Democrat and Republican approaches to gun control

[OrphanSlug]

I agree, however there is imo a possibility for abuse. Not all judges are impartial. And not all witnesses are honest. That is why imo red flag laws are dangerous.

It is easy to argue that just about any appointment that goes through the political process of confirmation ends up with a very partial judge. Just about all of us have political and ideological leanings of all sorts, and that tends to get amplified when sitting in front of the Senate answering those questions.

It is also easy to argue that all actions and functions of government are susceptible to abuse. My earlier point about secret courts for the purpose of widespread mass domestic spying, all of which was brought to be by "conservatives" reacting to terrorism. It is still abused, and it still exists today.

There is always going to be various one off conditions that make red flag laws impossible to be 100% honest, then again there is no facet of government or law that is 100% honest. Not one.

Red flag laws may not be the complete answer, but I would not rule out the idea entirely. We have to have some means to deal with this.

 

[Crosscheck]

I agree, however there is imo a possibility for abuse. Not all judges are impartial. And not all witnesses are honest. That is why imo red flag laws are dangerous.

Not all policemen are impartial, not all politicians are honest, and not every preacher covets your teenage daughter. Where are we going with this?

Red Flag law does have some possible misuse but until we come up with a better idea what the hell can people do? Just give us a logical suggestion in reducing these mass shootings?

 

[bluesmoke]

Democrats want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Republicans want judges to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who have not broken the law but may in the future. Both are unconstitutional. #ShallNotBeInfringed

“Democrats want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.”

Do you mean all, most, a lot or some Dems want to do as you claim or that there are Dems that want to do so?

“Republicans want judges to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who have not broken the law but may in the future.”

Yes, there are Reps that want to do so. Apparently, a majority.

“Both are unconstitutional.”

Both are constitutional by case law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah, all rights have limits. The Constitution in no way, shape, or form says that any American, regardless of his criminal history, should have access to every type of weapon ever made. Reasonable restrictions on what types of weapons that can be bought (No tanks, no nuclear weapons, no gatlin guns, etc.) and who can buy those weapons (no murderers, rapists, diagnosed severely mentally ill, etc.) have been applied since the beginning. Neither party wants all guns banned and both support the right of the average law-abiding citizen to have regular firearms. Where we draw the line is absolutely up for debate and completely constitutional.

Why is a gun, legally purchased from a FFL dealer, after passing a NICS BGC no longer "regular"? When the government gives itself the power to "regulate" the possession a gun rightfully owned on Monday into a crime (felony?) on Tuesday that should be ruled by the SCOTUS to be infringement. Trying to assert that it's not a ban it's only a regulation is what clearly failed in DC vs Heller. When new vehicle manufacturing standards are changed the government does not make it a crime to drive pervious vehicle models or even ban them from use on public roadways it "grandfathers" them in and patiently awaits their eventual demise.

The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future. I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapacitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life, but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.

 

[WCH]

Yeah, all rights have limits. The Constitution in no way, shape, or form says that any American, regardless of his criminal history, should have access to every type of weapon ever made. Reasonable restrictions on what types of weapons that can be bought (No tanks, no nuclear weapons, no gatlin guns, etc.) and who can buy those weapons (no murderers, rapists, diagnosed severely mentally ill, etc.) have been applied since the beginning. Neither party wants all guns banned and both support the right of the average law-abiding citizen to have regular firearms. Where we draw the line is absolutely up for debate and completely constitutional.

Falsely accused, misdiagnosed, "average" citizen can have a "regular" gun? Lots of things to clear up here.

 

[WCH]

Why is a gun, legally purchased from a FFL dealer, after passing a NICS BGC no longer "regular"? When the government gives itself the power to "regulate" the possession a gun rightfully owned on Monday into a crime (felony?) on Tuesday that should be ruled by the SCOTUS to be infringement. Trying to assert that it's not a ban it's only a regulation is what clearly failed in DC vs Heller. When new vehicle manufacturing standards are changed the government does not make it a crime to drive pervious vehicle models or even ban them from use on public raodways it grandfathers them in and patiently awaits their eventual demise.

The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on what violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future. I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapcitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life, but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.

Minority Report (2002) - IMDb

The future is near.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Why is a gun, legally purchased from a FFL dealer, after passing a NICS BGC no longer "regular"? When the government gives itself the power to "regulate" the possession a gun rightfully owned on Monday into a crime (felony?) on Tuesday that should be ruled by the SCOTUS to be infringement. Trying to assert that it's not a ban it's only a regulation is what clearly failed in DC vs Heller. When new vehicle manufacturing standards are changed the government does not make it a crime to drive pervious vehicle models or even ban them from use on public raodways it grandfathers them in and patiently awaits their eventual demise.

The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on what violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future. I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapcitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life, but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.

Falsely accused, misdiagnosed, "average" citizen can have a "regular" gun? Lots of things to clear up here.

Please quote me where I showed support for red flag laws. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with your Republican congressman.

 

[bluesmoke]

This thread is about Dems and Republican approach to gun control and the constitutionality of those proposals. The SCOTUS has ruled on limitations on 2A. Lets discuss red flag laws and confiscation. Red flag laws are a slippery slope. Thought crimes comes to mind and 4A rights.

“Lets discuss red flag laws and confiscation. Red flag laws are a slippery slope.”

Red flag laws reduce suicides but are ineffective against murder. I agree with the slippery slope concern. However, well-crafted RFLs are a big help and also prevent families from having loved ones involuntarily committed to mental institution for lack of the RFL option.

It’s all about due process, really. Oregon is a fair example of good RFL. The following is an excerpt from an article on that law linked further below:

If they're successful, a judge will grant a temporary order of up to two weeks, during which a court hearing must be held with the potentially dangerous individual. During this hearing, the highest evidentiary standard in civil law — clear and convincing evidence — will be used to determine whether to continue the extreme-risk protection order for the full 182 days or whether to return the firearm(s) to the individual.

ACLU Neutral on Colorado Red Flag Law, Concerned About Jail Overcrowding | Westword

 

[swing_voter]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~ James Madison

The full text is:

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.


Gun ownership is a state's right. Like California, Florida, Texas kind of right. Second Amendment is saying the federal government can't legislate gun ownership, but the states sure as hell can.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Please quote me where I showed support for red flag laws. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with your Republican congressman.

Yep, your "reply" post simply asserted that debate on where lines are crossed was constitutional - in others words, general purpose BS not addressing either of the OP's two topics or what I had to say on them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~ James Madison

The full text is:

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.


Gun ownership is a state's right. Like California, Florida, Texas kind of right. Second Amendment is saying the federal government can't legislate gun ownership, but the states sure as hell can.

Is that (bolded above) true of all BoR amendments or just the 2A? One might interpret a "right of the people to ...." (like SSM or abortion) to be applicable to folks living in the several (united?) states or it would have little (or no?) meaning at all.

 

[jamesrage]

Democrats want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Republicans want judges to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who have not broken the law but may in the future. Both are unconstitutional. #ShallNotBeInfringed

I support neither.Our 2nd amendment was created so that average citizens can have the weapons necessary to defend against invasions and a tyrannical government. I do not support taking away someone's right to keep and bear arms with out due process of the standards of a criminal trial.Merely being suspected of violent behavior shouldn't get you put on some list where you have prove your innocence. Sure if someone is saying they want to murder people then sure that should be enough deny them their 2nd amendment rights assuming it can be proven that person said they want to murder people. If someone is nuts and dangerous then that person's loved ones should be able to make their case to the state to have that person examined by a shrink to see of that person is nuts and dangerous and then put in the nut house if they are found to be nuts and dangerous.

 

[bluesmoke]

Why is a gun, legally purchased from a FFL dealer, after passing a NICS BGC no longer "regular"? When the government gives itself the power to "regulate" the possession a gun rightfully owned on Monday into a crime (felony?) on Tuesday that should be ruled by the SCOTUS to be infringement. Trying to assert that it's not a ban it's only a regulation is what clearly failed in DC vs Heller. When new vehicle manufacturing standards are changed the government does not make it a crime to drive pervious vehicle models or even ban them from use on public roadways it "grandfathers" them in and patiently awaits their eventual demise.

The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future. I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapacitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life, but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.

“The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future.”

The basic concept does not involve a “conviction” nor should any RFL.

“I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapacitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life,”

I have a big problem with that. Judges involved in the temporary removal of firearms from someone should have nothing to do with declaring someone mental ill or with any kind of mental disorder and have such on that person’s record. These proceedings should not be any kind of which might serve as evidence to have someone committed to a mental institution or be on any kind of record accessible that could affect that person in any way except for the decision at hand.

“but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.”

People can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution based on concrete evidence of imminent danger and if such is determined by a LEO by observation of behavior in any situation involving the officer, that ill behaving can be brought to ER where they can get or be hospitalized for in-house psychiatric evaluation. All of this is case law. The person in question is someone with no civil or criminal record of any kind. So, you can have your opinion on the matter but the facts support RFL.

 

[aociswundumho]

Further we proved that it actually is Constitutional for the government to limit certain people from having certain types of weapons, and that by your own definition you're a Constitution-hating gun-grabber for also supporting that.

Within 20 years guns being made at home will be prevalent as 3d printers and home cnc mills keep getting cheaper and better, and distributing the files is perfectly legal.

Basically, you gun grabbers are screwed.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Democrats want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Republicans want judges to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who have not broken the law but may in the future. Both are unconstitutional. #ShallNotBeInfringed

Crazy people who have broken no law can be committed to mental institutions involuntarily. Are you okay with that?

 

[vegas giants]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~ James Madison

The full text is:

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.


Gun ownership is a state's right. Like California, Florida, Texas kind of right. Second Amendment is saying the federal government can't legislate gun ownership, but the states sure as hell can.

The federal government can and does regulate firearms

 

[ttwtt78640]

“The basic concept of a "red falg" law is to allow a judge to convict a person based on violent crimes which they might be more likely to commit in the future.”

The basic concept does not involve a “conviction” nor should any RFL.

“I have no problem with using "red flag" laws to declare a person incapacitated (metally disabled) and to ensure that they are appointed a guardian and are qualified to recieve public assistance in performing the daily functions required for continued quality of life,”

I have a big problem with that. Judges involved in the temporary removal of firearms from someone should have nothing to do with declaring someone mental ill or with any kind of mental disorder and have such on that person’s record. These proceedings should not be any kind of which might serve as evidence to have someone committed to a mental institution or be on any kind of record accessible that could affect that person in any way except for the decision at hand.

“but to simply use that as a reason (excuse?) to take away some of their personal property is simply an extension of cvil asset forfeiture - we think you are guilty (yet we lack evidence to pursue criminal charges) so here is your sentence.”

People can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution based on concrete evidence of imminent danger and if such is determined by a LEO by observation of behavior in any situation involving the officer, that ill behaving can be brought to ER where they can get or be hospitalized for in-house psychiatric evaluation. All of this is case law. The person in question is someone with no civil or criminal record of any kind. So, you can have your opinion on the matter but the facts support RFL.

Hmm... if the RFL results in no "on the record" black mark then how does the RFL prevent someone from buying (or borrowing) a gun?

 

[apdst]

Yeah, all rights have limits. The Constitution in no way, shape, or form says that any American, regardless of his criminal history, should have access to every type of weapon ever made. Reasonable restrictions on what types of weapons that can be bought (No tanks, no nuclear weapons, no gatlin guns, etc.) and who can buy those weapons (no murderers, rapists, diagnosed severely mentally ill, etc.) have been applied since the beginning. Neither party wants all guns banned and both support the right of the average law-abiding citizen to have regular firearms. Where we draw the line is absolutely up for debate and completely constitutional.

What guns does The Constitution say we can't own?

 

[apdst]

Do you really believe that Democrats do not want a total ban?

Not one damn bit.

 

[apdst]

More than you believe they do. I've been hearing this sad song for decades. So far how many folks do you know who have had their firearms confiscated?

Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun – CBS Baltimore

 

[apdst]

We can derive any number of things from your OP.

Arguably, red flag laws still involve going in front of a judge which means due process has been addressed. May not be the traditional sense but that is how we ended up with secret courts for mass domestic spying, someone did have their day in court even if they did not know about it.

Democrats are looking for various gun restrictions by type (and other things,) and I am not convinced how the Supreme Court (given current leans) would handle a challenge to that.

Except, no law will have been broken. Hence, no due process.

 

[WCH]

Within 20 years guns being made at home will be prevalent as 3d printers and home cnc mills keep getting cheaper and better, and distributing the files is perfectly legal.

Basically, you gun grabbers are screwed.

Back during Prohibition, guns were made at home the old fashion way...by hand.

 

[aociswundumho]

No mainstream Democrat has called for an outright gun ban.

Both Joe Biden and Diane Feinswine are on record supporting outright gun bans.

 

[zsu2357]

Do you really believe that Democrats do not want a total ban?

It's what they want alright. Not even 24 hours since the gunfire in Philadelphia and the dem. Presidential candidates among other anti gunners are dancing in the blood of wounded to further their call.

 

[zsu2357]

I see. So neither you nor the OP can provide one single shred of evidence that the Democrats want a full gun ban, you're just here to distract from the actual topic with nonsensical and pointless ramblings.

Then why do they keep referencing an Australian type ban? Perhaps not a full ban but just as good.