Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[SmarterthanYou]

tell it to SCOTUS

SCOTUS cares nothing about the constitution or the limits it imposes upon them.........that's an issue that you support

you write laws with that criteria.
you enumerate what constitutes mental instability that makes a person too dangerous to own a gun

do you do it by ignoring the 14th Amendment?

 

[Stretch]

great, go through that whole process instead of letting some disgruntled relative call the cops and have that person lose all rights immediately, then let reverse due process play out.

I think you misunderstand. Imagine a person much like the fictional one I described. After seeing all that behavior, that person either wants to keep the gun he already has or is wanting to go out and buy a gun. In your heart of hearts would you not want that person to get checked out BEFORE he could act his rage out beyond fits of rage, battering, bullying and preferring
an anti-social lifestyle in a deadlier way? Why would calm rational productive socialized normal people elsewhere be forced to become addicted to gambling?

 

[Althea]

GOOD, its a start. FINALLY!

He'll backtrack as soon as he hears from his handlers.

He did away with Obama's regulation that deals with this issue. His Obama envy taints everything that he does.

 

[Stretch]

those deranged minds should not be allowed to reside amongst the public.

I agree with that, but until this country starts rebuilding a massive amount of more mental institutions this
would be a common sense approach to at least keep weaponry out of their hands with the purpose of
preserving the freedoms and rights of normal mentally balanced innocent people.

 

[Earl]

Why would anyone envy Obama, the worst president in history, slightly ahead of Jimmy Carter?

 

[Stretch]

if said person doesn't actually go out to hurt or kill someone, why should it be considered?

Should every single living American citizen have the right to own a gun? No exceptions?

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

so you want to see someone who has never committed a crime have his property and liberty taken away? and you wonder why we consider liberalism a mental disease

Hey Dumber-than-a-box-of-hair!

If you try to possess something illegal- you would be committing a crime- it would be confiscated- and your freedom could be taken away.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't smoke marijuana or have it in your possession.

However, since the Constitution was written, Federal laws were put into place to make marijuana illegal to consume or possess, and many people had their property and their liberty taken away and have gone to jail for consuming or possessing it.

So you are DUMBER-THAN-A-BOX-OF-FUCKING-HAIR!

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Some really really stupid people think that they somehow make up a Militia- just because they own a gun!

OK fine!

We intend to follow the Constitution by not just regulating Militia's- We intend to "Well" regulate you idiots by limiting the kinds of arms you can legally bear and we shall not be infringed! LOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Just following the Constitution!

Remember!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

[PostmodernProphet]

if said person doesn't actually go out to hurt or kill someone, why should it be considered?

can we do anything BEFORE they actually kill someone?.....or do we have to wait until they've killed at least one?.....

 

[Bigdog]

never get through, liberals have stopped it every time, privacy concerns

and besides, take his away today, mine tomorrow , not very American

I'll have to see what the details are.

Alternatively, why not just lock them up or confine them in a mental institution until they are deemed to no longer be a threat.

 

[Bigdog]

do you have any objection to extending it to supremacy views of any flavor?.....

Muslims believe they are supreme, and non-believers are infidel dogs. So, you have an excellent point.

 

[anatta]

I'll have to see what the details are.

Alternatively, why not just lock them up or confine them in a mental institution until they are deemed to no longer be a threat.

that's the Baker act

A Baker Act is a means of providing individuals with emergency services and temporary detention for mental health evaluation and treatment when required, either on a voluntary or an involuntary basis.

but that is for people deemed to be at personal risk -most of these are not at personal risk,
but they ARE a risk to society when armed

 

[Bigdog]

it's not an "ideology" - it's normative regulations.
This is an extreme situation, and what the shooters had in common was mental derangement

they are not a threat to others without guns

The problem is, ... take one gun away, they will find another illegally ... or build some IEDs

 

[anatta]

The problem is, ... take one gun away, they will find another illegally ... or build some IEDs

nothing is perfect. If i want to find weed ( still illegal in Florida) I gotta go and actively look for it.
I can't just waltz into a store and buy it like a loaf of bread, so it's at least an IMPEDIMENT .

You put up some hurdles (like expanded background checks) and keep making it more difficult in the hopes
it will deter a few crazoids

 

[Bigdog]

that's the Baker act
but that is for people deemed to be at personal risk -most of these are not at personal risk,
but they ARE a risk to society when armed

I think that is highly debatable, given that most mass shooters seem to be suicidal.

 

[Bigdog]

nothing is perfect. If i want to find weed ( still illegal in Florida) I gotta go and actively look for it.
I can't just waltz into a store and buy it like a loaf of bread, so it's at least an IMPEDIMENT .

You put up some hurdles (like expanded background checks) and keep making it more difficult in the hopes
it will deter a few crazoids

Yeah, well you know how easy that is, lol.

Back to the Baker Act.

I recall the Aurora movie theater shooters "mental" papers were waiting to be filed to prevent him from purchasing a firearm, and the situation was similar with Va. Tech shooter, Cho. Do you know if that was a pending implementation of the Baker Act or something else.

 

[anatta]

Yeah, well you know how easy that is, lol.

Back to the Baker Act.

I recall the Aurora movie theater shooters "mental" papers were waiting to be filed to prevent him from purchasing a firearm, and the situation was similar with Va. Tech shooter, Cho. Do you know if that was a pending implementation of the Baker Act or something else.

sorry. i'm not all up on any of that

 

[PostmodernProphet]

as I recall, the Boston Marathon terrorists were red flagged for pressure cookers at KMart.......

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Hey Dumber-than-a-box-of-hair!

If you try to possess something illegal- you would be committing a crime- it would be confiscated- and your freedom could be taken away.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't smoke marijuana or have it in your possession.

However, since the Constitution was written, Federal laws were put into place to make marijuana illegal to consume or possess, and many people had their property and their liberty taken away and have gone to jail for consuming or possessing it.

So you are DUMBER-THAN-A-BOX-OF-FUCKING-HAIR!

hey slave, where in the constitution does it give the federal government any authority to make marijuana illegal? that's right, it doesn't, so all of those people who have been affected by their possession of a weed were affected because of slaves like you who believe that the federal government can do any damned thing it wants to.

so you are actually the dumb one here, but don't take my word for it, read the fucking constitution

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Some really really stupid people think that they somehow make up a Militia- just because they own a gun!

OK fine!

We intend to follow the Constitution by not just regulating Militia's- We intend to "Well" regulate you idiots by limiting the kinds of arms you can legally bear and we shall not be infringed! LOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Just following the Constitution!

Remember!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

show us ONE single piece of documentation that shows the founders were talking about government regulated militias