Confiscation has begun

[Jack Ryan]

Then pick another one. There's a bunch listing the same story.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Seattle++gun+confiscation&atb=v79-3_j&t=cros&ia=web

"MOM! HE'S LOOKING AT ME!"

 

[Jack Ryan]

But it sounds so professional - duckduckgo.com

DUCKDUCKGO doesn't track you or record cookies to sell to the highest bidder.

 

[oldag]

It's not widespread confiscation. It's not even necessarily a bad idea. However, the concept is rife with potential for abuse and I have every confidence that it will be abused widely in non-free states.

In short, the article is bad news. It's not "the brownshirts are coming to the ghetto" bad but it definitely illustrates the bad implementation of a poorly-thought-out statute.

Yet....

Wait until liberals decide to use this as the means for widespread confiscation. Anonymous tips. People just saying "He has a lot of guns and makes me nervous!" "He made me feel unsafe." A little embellishment along the way (liberals don't mind lying when the ends justifies the means). And liberal judges who go along with it.

As written, this law has gone too far. For those upset about bump stocks, that issue is trivial compared to this.

 

[AustinN4]

OK, you guys have converted me to DDG.

 

[Vaquero]

Unintended consequences

 

[ScS]

Phone banks of SNOWFLAKES with lists of gun owners in our future?

 

[Davetex]

OK, you guys have converted me to DDG.

Linux, Firefox and DDG. Mucho more privacy.

 

[busykngt]

Unintended consequences

I see what you did there!

 

[benenglish]

Wait until liberals decide to use this as the means for widespread confiscation. Anonymous tips. ... As written, this law has gone too far.

I agree with your conclusion that this law is not ideal. However, even it doesn't allow for anonymous tips. In every case where these laws have been passed, the only people with standing to seek an order are family (fairly extended, to include cohabitants and guardians, not necessarily present) or police.

Most (I think all, but I'm not sure) states with these laws also provide for legal penalties for making a false report.

 

[RobertTheTexan]

A search in an engine I’ve never heard of.

Yep, I’m good

DuckDuckGo is a legitimate search engine that uses Googles search algorithms on the backend but does not retrieve, store, nor sell your search parameters or data/images retrieved - basically every detail you search for.

In fact we should probably all be using DuckDuckGo for that reason alone. No it doesn’t retrieve the exact results Google does, but neither is it tracking, storing and selling my info every time I search for “5.56 77gr otm best price 1000 rounds”

Or whatever. The point is it’s not capturing our private info like Google, Yahoo, and whoever else.

Ever wonder why Google shows you custom search results for stuff it seems you’ve only thought about? They can do that because they are storing every single thing you search for, constructing a “marketing profile” if your search preferences. Clearing your cache and history doesn’t do a single damn thing to stop that. DuckDuckGo shows the same search results for everybody because it is not storing that info.

I don’t discount something just because I have never heard of it. How else would I lean something I don’t already know?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo

ETA: Corrected misspellings. A LOT of misspelled words on my phone. Hopefully I caught them all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

ETA: Corrected misspellings. A LOT of misspelled words on my phone. Hopefully I caught them all.

Not to worry; occasionally I get “helped out” by spellchecker and/or auto fill. I’ll realize later, “that’s not the word I meant to use or that word makes no sense.” (It May or may not be too late to edit and correct). Most of the guys on this forum are pretty tolerant/understanding of typos.

 

[oldag]

I agree with your conclusion that this law is not ideal. However, even it doesn't allow for anonymous tips. In every case where these laws have been passed, the only people with standing to seek an order are family (fairly extended, to include cohabitants and guardians, not necessarily present) or police.

Most (I think all, but I'm not sure) states with these laws also provide for legal penalties for making a false report.

Help me understand.

In the case cited in this thread, the complaints were not coming from the family, cohabitants or guardians. Rather from people in the neighborhood. If what you say is correct, how did that happen?

And for penalties to be assessed for false reports, someone (e.g., government) has to be willing to pursue false reports.

 

[busykngt]

I, for one, am not surprised this kind of “red flag” law would come into conflict with the much promoted, “see something, say something” idea.

 

[RevolverGuy]

Ok, I’ll give DDG a try.

Remember, this is uber-liberal Seattle.

 

[benenglish]

In the case cited in this thread, the complaints were not coming from the family, cohabitants or guardians. Rather from people in the neighborhood. If what you say is correct, how did that happen?

The people in the neighborhood repeatedly complained to the police. After getting enough credible complaints to become officially concerned, the police department then filed for the order.

You can read that as "if you can get a crooked cop to file, then the safeguards do not exist" or you can read that as "since non-family have to be so overwhelmingly complaining that even the police, who'd rather not deal with such an extra duty, wind up filing, this is evidence of another layer of protection for the respondent."

The glass is half-empty or half-full, depending on your viewpoint.

And for penalties to be assessed for false reports, someone (e.g., government) has to be willing to pursue false reports.

An obvious weakness that I recognize. Again, the devil is in the details. From what I've read, most of these laws make it some sort of low level criminal offense to make a false report. Low level offenses may not be prosecuted. The laws should also provide for civil remedies but I don't know of any that do.

As I implied in my first post and I'll now explicitly say - These laws can be structured to be a good thing for everyone. Can be. Since they're most often pushed by the anti-2A folks, that's not likely.

It's sorta like universal background checks. I could write an algorithm (I'd have to leave it to lawyers to turn it into statutory language) for universal background checks that pro-2A folks would mostly love. But the anti-2A folks would scream bloody murder over my way of defining and implementing a "universal background check".

The devil is always in the details.

 

[DwnRange]

Interesting that folks prefer to talk about "search-engines" rather than view the results.......

This one bugs me: http://komonews.com/news/local/new-...o-take-guns-from-potentially-dangerous-people

excerpt: "In 2016, voters passed a statewide initiative allowing anyone who has evidence that a person who owns guns may pose a threat to others, could have those weapons taken away temporarily by a court order.

It’s known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order or ERPO for short.

“If an individual’s made threats, if an individual has been volatile, destroyed property, if he's harmed animals, if he has a history of assaultive behavior, it’s evidence a judge can use for an ERPO,” said Anne Levinson, a retired Seattle Municipal Court Judge was instrumental in getting Ellie’s Place up and running."


(fwiw - I run DogPile, which has been around far longer than DDG)

 

[AustinN4]

The people in the neighborhood repeatedly complained to the police. After getting enough credible complaints to become officially concerned, the police department then filed for the order.

You can read that as "if you can get a crooked cop to file, then the safeguards do not exist" or your can read that as "since non-family have to be so overwhelmingly complaining that even the police, who'd rather not deal with such an extra duty, wind up filing, this is evidence of another layer of protection for the respondent."

The glass is half-empty or half-full, depending on your viewpoint.An obvious weakness that I recognize. Again, the devil is in the details. From what I've read, most of these laws make it some sort of low level criminal offense to make a false report. Low level offenses may not be prosecuted. The laws should also provide for civil remedies but I don't know of any that do.

As I implied in my first post and I'll now explicitly say - These laws can be structured to be a good thing for everyone. Can be. Since they're most often pushed by the anti-2A folks, that's not likely.

It's sorta like universal background checks. I could write an algorithm (I'd have to leave it to lawyers to turn it into statutory language) for universal background checks that pro-2A folks would mostly love. But the anti-2A folks would scream bloody murder over my way of defining and implementing a "universal background check".

The devil is always in the details.

Good post, Ben. I like your approach to this needed tool, that being keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous mental problems.

 

[easy rider]

I'm so glad I am still not living in Washington. I will always miss the geography of it, but the politics have become Californicated.

 

[DwnRange]

and another link lead to this one: The Fallacy of ‘Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns’ - http://libertyparkpress.com/the-fallacy-of-nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns/

excerpt: "Washington gun owners are furious that Initiative 1491 passed. That’s the “extreme risk protection order” measure that some folks are already calling the “extremist protection order” law. The concern is that it does not contain adequate due process provisions, instead allowing for someone’s firearms to be seized and then providing an appeal process. Translation: You’re considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent. If this dealt with any other civil right, it would never have gotten off the ground."

 

[benenglish]

I run DogPile

Kudos to you. I used to use it a great deal until Google hegemony drew me away. After I decided Google was evil, I then didn't think to go back to it.

Now, if we can just find a way to bring back the Northern Light search engine, I'd be a happy camper.