Red Flag law discussion

[Bithabus]

I guess in NYC "recovered" is code for "stolen"

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Abott’s “Task force” has really got me worried. They are going to screw up both mental health treatment (no one will be comfortable talking about what’s bothering them if they have any snap at all about being concerned with keeping their gun rights) AND will risk all our freedoms with firearms for sure with red flag laws.

Just ugh.

 

[DyeF9]

Maybe I'm off base here, but it occurs to me that the Constitution is the foundation of the government that creates our country. Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous? I'm not big into government, or politics, so I may be a bit ignorant. I don't like these laws that they're trying to pass and find it disturbing that states are able to hold such control over the people. These laws can easily be manipulated for reasons of vengeance from others or the government itself against individuals, and is really pushing things away from having any freedoms and making it feel more like a tyrannical dictatorship.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[AustinN4]

Maybe I'm off base here, but it occurs to me that the Constitution is the foundation of the government that creates our country. Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous? I'm not big into government, or politics, so I may be a bit ignorant. I don't like these laws that they're trying to pass and find it disturbing that states are able to hold such control over the people. These laws can easily be manipulated for reasons of vengeance from others or the government itself against individuals, and is really pushing things away from having any freedoms and making it feel more like a tyrannical dictatorship.

No matter, it's for the children.

 

[DyeF9]

No matter, it's for the children.

Because it's always worked out so well for the children growing up in a tyrannical dictatorship

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Maybe I'm off base here, but it occurs to me that the Constitution is the foundation of the government that creates our country. Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous? I'm not big into government, or politics, so I may be a bit ignorant. I don't like these laws that they're trying to pass and find it disturbing that states are able to hold such control over the people. These laws can easily be manipulated for reasons of vengeance from others or the government itself against individuals, and is really pushing things away from having any freedoms and making it feel more like a tyrannical dictatorship.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Even in good faith, people will create havoc here. Therapists who mean well will soon feel pressure to ask (and report on findings if the law changes?) all kinds of invasive questions about firearms to protect society from potentially deranged you, or protect potentially deranged you from yourself. Then people will stop talking to therapists and the people who needed and could have potentially sought help will not get it.

But let’s be frank, the people who are planning to do things like mass shootings are NOT even seeking help. So more laws on the books will just mess it up for other people.

 

[Shady]

I would not let a Dr prescribe a med to me that even if it was not being prescribed for "mental health" but for one of the other things it helps with but is also used for "mental health".

I would never tell the nurse or Dr if I was depressed over an event or just overall and I am asked at every visit and each time I say I am here for my diabetic check up everything else is fine.


Just like when I was younger I would never admit to back/neck pain because I did not want it on my record and used to screw me out of a job. Now that I am as old as dirt meh who cares I am not going to get into back busting labor now

Even in good faith, people will create havoc here. Therapists who mean well will soon feel pressure to ask (and report on findings if the law changes?) all kinds of invasive questions about firearms to protect society from potentially deranged you, or protect potentially deranged you from yourself. Then people will stop talking to therapists and the people who needed and could have potentially sought help will not get it.

But let’s be frank, the people who are planning to do things like mass shootings are NOT even seeking help. So more laws on the books will just mess it up for other people.

 

[avvidclif]

Here’s a nice haul from the NYPD doing a red flag confiscation...

View attachment 182005



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How do they "Recover" items they never owned? Closer to confiscated.

 

[benenglish]

Even in good faith, people will create havoc here.

Is that happening now?

I'd like to take a step back and assess the current situation. You're more in the know than most. Could you briefly outline for us the current state of affairs? For example, if I go to my primary care physician and say "Refer me for a mental health checkup. I don't feel right. I think I'm depressed." I assume my primary will do a basic screening and, if indicated, send me to someone who routinely helps depressed folks. If that doctor assesses me and concludes "Sir, you seem to me to be profoundly depressed. You might even be a suicide risk, though I'm not completely convinced of that. I'm prescribing you something for your depression and I'd like you to start seeing a therapist at least weekly."

Given that scenario, is there any mechanism or would any of the medical personnel involved begin any process whereby, for example, an LTC might be revoked or not granted? Or someone might be involuntarily committed? Or someone might be encouraged to enter in-patient treatment that would lead to involuntary commitment if the person tried to leave? (I have some small understanding of how in-patient facilities require sufficient notice prior to a patient leaving so as to provide time to get a court order for involuntary commitment.)

I'm just trying to get a handle on the situation as it currently exists and whether the fears of gun owners that admitting to something as common as depression might negatively impact their gun rights are actually warranted.

 

[Frank59]

Even in good faith, people will create havoc here.

Truth. What worries me is the vindictive jerk off who's gonna make a false accusation just to phuck someone over.

 

[WAYnorthTX]

Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous?

I agree. But even if it WAS unconstitutional, lawmakers and the president can get it through if they want it bad enough. The bump-stock ban was an EX-POST-FACTO law, meaning that it made possessing a bump stock illegal ( legally equivalent to a machine gun) even though they were LEGAL when the owners purchased them, with no grandfather clause to exempt people who bought them legally. This type of "ex-post-facto" law is prohibited in the Constitution so that congress AND THE STATES cannot pass them, but it was done by changing an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulation, not passing a new law. And the supreme court has let certain ex-post-facto laws stand despite the bans in the Constitution to congress and the states. It is all in how it is done, and when.

 

[WAYnorthTX]

Truth. What worries me is the vindictive jerk off who's gonna make a false accusation just to phuck someone over.

But that's how the law WORKS... It's a FEATURE, not a BUG !

 

[Renegade]

The bump-stock ban was an EX-POST-FACTO law, meaning that it made possessing a bump stock illegal ( legally equivalent to a machine gun) even though they were LEGAL when the owners purchased them, with no grandfather clause to exempt people who bought them legally. This type of "ex-post-facto" law is prohibited in the Constitution so that congress AND THE STATES cannot pass them, but it was done by changing an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulation, not passing a new law. And the supreme court has let certain ex-post-facto laws stand despite the bans in the Constitution to congress and the states. It is all in how it is done, and when.

No that is not what Ex-Post-Facto means.

Ex-Post-Facto would apply if they made your possession of the Bump Stock illegal before they were determined to be MGs.

Arrest you for owning a Bump Stock in 2015? Ex-Post-Facto.

Arrest you owning a Bump Stock Today? Legal.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Is that happening now?

I'd like to take a step back and assess the current situation. You're more in the know than most. Could you briefly outline for us the current state of affairs? For example, if I go to my primary care physician and say "Refer me for a mental health checkup. I don't feel right. I think I'm depressed." I assume my primary will do a basic screening and, if indicated, send me to someone who routinely helps depressed folks. If that doctor assesses me and concludes "Sir, you seem to me to be profoundly depressed. You might even be a suicide risk, though I'm not completely convinced of that. I'm prescribing you something for your depression and I'd like you to start seeing a therapist at least weekly."

Given that scenario, is there any mechanism or would any of the medical personnel involved begin any process whereby, for example, an LTC might be revoked or not granted? Or someone might be involuntarily committed? Or someone might be encouraged to enter in-patient treatment that would lead to involuntary commitment if the person tried to leave? (I have some small understanding of how in-patient facilities require sufficient notice prior to a patient leaving so as to provide time to get a court order for involuntary commitment.)

I'm just trying to get a handle on the situation as it currently exists and whether the fears of gun owners that admitting to something as common as depression might negatively impact their gun rights are actually warranted.

It’s not what is going on now that I’m worried about. Now you are fine. But what you do now, makes records that might be judged by a different standard in the future. And once that record is there, there is no erasing it. I am worried about where all this looks to be going.

Now, even if you have a court order for involuntary commitment, I’m confused about whether or not that “falls off” of your status as per the exceptions listed on the 4473 if you are no longer required to be in treatment. I HAVE spent time looking into it. The verbiage on the question on the 4473 DIRECTLY contradicts the very detailed info on the instructions if you are to say yes or no regarding adjudicated as mental defective, for example if you were involuntarily admitted at one time but no longer are legally required to continue treatment.

 

[WAYnorthTX]

No that is not what Ex-Post-Facto means.
Ex-Post-Facto would apply if they made your possession of the Bump Stock illegal before they were determined to be MGs.
Arrest you for owning a Bump Stock in 2015? Ex-Post-Facto.
Arrest you owning a Bump Stock Today? Legal.
******************************************************************************************************
Latin for "from a thing done afterward."
Overview
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

1. 
   
2. Art 1, § 9
   1. This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
3. Art. 1 § 10.
   1. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
   In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:
   "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."

This law is ex post facto because it was legal to possess a bump stock when the owners bought them, but it makes it illegal to possess or own them NOW.

 

[Renegade]

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed

Uh yeah that is what I wrote.

If you owned a bump stock in 2015 when it was legal, you are safe. If you own one now, it is illegal and you are not safe.

They are NOT making it illegal to have owned it in 2015. That would be Ex-Post-Facto.

 

[Bithabus]

This law is ex post facto because it was legal to possess a bump stock when the owners bought them, but it makes it illegal to possess or own them NOW.

No, you misunderstand. It is not ex post facto because you cannot be arrested and prosecuted for possessing a bump stock before the new definition took effect. If your understanding were correct every new law would be ex post facto.

 

[WAYnorthTX]

No, you misunderstand. It is not ex post facto because you cannot be arrested and prosecuted for possessing a bump stock before the new definition took effect. If your understanding were correct every new law would be ex post facto.

Oh, I get it. They changed the definition of a bump stock from an accessory piece to a fully functioning machine gun. Sort of like when the supreme court changed the definition of marriage from the sacred union of a man and a woman to a random Satanic clusterf#ck of any two Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Eves and Shirleys.

 

[Younggun]

Lol, and he still doesn’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[avvidclif]

There is a big difference between an act and possession. An act is an occurrence, one time, possession is ongoing.