Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

[laughing dog]

At what point does state regulation tip from being desirable and beneficial to an unnecessary imposition on our rights and liberties, privacy and persuit of interests?

Not the NJ law which provides for temporary action.

 

[DBT]

At what point does state regulation tip from being desirable and beneficial to an unnecessary imposition on our rights and liberties, privacy and persuit of interests?

Not the NJ law which provides for temporary action.

No doubt that there is much disagreement on the point at which a beneficial and desirable degree of control tips into excessive regulation and imposition into our lives by the state.

 

[marc]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

 

[laughing dog]

At what point does state regulation tip from being desirable and beneficial to an unnecessary imposition on our rights and liberties, privacy and persuit of interests?

Not the NJ law which provides for temporary action.

No doubt that there is much disagreement on the point at which a beneficial and desirable degree of control tips into excessive regulation and imposition into our lives by the state.

Unless you live in NJ, this law has no effect on “our” lives.

 

[DBT]

No doubt that there is much disagreement on the point at which a beneficial and desirable degree of control tips into excessive regulation and imposition into our lives by the state.

Unless you live in NJ, this law has no effect on “our” lives.

I was referring to the principle. It's not the only one. Some things may never be implemented, but that doesn't mean they should not be discussed.

 

[laughing dog]

No doubt that there is much disagreement on the point at which a beneficial and desirable degree of control tips into excessive regulation and imposition into our lives by the state.

Unless you live in NJ, this law has no effect on “our” lives.

I was referring to the principle. It's not the only one. Some things may never be implemented, but that doesn't mean they should not be discussed.

I am unaware that anyone is saying this should not be discussed.

 

[DBT]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

 

[DBT]

I was referring to the principle. It's not the only one. Some things may never be implemented, but that doesn't mean they should not be discussed.

I am unaware that anyone is saying should not be discussed.

Your comment appears to imply it. Why else say "unless you live in NJ, this law has no effect on "our" lives?

 

[laughing dog]

I was referring to the principle. It's not the only one. Some things may never be implemented, but that doesn't mean they should not be discussed.

I am unaware that anyone is saying should not be discussed.

Your comment appears to imply it. Why else say "this law has no effect on "our" lives?

Because contrary to your rhetoric, it does not affect my life because I don’t live in NJ.

That has nothing to do with the desirability or perceived efficacy of the law.

 

[DBT]

Your comment appears to imply it. Why else say "this law has no effect on "our" lives?

Because contrary to your rhetoric, it does not affect my life because I don’t live in NJ.

That has nothing to do with the desirability or perceived efficacy of the law.

Whether or the law effects you or me is irrelevant to the discussion of where the line is drawn between reasonable regulation and personal rights and freedoms.

I am asking where that line is to be drawn to achieve a fair balance between personal freedom and the need for community safety.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

I would think these definitions and limitations have been discussed, hence the legislation.

And I'm certain that if people were using their cars to murder and commit violence to the same degree people are using firearms we'd see cars on the take also.

 

[DBT]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

I would think these definitions and limitations have been discussed, hence the legislation.

And I'm certain that if people were using their cars to murder and commit violence to the same degree people are using firearms we'd see cars on the take also.

Maybe so. Sometimes legislation is passed without adequate debate or safeguards in place, perhaps knee jerk reactions, the desire for greater control of the population or just the need to be seen to be doing something. And what is considered to be acceptable to the legislators may not be the case with a significant percentage of the population, who may feel that their rights and freedoms are being eroded. That may or may not be the case in this instance, but I have seen concerns being raised on another forum.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

 

[DBT]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.

In that case there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just overzealous application of the law that came across like the actions of a police state.

This is not a tautology, just a question of how far the state goes in terms of regulation, not based on evidence but suspicion.

It could be argued that it is better to err on the side of caution, but how far does that go?

Some would have it that it has not gone far enough, others that it has already crossed the line.

Who is right?

 

[laughing dog]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.[

Seems to me, the law worked as it was intended in that instance, assuming the description is complete.

 

[Worldtraveller]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.

In that case there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just overzealous application of the law that came across like the actions of a police state.

This is not a tautology, just a question of how far the state goes in terms of regulation, not based on evidence but suspicion.

It could be argued that it is better to err on the side of caution, but how far does that go?

Some would have it that it has not gone far enough, others that it has already crossed the line.

Who is right?

This method of 'discussion' is colloquially referred to as JAQing off. Just asking questions.

So DBT, you now have an assignment. GO READ THE FUCKING LAW. Come back and tell us, in your own words, preferably if you feel like the proverbial line has been drawn in the correct place. It seems to me that less than 200 people out of over 90k registered gun owners (just in NJ) isn't that unreasonable.

While I don't trust cops in general, and I'd be willing to bet that an unfair number of those 200 were probably black people, I'm not quite ready to call this unconstitutional.

 

[Gun Nut]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated.

what, the right to be part of a well regulated militia?

That's the "Well Regulated" part... the part that is frequently skipped over during debate.

 

[Gun Nut]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

Filing a document with false statements on it to the government has fairly harsh penalties. That is one control over these procedures that exists.

 

[Trausti]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated.

what, the right to be part of a well regulated militia?

That's the "Well Regulated" part... the part that is frequently skipped over during debate.

Everyone is part of the militia.

 

[Gun Nut]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.

In that case there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just overzealous application of the law that came across like the actions of a police state.

This is not a tautology, just a question of how far the state goes in terms of regulation, not based on evidence but suspicion.

It could be argued that it is better to err on the side of caution, but how far does that go?

Some would have it that it has not gone far enough, others that it has already crossed the line.

Who is right?

This method of 'discussion' is colloquially referred to as JAQing off. Just asking questions.

So DBT, you now have an assignment. GO READ THE FUCKING LAW. Come back and tell us, in your own words, preferably if you feel like the proverbial line has been drawn in the correct place. It seems to me that less than 200 people out of over 90k registered gun owners (just in NJ) isn't that unreasonable.

While I don't trust cops in general, and I'd be willing to bet that an unfair number of those 200 were probably black people, I'm not quite ready to call this unconstitutional.

I'd be curious to know the distribution of complaint sources (family members versus police, for example). How many "non-household" family members versus household members... versus police officers... That would imply the degree of potential harassment.