Central Maine Medical Center said staff were “reacting to a mass casualty, mass shooter event” and were coordinating with area hospitals to take in patients.
The referenced law isn’t “red flag laws,” those are something else in which simply reporting “my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!”
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he’s mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren’t invited to, but it’s ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove “nuh uh” in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already “destroyed” (read: stolen) the property they’re now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they’ll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this…
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason…
…And then immediately say this…
like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say…taking away someone’s guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I’m not sure how often they’re used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge “he took the last oreo,” if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you’re not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as “he said…”
but it is an violation that is well established by law.
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say “he bad” with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is “unreasonable.” It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more “standard” burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn’t have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns
…until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn’t been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is “I’m right.” The question is “is that good or bad.”
I’m firmly on the side of “it’s bad, innocent until proven guilty is good.”
openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
You mean things that can get you IVC’d? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don’t need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they’re not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just “less good anyway.”
People don’t get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
The referenced law isn’t “red flag laws,” those are something else in which simply reporting “my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!”
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he’s mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren’t invited to, but it’s ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove “nuh uh” in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already “destroyed” (read: stolen) the property they’re now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they’ll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this…
…And then immediately say this…
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say…taking away someone’s guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I’m not sure how often they’re used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge “he took the last oreo,” if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you’re not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as “he said…”
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say “he bad” with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is “unreasonable.” It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more “standard” burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn’t have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns …until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn’t been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is “I’m right.” The question is “is that good or bad.”
I’m firmly on the side of “it’s bad, innocent until proven guilty is good.”
You mean things that can get you IVC’d? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don’t need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they’re not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just “less good anyway.”
People don’t get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?