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

[DBT]

I referred to dangerous gun owners. There are gun owners who are dangerous - there is plenty of evidence to support that statement ( gun murders are a daily occurrence). It would be a clear and obvious misreading of my post to think it referred to all gun owners.

Who are these 'dangerous gun owners?' Do you know? Do you have information? Stats?

 

[DBT]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about;

''While recently having breakfast with a friend,Stephen Nichols mentioned his concerns about a school resource officer who was evidently prone to take frequent coffee breaks, leaving his post each morning. Troubled by a lack of law enforcement presence, Nichols said he was worried someone would come “shoot up the school.”

On the strength of those few words, a nosy waitress called the Tisbury Police about what she overheard, and the Police Chief Mark Saloio and another officer relieved the 84-year-old of his crossing guard duties while he was escorting kids across the street. They then drove to his home and removed his firearms license and guns. Any paperwork provided for the seizure? Any due process? Nope.''

''In 2017, Corporal Phil Morris of the Colorado State University police officer encountered 19-year-old Jeremy Holmes acting erratically with a large hunting knife. Morris asked Holmes to drop the knife 36 times in the two-minute video.

In the police video, Holmes stated that he wanted police to shoot him. Morris tried to holster his gun to change to his taser to stun Holmes. Before he could, Holmes charged Morris with the knife forcing the officer to shoot and kill him.

District Attorney Clifford Riedel found the shooting to be “clearly justified.”

The investigation determined that Holmes committed suicide by cop. The internal investigation cleared Morris of any wrongdoing because of the video evidence. He returned to duty.

This month Colorado’s new red flag law went into effect. On January 9th, in Larimer County, Susan Holmes file an extreme risk protection order against Morris.
Morris now must fight for his gun rights in court.

Under Colorado’s red flag law, a family member, household member, or law enforcement officer can file an extreme risk protection order. One of the choices on the form is “I have a child in common with the respondent.” Holmes marked that she and Morris has a child in common.

Holmes points out the form says nothing about having a biological child in common. In her interpretation, she and Morris have Jeremy Holmes in common. The law’s intent was to let a family member file the report, but the form does not make the intention clear…

 

[laughing dog]

Given the level of gun violence in the USA, it should not be confusing or difficult to accept that there are dangerous gun owners.

You refuse to support your statement. Okay.

If you honestly believe there are no dangerous gun owners, rational discussion is not possible. If you do but are playing some stupid game, rational discussion is not possible.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Books are more dangerous than guns. Just ask Nicholas II and Anastasia. I do belong to the NBA, and you can have my books & coffee mug when you pry 'em out of my cold, stiff fingers. But I want to be a responsible book owner. I do realize that a Bible in the wrong hands can lead to unimaginable tragedies. (And yes, I'm a collector, and you'll find a LOT of books in my house. But trust me, I keep children away from them.) But here's the question: how do you gauge just how off-balance the Bible owner is? When do you intervene? I had a nutty aunt (with an equally nutty batch of young uns) who owned a Bible for decades -- it made them feel safe to have one in the house -- and they never went off the deep end and caused bodily harm to others. So, I guess there was no cause for concern. But it's a fine line, and the devil's in the details. Or no, let's leave the devil outta this.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Given the level of gun violence in the USA, it should not be confusing or difficult to accept that there are dangerous gun owners.

You refuse to support your statement. Okay.

If you honestly believe there are no dangerous gun owners, rational discussion is not possible. If you do but are playing some stupid game, rational discussion is not possible.

Saying they exist could mean that in a country of 300 million people there could be 2 of them. Not one, because you used a plural. Are you saying there are 2 of them?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about

What you didn’t note is that, in Stephen Nichols’ case he was never actually terminated—merely suspended while being investigated—and it was almost immediately determined that the waitress who heard Nichols wanted to “shoot up a school” mistook what he said and Nichols was then cleared and reinstated in his crossing guard duties. His guns were not “confiscated” so much as they were given to his grandson.

As for Susan Holmes, not only was her petition rejected by the court, an arrest warrant was issued for perjury in making a false claim and she fled the state.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Books are more dangerous than guns. Just ask Nicholas II and Anastasia.

when i was stationed in Charleston, just after the last ice age, the guy who taught range safety on the naval base went to a civilian gun range for some shooting practice, managed to shoot his son in the leg when they got in the car after the practice.
I never heard of a librarian accidentally harming their kid by improper control of radicalizing knowledge.

 

[laughing dog]

If you honestly believe there are no dangerous gun owners, rational discussion is not possible. If you do but are playing some stupid game, rational discussion is not possible.

Saying they exist could mean that in a country of 300 million people there could be 2 of them. Not one, because you used a plural. Are you saying there are 2 of them?

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you honestly believe there are no dangerous gun owners, rational discussion is not possible. If you do but are playing some stupid game, rational discussion is not possible.

Saying they exist could mean that in a country of 300 million people there could be 2 of them. Not one, because you used a plural. Are you saying there are 2 of them?

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

 

[Elixir]

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

Why don't you just come right out and tell us what you think?
How many lives would have to be saved or how many incremental deaths would be required in order to justify red flag laws?

 

[laughing dog]

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

Any higher estimate of the number of dangerous gun owners is irrelevant to my point that there are dangerous gun owners.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

Why don't you just come right out and tell us what you think?
How many lives would have to be saved or how many incremental deaths would be required in order to justify red flag laws?

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?
How many dangerous gun owners are out there creating the need for red flag laws?
We need to understand the problem before we can talk about solutions ... unless you already have a solution in mind and are looking for a reason.

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

Any higher estimate of the number of dangerous gun owners is irrelevant to my point that there are dangerous gun owners.

So you would be satisfied estimating the number to be "2".

 

[DBT]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about

What you didn’t note is that, in Stephen Nichols’ case he was never actually terminated—merely suspended while being investigated—and it was almost immediately determined that the waitress who heard Nichols wanted to “shoot up a school” mistook what he said and Nichols was then cleared and reinstated in his crossing guard duties. His guns were not “confiscated” so much as they were given to his grandson.

As for Susan Holmes, not only was her petition rejected by the court, an arrest warrant was issued for perjury in making a false claim and she fled the state.

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused. Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

That is the point of concern for some people because they see that due process, presumption of innocence, has failed in these instances - and many more - no matter that they may be sorted out eventually.

Not to mention the effect it has on the person being falsely accused, who may have just made a casual comment in a cafe or to a co-worker. Which is far too flimsy a reason to act upon.

 

[laughing dog]

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused. Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

You are mistaken. Due process foes little to prevent mistaken or arrests made on flimsy evidence. It does offer more protection after the arrest. In both of your examples (which were not such flagrant examples of injustice ad your gunnut sites claimed), the process quickly came to the right outcome.

 

[laughing dog]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have. I think the hysteria in DBT’s gun nut sources is unwarranted. To date, there is no evidence of real harm from these laws.

The citizens of the states with red flag laws through their duly elected officials feel there is sufficient cause (i.e. enough dangerous gun owners) to have red flag laws. Why do you or DBT think you know more than they do?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have.

So what is the number of dangerous gun owners? To date, you have not provided any evidence for your position.

We can't solve the problem until we understand the scale of the problem. Or, if you have a desired solution before even approaching the problem, you might not want to understand the scale of the problem.

 

[DBT]

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused. Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

You are mistaken. Due process foes little to prevent mistaken or arrests made on flimsy evidence. It does offer more protection after the arrest. In both of your examples (which were not such flagrant examples of injustice ad your gunnut sites claimed), the process quickly came to the right outcome.

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

 

[DBT]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have. I think the hysteria in DBT’s gun nut sources is unwarranted. To date, there is no evidence of real harm from these laws.

The citizens of the states with red flag laws through their duly elected officials feel there is sufficient cause (i.e. enough dangerous gun owners) to have red flag laws. Why do you or DBT think you know more than they do?

Hysteria? Not at all, now you are being melodramatic. An issue is being raised where innocent people can be raided and their property seized without proper investigation or due diligence. Often just a rudimentary check on the nature of a claim before acting would be sufficient and prevent a whole lot of trouble for an innocent gun owner....a waitress heard mention of gun violence of context is sufficient cause to raid someones home? Come on, how hard is this to work out before action is taken? Just talk to the claimant and assess the motive and risk.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have. I think the hysteria in DBT’s gun nut sources is unwarranted. To date, there is no evidence of real harm from these laws.

The citizens of the states with red flag laws through their duly elected officials feel there is sufficient cause (i.e. enough dangerous gun owners) to have red flag laws. Why do you or DBT think you know more than they do?

Hysteria? Not at all, now you are being melodramatic. An issue is being raised where innocent people can be raided and their property seized without proper investigation or due diligence. Often just a rudimentary check on the nature of a claim before acting would be sufficient and prevent a whole lot of trouble for an innocent gun owner....a waitress heard mention of gun violence of context is sufficient cause to raid someones home? Come on, how hard is this to work out before action is taken? Just talk to the claimant and assess the motive and risk.

I agree. And in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases should we not believe that proper diligence is undertaken? And people always have legal recourse.

 

[laughing dog]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have. I think the hysteria in DBT’s gun nut sources is unwarranted. To date, there is no evidence of real harm from these laws.

The citizens of the states with red flag laws through their duly elected officials feel there is sufficient cause (i.e. enough dangerous gun owners) to have red flag laws. Why do you or DBT think you know more than they do?

Hysteria? Not at all, now you are being melodramatic. .,..

I am not the one misapplying constitutional amendments to justify my handwringing over hypothetical injustices. I am not the using gun nut sources to present very biased examples based on incomplete information or taking the unverified stories as fact.