent mass murders. 
I personally don't see how these laws would ever be successful in any meaningful way and have always viewed the approach with complete skepticism as to intent.  It's always felt like a hollow move in an attempt to be point at it as "compromise".  And to be clear, I don't think DW's post had to do with the laws and my reply to him certainly had nothing to do with the laws.  It was a mere attempt to say that what transpired in his story was because of the people and their approach to the situation.  I was NOT attempting to say his story was a reason for enacting red flag laws.  The devil's always going to be in the details of these laws and their success is always going to be in the hands of the people living under them.

 
I don't know.  I wasn't trying to suggest or say one way or another. I was trying to think of examples of the type of gun legislation that may not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment
Sorry. That wasn't meant as an attack on you personally. It was just a something that came to mind as I read your post. 

Another thought, is that the bolded may be an oxymoron. Well regulated is one thing. Anything that prohibits one's ability to own a firearm without due process, is another. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry. That wasn't meant as an attack on your personally. It was just a something that came to mind as I read your post. 

Another thought, is that the bolded may be an oxymoron. Well regulated is one thing. Anything that prohibits one's ability to own a firearm without due process, is another. 
It's not. The right to possess a weapon is simply not absolute and it is constitutional for the government to infringe upon even the most clear of individual rights provided there is a compelling reason to do so and the means of doing so are narrowly tailored to achieve that end. 

 
I personally don't see how these laws would ever be successful in any meaningful way and have always viewed the approach with complete skepticism as to intent.  It's always felt like a hollow move in an attempt to be point at it as "compromise".  And to be clear, I don't think DW's post had to do with the laws and my reply to him certainly had nothing to do with the laws.  It was a mere attempt to say that what transpired in his story was because of the people and their approach to the situation.  I was NOT attempting to say his story was a reason for enacting red flag laws.  The devil's always going to be in the details of these laws and their success is always going to be in the hands of the people living under them.
I believe I was address KCticons. 

 
It's not. The right to possess a weapon is simply not absolute and it is constitutional for the government to infringe upon even the most clear of individual rights provided there is a compelling reason to do so and the means of doing so are narrowly tailored to achieve that end. 
To be fair, I said "may". I've argued that some gun legislation can be over reaching. SCOTUS has ruled before and will probably be forced to rule again. The key factor in those decisions is the 2nd Amendment. 

 
To be fair, I said "may". I've argued that some gun legislation can be over reaching. SCOTUS has ruled before and will probably be forced to rule again. The key factor in those decisions is the 2nd Amendment. 
To be fair, I was the one who initially said "may." 

In other words, the way I phrased my post was not an oxymoron. 

 
To be fair, I was the one who initially said "may." 

In other words, the way I phrased my post was not an oxymoron. 
Fair enough. 

We agree that something may lead to something else. 

Or it may not. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top