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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Then do those reasonable things already. When one’s right to have a device who’s primary purpose is to end life is in conflict with a person’s right to life, the right to life should take precedence.
Were the taking of innocent lives isolated incidences on par with other developed nation, I would say these two things can coexist while we are implementing these “reasonable things”. But this is not the case. It’s fair to say this is an epidemic in the loose definition of the term. And if a person’s right to bear arms gets stepped on while we are finding a point of coexistence, then so be it. In the nutter alternative, countless lives should be lost while we fight tooth and nail.

Is it really any different than the arguments we hear from anti-vaxxers?

 

[ZiprHead]

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

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

Pay attention, the law worked because his guns were not confiscated.

I suspect the visit by police was a preliminary investigation and a red flag ruling had not been made at the time of the visit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Then do those reasonable things already. When one’s right to have a device who’s primary purpose is to end life is in conflict with a person’s right to life, the right to life should take precedence.
Were the taking of innocent lives isolated incidences on par with other developed nation, I would say these two things can coexist while we are implementing these “reasonable things”. But this is not the case. It’s fair to say this is an epidemic in the loose definition of the term. And if a person’s right to bear arms gets stepped on while we are finding a point of coexistence, then so be it. In the nutter alternative, countless lives should be lost while we fight tooth and nail.

Is it really any different than the arguments we hear from anti-vaxxers?

Not really. I personally think all these hardline positions have the reek of obvious propaganda. Reasonable informed positions don't have the provision of no compromise or such outright rejection of other viewpoints.

Even if vaccines did cause autism in some percentage of the population they prevent disease and death in a much higher percentage. But they don't even do that. I happen to think that any harm that is less than the cost of doing nothing ought be accepted in the interim while developing better solutions or mitigating remaining harms.

Trust but verify; accept then correct; adopt and debug.

Only reject when what you have works worse than what you had.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

We're taking DBT's description of the video at face value. Are we sure this was a red flag investigation or a neighbor concerned about a guy waving guns about irresponsibly?

 

[bilby]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

I can lose my driver's license if the government determines that my vision isn't good enough, even if I haven't had any incidents. The NRA should have been fighting that precedent.

To be fair, the government doesn't take your drivers licence because they suspect you have bad vision.

To be fair, the government doesn't take people's drivers licences; It withdraws the government's drivers licence from people.

Driving is dangerous; It's a privilege you must earn by proving you have the minimum necessary capability, not a right you are entitled to except in specific cases where you are demonstrably unfit.

The same is true of gun ownership, in the civilised world. Making the bearing of arms into a legal right is bloody crazy.

 

[bilby]

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

Everyone is part of the militia.

Not if they never attend a muster, or put themselves under the command of an officer of the militia, they aren't.

When did you last muster?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Then do those reasonable things already. When one’s right to have a device who’s primary purpose is to end life is in conflict with a person’s right to life, the right to life should take precedence.
Were the taking of innocent lives isolated incidences on par with other developed nation, I would say these two things can coexist while we are implementing these “reasonable things”. But this is not the case. It’s fair to say this is an epidemic in the loose definition of the term. And if a person’s right to bear arms gets stepped on while we are finding a point of coexistence, then so be it. In the nutter alternative, countless lives should be lost while we fight tooth and nail.

Is it really any different than the arguments we hear from anti-vaxxers?

From a public safety standpoint, no. If you want to get the measles, go right ahead but you cannot control the transmission of the virus in public, so it’s isolate or vaccinate. Similarly, your right own a gun stops when you can no longer control the projectile.

 

[DBT]

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

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

We're taking DBT's description of the video at face value. Are we sure this was a red flag investigation or a neighbor concerned about a guy waving guns about irresponsibly?

Here's the video that was posted on the gun forum. Just to reiterate, I am not against red flag laws if firearms are removed because there is good evidence that the owner is a risk to the community.

My complaint is on the basis of claims, hearsay, perhaps malicious intent by a neighbor, political reasons, attending a rally or being in the vicinity, etc, which should be properly investigated before action is taken to confiscate.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/76pAwR0ociQ[/YOUTUBE]

Just noticed that another video posted on that forum. I haven't had a chance to watch. I'm not endorsing anything said on it, just giving an example of what is concerning to the members of that forum.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/n6Lyeeq17fY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

That appears to be the case. The police may act on the flimsiest of reasons, a suspicion, an unfounded claim. Which opens the system to abuse, a relationship goes bad and an emotional partner lashes out by filing a false claim, dishing out their own form of punishment. The red flag laws may be good in principle, but it seems that these are flawed as they now stand.

If the reports are correct, there are not enough safeguards in place.

That's where I stand on it, also. It's a form of restraining order and should be subject to at least the same level of control--and when it's going to have repercussions (the guy whose job involves guns) there is even more need to be sure. In practice post #2 seems to sum up how a lot of people feel about it--it's a way to take away some guns, justice is irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then why doesn't it just say that? Why the phony distinction?

Although, I’m not against red flag laws. There are other instances where a Constitutional right can be restructed, so long as the State has a high burden and there is due process.

I think the burden should be high and it should be set up to protect the innocent. An example of the problem: I forget the state but a woman quite legitimately reported someone--but only with name & description. The police went and took the guns from someone with the same name but a very different description. The burden of proof to get his guns back is on him--and he has no power to compel her to testify.

You seem to be arguing that laws and their application must be perfect. Isn't that impossible? It could be reasonably argued that all laws are ideal in their intent, but that idealism and perfect intent has to be put into words and into actions by people who are not incapable of acting stupidly. You are essentially arguing that we can't have traffic speed laws unless we are certain we can execute the law perfectly. But yet many people are left to break the law. How do you explain the apparent double standard?

I am arguing that it should be approached from an innocent until proven guilty approach, not a guilty until proven innocent approach. I realize perfection is impossible but when the system is set up such that an obvious mistake can't be fixed it's a bad system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

Pay attention, the law worked because his guns were not confiscated.

And I suppose you're fine with the police coming questioning you about a crime because the perp was identified as a white male.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why doesn't it just say that? Why the phony distinction?



You seem to be arguing that laws and their application must be perfect. Isn't that impossible? It could be reasonably argued that all laws are ideal in their intent, but that idealism and perfect intent has to be put into words and into actions by people who are not incapable of acting stupidly. You are essentially arguing that we can't have traffic speed laws unless we are certain we can execute the law perfectly. But yet many people are left to break the law. How do you explain the apparent double standard?

I am arguing that it should be approached from an innocent until proven guilty approach, not a guilty until proven innocent approach. I realize perfection is impossible but when the system is set up such that an obvious mistake can't be fixed it's a bad system.

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So in this thread, I see a pattern that I have seen a hundred times before, with one side arguing in bad faith. Yes, one of the sides here is absolutely arguing in bad faith.

Imagine an office. In this office there is a task involving summing numbers in a table. One employee has the good idea to put this into Excel and do what would take 8 hours in 8 minutes.

Now, one of the employees doing this task complains that the process of using Excel to solve the problem opens it up to errors. Of course, they can't point to any errors, but "computers get it wrong sometimes".

Rather than doing an analysis in the remaining 7 now unused hours of the day, the complaining employee gets management to ban the use of Excel in the task.

This is an issue wherein one side has clearly dishonest motives for attempting a repeal of an advancement. If their motives were honest, they would instead attempt to debug.

One side of this argument here is attempting to cry for repeal rather than a debug. It is not an honest tactic. A debug can still produce a final determination of rewrite or rejection.

This is quite common here, arguing for full rejection rather than tuning an imperfect solution, or allowing a stopgap and iterating.

I personally think such calls for repeal rather than amendment are hyperbolic.

In other words, continue trampling rights forever as there won't be any real pressure to fix things. You don't get to keep doing wrong while you wait for someone to sit on their hands while supposedly figuring out that you're doing wrong.

Locally, the state can't fix the law for a year and a half. It's either going to stand or be thrown out by a judge, there are no other paths.

 

[laughing dog]

Pay attention, the law worked because his guns were not confiscated.

And I suppose you're fine with the police coming questioning you about a crime because the perp was identified as a white male.

I’ve had the police point weapons on me because I
“resembled” a suspect because of my race and beard color despite the fact the suspect was 8 inches taller and 80 lbs heavier, so no, it wouldn’t bother me,

Got any other irrelevant and dumb conjectures?

 

[DBT]

Then why doesn't it just say that? Why the phony distinction?



You seem to be arguing that laws and their application must be perfect. Isn't that impossible? It could be reasonably argued that all laws are ideal in their intent, but that idealism and perfect intent has to be put into words and into actions by people who are not incapable of acting stupidly. You are essentially arguing that we can't have traffic speed laws unless we are certain we can execute the law perfectly. But yet many people are left to break the law. How do you explain the apparent double standard?

I am arguing that it should be approached from an innocent until proven guilty approach, not a guilty until proven innocent approach. I realize perfection is impossible but when the system is set up such that an obvious mistake can't be fixed it's a bad system.

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

The guy in the video stood up for himself quite strongly. Not everyone can do that. Nor should he have had police coming to his door in the first place for merely being in the vicinity of a rally.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Yes, for example the mandatory background checks that the gun lobby continues to fight against "tooth and nail".

The gun lobby isn't going to give an inch, period, because it's in their financial interest not to.

Huh? The gun manufacturers would actually benefit from universal background checks because they would make buying a used gun more of a hassle, driving more people to new guns. The reasons for the opposition are considerable:

1) The government has already shown it is dishonest about them. The gun-grabbers very much want a list of all the guns because you can't hope to seize them very well if you don't already have a list. The Brady check law specifically stated that the records could not be kept. No surprise, they're being kept.

2) Background checks are not a serious limit for a gun store. They're a big headache for private party sales, in some cases they would be entirely outlawed (because why would a gun dealer cooperate in doing the check unless compelled to?)

3) Background checks are applied to situations that aren't transfers in the first place. When the Brady checks came along there were a bunch of ads in the newspaper from pawn shops pointing out that if you didn't claim your gun before <effective date> that you would have to go through the background check to get your own gun back.

3a) What about the rancher who tells the ranch hand "take that rifle out and deal with the marauding coyote"? Illegal in states with strict background check laws.

Besides, there's a far better solution: I'll willingly vote for your strict background checks if you also accept a gun possession permit system. The same background check you would need to possess the gun, but it's done in advance, you can show the permit in lieu of performing the check. Some places do this with CCW permits, I'm saying you should be able to get the check part of it without the class part of it. This does everything the gun grabbers claim to want, but it doesn't run up the cost and it doesn't produce a list of guns. I've gotten some pro-gun people who like my idea and have found some who have proposed something similar. The left doesn't like it, though.

Besides, background checks will do nothing about children being shot by accident. The solution there is storage requirements--and that doesn't mean a big honking safe, just anything that locks up the gun. (And give the CPSC the power to order the immediate recall of anything sold for locking up guns that proves to be reasonably openable by a child.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Then do those reasonable things already. When one’s right to have a device who’s primary purpose is to end life is in conflict with a person’s right to life, the right to life should take precedence.
Were the taking of innocent lives isolated incidences on par with other developed nation, I would say these two things can coexist while we are implementing these “reasonable things”. But this is not the case. It’s fair to say this is an epidemic in the loose definition of the term. And if a person’s right to bear arms gets stepped on while we are finding a point of coexistence, then so be it. In the nutter alternative, countless lives should be lost while we fight tooth and nail.

The left always tries to take them too far, nothing gets done.

The issue was accidental shootings. The answer is requiring guns to be locked up if there are going to be kids about. That doesn't mean a gun safe, a simple locked box is fine, or a locked cable that prevents a round from being chambered. The left wants major burglar-resistant storage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then why doesn't it just say that? Why the phony distinction?



You seem to be arguing that laws and their application must be perfect. Isn't that impossible? It could be reasonably argued that all laws are ideal in their intent, but that idealism and perfect intent has to be put into words and into actions by people who are not incapable of acting stupidly. You are essentially arguing that we can't have traffic speed laws unless we are certain we can execute the law perfectly. But yet many people are left to break the law. How do you explain the apparent double standard?

I am arguing that it should be approached from an innocent until proven guilty approach, not a guilty until proven innocent approach. I realize perfection is impossible but when the system is set up such that an obvious mistake can't be fixed it's a bad system.

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

Read!

I was talking about a case out of I think Florida. The guy lost his guns because his name matches the person reported. Never mind that his description very much doesn't match. The burden is on him to get her (the woman who reported the guy) to come to court to testify he's not the one she was talking about--but he has no power to compel her to show up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trust but verify; accept then correct; adopt and debug.

Only reject when what you have works worse than what you had.

Or when the existence of the flawed system means it won't get fixed. (Look what has happened with the 4th--there used to be little reason for a cop to get a warrant. The Supreme Court put some teeth into it the only way they could--chucking the improperly obtained evidence. The real answer is to punish the police who don't follow the rules and that's what they intended to follow their ruling--but note that we still chuck the evidence and do nothing about the police misconduct.)

 

[laughing dog]

What obvious mistake was not fixed? The man’s firearm was not taken in the video?

The guy in the video stood up for himself quite strongly. Not everyone can do that. Nor should he have had police coming to his door in the first place for merely being in the vicinity of a rally.

Even though I doubt we have all the facts (police refusing to execute a lawful court order is highly unusual), he did not have his guns seized despite the unjust order.

What evidence is there that the order was based only on being near a rally?