Smith And Wesson Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
You have to ask yourself what the true objective of "Red Flag" Extreme Risk Protection Orders really is.

These orders target the inanimate object - "The Gun" - rather than the potential perpetrator of violence.

If a person is potentially violent enough for the state to take away guns in an exParte hearing without the person being present, it should be clear that the person could easily find another source for replacement guns and continue to pursue their violence against themselves or others. And, of course, there are any number of other substitute weapons available to them while their guns are confiscated.

Why stop at taking away guns? In fact, why focus on the guns themselves? Why not go all the way and temporarily incarcerate the potentially violent person for observation until a hearing can be scheduled?

I suspect that the thing preventing supporters of these draconian social manipulation techniques have been overly influenced by people that see the violently insane as "victims" instead of potential problems. At the same time, these people have demonized lawful responsible gun owners as "dangerous" and a public health risk.

That is irrational, and probably reflects the insane levels of irrationality I've witnessed in individuals that are motivated to action by the "gun control" zealots.

Next time you meet one, ask them why they are unwilling to put some real teeth into ERPO laws... I bet the answers will surprise you, especially when you see how confusing truth is to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,663 Posts
If someone is "dangerous" enough to confiscate his guns, then his knives, baseball bats, crow bars, prescription drugs, and so on should be confiscated too. Easier to just lock that person up, either in jail or a looney bin.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
So, we have to ask ourselves, "why don't the current crop of ERPO laws proposed and passed in many states, and soon by congress, address the real safety problem?"

What keeps the politicians that propose, support and vote for these laws from going "all the way" to safety? Isn't violent behavior the real problem that they want to solve? If not, why not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
What's the "real safety problem", and how should it be addressed with people that aren't adjudicated mentally incompetent or convicted criminals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Think about where these laws can go? Cars from anyone who has any alcohol. Lets take everyone 's cell phone because they cause accidents. This is just bad, whether you own a gun or not. How many politicians and lawyers do you trust? Once it is inflicted on one group, they can pick the next they want to control, (In the name of safety of course). I can see divorces will get a lot worse.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,910 Posts
If someone is "dangerous" enough to confiscate his guns, then his knives, baseball bats, crow bars, prescription drugs, and so on should be confiscated too. Easier to just lock that person up, either in jail or a looney bin.
Absolutely, the person is the danger, not an inanimate object!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The real objective of these laws is to determine how close legislatures can come to unconstitutional actions and still have the laws stand.

Washington state was one of the first places that passed these laws. Since enactment in 2014, they have been used 27 times. In 7 of these cases (about 20%) the target of confiscation didn't even have possession of any firearms.

Many suspect that they have not been used more extensively since being passed so that the outrageously dangerous and civil rights violations like the one in Maryland (where the target was literally a target, and killed) don't activate lawful gun owners against them.

And the worst of this is that they are really unnecessary, and the rights violation isn't necessary. There are existing procedures for declaring someone dangerous, and taking them into observational custody - separating them from potential weapons - without resorting to exParte hearings. Of course, they are more invasive and difficult to execute than an order that doesn't allow the target to respond in any way until after it's in force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Washington state is one of the newest states to have this kind of law. They go back to 1999 and Connecticut.

The fact that the law would be used on people that haven't yet bought a firearm is consistent with the purpose of the law - to prevent certain people from possessing guns through either continued possession or new acquisition.


Whether you favor such laws or not, those are the facts.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top