We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment

[G M]

BLM has resulted in many more black people being murdered.

But some people got paid and lots of lefties got to virtue signal on social media.

Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns
The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves.

By Jason L. RileyFollow
June 7, 2022 6:13 pm ET


“The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said Joe Biden last week in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts, just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine.

Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection.

Someone might remind Mr. Biden that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were fueled by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by liberals who have done an extraordinarily bad job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a 7-foot-tall neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio.

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on Heller. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. Ruling in his favor, the court said that the Second Amendment applies with equal force to federal, state and local governments alike. When McDonald died in 2014, the Chicago Tribune obituary described him as “the man who brought down Chicago’s gun ban.”


It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005.


Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets.

The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat crime are now using sensational but statistically rare mass-shooting tragedies as a pretense for curtailing the ability of people in vulnerable communities to defend themselves. The president wants to ban “assault weapons,” raise the purchase age to 21, and expand background checks. There’s no evidence that any of this will address the day-in-day-out gun violence that has driven so many Americans to become first-time gun owners.

The question is whether more restrictions on ordinary Americans in a nation that already has more guns than people will reduce the number of lives lost. Most mass shooters in recent decades have been over 21. The assailants in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, passed background checks and purchased their weapons legally. And from 1994 to 2004, we had a federal assault-weapons ban in place. The reality is that most gun crimes don’t involve such weapons, and a RAND Corp. assessment of these efforts found “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

The source of the problem is the failure or inability of the government to protect us. Common sense dictates that we do what is necessary to protect ourselves in the meantime. Only a fool or an ideologue could believe that the best response to people who commit crimes with guns is launching a holy war against people who respect gun laws.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/108/499/166/original/28d0f813e9d71c38.jpeg

BLM has resulted in many more black people being murdered.

But some people got paid and lots of lefties got to virtue signal on social media.

Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns
The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves.

By Jason L. RileyFollow
June 7, 2022 6:13 pm ET


“The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said Joe Biden last week in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts, just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine.

Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection.

Someone might remind Mr. Biden that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were fueled by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by liberals who have done an extraordinarily bad job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a 7-foot-tall neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio.

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on Heller. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. Ruling in his favor, the court said that the Second Amendment applies with equal force to federal, state and local governments alike. When McDonald died in 2014, the Chicago Tribune obituary described him as “the man who brought down Chicago’s gun ban.”


It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005.


Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets.

The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat crime are now using sensational but statistically rare mass-shooting tragedies as a pretense for curtailing the ability of people in vulnerable communities to defend themselves. The president wants to ban “assault weapons,” raise the purchase age to 21, and expand background checks. There’s no evidence that any of this will address the day-in-day-out gun violence that has driven so many Americans to become first-time gun owners.

The question is whether more restrictions on ordinary Americans in a nation that already has more guns than people will reduce the number of lives lost. Most mass shooters in recent decades have been over 21. The assailants in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, passed background checks and purchased their weapons legally. And from 1994 to 2004, we had a federal assault-weapons ban in place. The reality is that most gun crimes don’t involve such weapons, and a RAND Corp. assessment of these efforts found “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

The source of the problem is the failure or inability of the government to protect us. Common sense dictates that we do what is necessary to protect ourselves in the meantime. Only a fool or an ideologue could believe that the best response to people who commit crimes with guns is launching a holy war against people who respect gun laws.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/laws-targeting-mentally-ill-make-red-flag-laws-unn/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=%2BKi08ztP88WaSaRvW5uV67cOhtLH8D0v9NyMmcEDM7Js0LM9LGkLC%2FOPGNh3m%2BOT&bt_ts=1655201357441

Gun rights advocates say so-called red flag laws that aim to stop mass shootings aren’t needed because states already have laws that allow mentally ill people to be confined against their will and lose the right of firearm ownership for life.

Florida has the Baker Act, which allows the hospitalization of people against their will for mental health evaluations. California and other states have similar laws that allow institutionalization for up to 72 hours for evaluation.

In California, a person who has been involuntarily committed would be prevented from possessing or purchasing a firearm for five years. In Florida, an involuntarily committed individual could lose the right to purchase firearms after confinement.

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said federal law bans mentally ill people from owning guns.

“People who are disqualified for being what is legally known as ‘mental defective,’ they receive a lifetime gun ban when Congress never contemplated they would receive a lifetime gun ban. That’s a problem for Gun Owners of America,” Mr. Johnston said.


“We are early in the life of these policies to really be able to say with rigorous research methods what the effects of these laws are,” said Shannon Frattaroli, a professor and core faculty member of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We certainly have descriptive studies that [extreme risk protection orders] are being used to intervene when someone is identified as being at risk of committing a mass shooting, committing a suicide.”

A bipartisan Senate deal on gun control calls for giving states incentives to enact red flag laws, among other provisions. The agreement, reached Sunday, resolves a decades-long impasse on gun policy.

Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, vary from state to state. Police, family, coworkers, neighbors or friends typically can petition a judge to have someone’s gun taken away when they feel the person is at high risk of hurting themselves or others. Depending on the particular law, the person can lose a firearm for a few days to as long as a year.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws, and the majority of them were enacted from 2018 to 2020 after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

In 2020, red flag laws were used about 5,000 times to temporarily confiscate firearms. Florida is the state that used its red flag law the most, according to a Wall Street Journal report last year.

It’s unclear how many people have their firearms returned.

An NBC affiliate TV station in Denver reported that 146 guns had been confiscated under Colorado’s red flag law since it took effect in 2020 and 116 eventually got their firearms back.

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he is unaware of national data about how frequently firearms are returned to their owners but noted that about one-third of protection orders are overturned once a hearing is held.

“The rate should actually be much higher because few people who go through the hearing process actually have legal counsel,” Mr. Lott said. “The taking of the guns is also usually just temporary, but there is no real national data on how long those takings last.”

He said red flag laws run afoul of due process.

He noted that mentally ill people can be involuntarily committed to hospitals and have their guns confiscated — sometimes for life — under state laws.

“People who truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others should be confined to a mental health facility or be required to seek treatment. Laws used to confiscate guns are typically enforced when dealing with suicidal people,” Mr. Lott said. “However, if someone is suicidal, there are many other ways they may choose to kill themselves. Simply taking away a gun isn’t the answer.”

Ms. Frattaroli said red flag laws aren’t about mental health but instead focus on behavior or words that indicate someone might do harm.

“From all that we know about violence, the best predictors of [violence] are past violent behavior and threats of violence,” she said. “Mental health isn’t a good predictor of future violence. It’s a very different sort of set of criteria.”

She suggested that states and localities that use the laws have more consistency and awareness.

“What’s really important is that attention and resources be paid to implementation,” Ms. Frattaroli said. “When we look across the states, there is tremendous variation across states and within states with regard to how frequently they are being used.”

Last week, the House passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow courts to take guns from people deemed dangerous and bar them from purchasing firearms.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.

[G M]

Red flag laws aren’t about protecting the public, they are about disarming dissidents.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/laws-targeting-mentally-ill-make-red-flag-laws-unn/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=%2BKi08ztP88WaSaRvW5uV67cOhtLH8D0v9NyMmcEDM7Js0LM9LGkLC%2FOPGNh3m%2BOT&bt_ts=1655201357441

Gun rights advocates say so-called red flag laws that aim to stop mass shootings aren’t needed because states already have laws that allow mentally ill people to be confined against their will and lose the right of firearm ownership for life.

Florida has the Baker Act, which allows the hospitalization of people against their will for mental health evaluations. California and other states have similar laws that allow institutionalization for up to 72 hours for evaluation.

In California, a person who has been involuntarily committed would be prevented from possessing or purchasing a firearm for five years. In Florida, an involuntarily committed individual could lose the right to purchase firearms after confinement.

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said federal law bans mentally ill people from owning guns.

“People who are disqualified for being what is legally known as ‘mental defective,’ they receive a lifetime gun ban when Congress never contemplated they would receive a lifetime gun ban. That’s a problem for Gun Owners of America,” Mr. Johnston said.


“We are early in the life of these policies to really be able to say with rigorous research methods what the effects of these laws are,” said Shannon Frattaroli, a professor and core faculty member of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We certainly have descriptive studies that [extreme risk protection orders] are being used to intervene when someone is identified as being at risk of committing a mass shooting, committing a suicide.”

A bipartisan Senate deal on gun control calls for giving states incentives to enact red flag laws, among other provisions. The agreement, reached Sunday, resolves a decades-long impasse on gun policy.

Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, vary from state to state. Police, family, coworkers, neighbors or friends typically can petition a judge to have someone’s gun taken away when they feel the person is at high risk of hurting themselves or others. Depending on the particular law, the person can lose a firearm for a few days to as long as a year.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws, and the majority of them were enacted from 2018 to 2020 after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

In 2020, red flag laws were used about 5,000 times to temporarily confiscate firearms. Florida is the state that used its red flag law the most, according to a Wall Street Journal report last year.

It’s unclear how many people have their firearms returned.

An NBC affiliate TV station in Denver reported that 146 guns had been confiscated under Colorado’s red flag law since it took effect in 2020 and 116 eventually got their firearms back.

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he is unaware of national data about how frequently firearms are returned to their owners but noted that about one-third of protection orders are overturned once a hearing is held.

“The rate should actually be much higher because few people who go through the hearing process actually have legal counsel,” Mr. Lott said. “The taking of the guns is also usually just temporary, but there is no real national data on how long those takings last.”

He said red flag laws run afoul of due process.

He noted that mentally ill people can be involuntarily committed to hospitals and have their guns confiscated — sometimes for life — under state laws.

“People who truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others should be confined to a mental health facility or be required to seek treatment. Laws used to confiscate guns are typically enforced when dealing with suicidal people,” Mr. Lott said. “However, if someone is suicidal, there are many other ways they may choose to kill themselves. Simply taking away a gun isn’t the answer.”

Ms. Frattaroli said red flag laws aren’t about mental health but instead focus on behavior or words that indicate someone might do harm.

“From all that we know about violence, the best predictors of [violence] are past violent behavior and threats of violence,” she said. “Mental health isn’t a good predictor of future violence. It’s a very different sort of set of criteria.”

She suggested that states and localities that use the laws have more consistency and awareness.

“What’s really important is that attention and resources be paid to implementation,” Ms. Frattaroli said. “When we look across the states, there is tremendous variation across states and within states with regard to how frequently they are being used.”

Last week, the House passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow courts to take guns from people deemed dangerous and bar them from purchasing firearms.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.

[Crafty_Dog]

Republicans consider paring down gun control deal

GOP backers have concerns about key provisions

BY HARIS ALIC THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Republicans are getting antsy about Congress’ bipartisan gun deal, with GOP supporters expressing reservations about the package’s key provisions.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said negotiators had encountered obstacles when translating the deal’s framework into legislation.

“I’m starting to get a little concerned, though, that there are a couple of issues that need to be settled before we can reach an agreement,” said Mr. Cornyn, a lead GOP negotiator.

Fault lines have emerged over the proposal’s incentives for states to adopt “red flag” laws and its broadening of restrictions on gun ownership for people accused or convicted of domestic violence.

Republicans say that since some states will choose not to adopt red flag laws, which allow courts to prohibit people deemed threats from buying or possessing guns, the deal should take that into account. They note that states without red flag laws often have crisis intervention and mental health programs that should be eligible to receive funding under the deal.

“I just don’t think anything that funds 19 states for their programs, but ignores other states that have chosen not to have a red flag law but have other ways to address the same problem, is going to fly,” said Mr. Cornyn.

GOP lawmakers are also concerned about the proposed new restrictions on gun ownership by those accused of domestic violence. Federal law already prohibits individuals from owning or purchasing guns if they have been convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or someone they lived with or had a child.

The law does not cover individuals convicted of domestic violence against people with whom they were engaged in romantic relationships.

Republicans say that they support closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” but worry about how to properly define non-married relationships under law.

“We have to come up with a good definition of what that actually means,” said Mr. Cornyn. “It’s got to be clear and it’s got to be something that can be actually applied because we’re talking about pretty serious consequences.”

The impasse comes as the Senate races to finalize a gun deal before departing Washington next week for the July 4 recess.

At the moment, more than 20 lawmakers have signed on to support a framework agreement that would boost funding for school security and mental health, subsidize state red flag laws, close the “boyfriend loophole” and include juvenile records in background checks for gun purchases.

While at least 11 Republicans are backing the agreement in principle — an important number since most legislation requires at least 60 votes to pass the evenly split Senate — their support is tenuous.

Negotiators fret that if they cannot properly craft the legislation to keep GOP support on board, then they will have to be forced to cut out provisions or risk tanking the whole deal.

“At some point, if we can’t get to 60 then we’re going to have to pare some of this, some of it down,” said Mr. Cornyn.

Democratic supporters say, however, that there is still time to find a compromise.

“The problems and issues are fixable,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat. “The timeline is tight, but it is achievable.”

===========================
===========================

Red-flag laws raise red flags

They would not be necessary if existing legislation were fairly enforced

By David Keene

Analysis of the gun control “deal” Senate Republicans and Democrats struck last week will focus on the so-called red-flag laws that have become flavor of the week favorites of politicians and gun control activists.

Red-flag laws sound good in concept. Who would disagree with the wisdom of disarming those in the midst of a psychic break or mentally unhinged as to represent an immediate threat to themselves or others? As always, however, the devil lurks in the details. What about due process? What sort of threat justifies suspending one’s rights even temporarily?

Who gets to determine whether an individual is dangerous enough? Red-flag laws can be easily abused by those who get to decide who represents a real danger. How will this law avoid the fact that laws such as these will almost inevitably cast a wider and more dangerous net than originally intended? What remedies exist to avoid or at least minimize such abuse? What happens when the crisis triggering the “temporary” seizure of one’s firearms has passed?

When such proposals were first gaining popularity, I was asked as an NRA officer if there were any circumstances where the NRA or other pro-Second Amendment organizations could support such a law. A proposal designed narrowly enough to accomplish its goal and incapable of being abused by those administering it might well win approval, but I warned that the concerns above had to be addressed satisfactorily and any such law would have to include real due process protection.

The advocates of these various proposals since have since largely ignored these fundamental questions. During the Obama years, some states including Maryland considered adopting red flag laws that would allow virtually anyone to call police on someone they considered a “danger” and empower the police to confiscate the accused’s guns without anything resembling due process. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have since enacted red-flag laws, or what they call “Gun Violence Restraining Orders.” Some are better than others, but none are perfect. Too many people under many of these laws can force police action, although most local authorities seem to have acted with restraint thus far.

Laws adopted by individual states from California to Florida to Indiana are enforced at the state and local levels. President Biden and Congressional Democrats want a federal one-size-fits-all law enforceable in the federal courts and executed by federal law enforcement officials. Fortunately, Senate Republicans forced Democrats to abandon this approach or even a nationwide mandate requiring states to pass such laws in favor of financial incentives to “encourage” them to do so. A few more states might, but many of those who don’t have them now aren’t likely to do so.

What’s more, even though 20 senators have signed on to “a framework,” the legislative language on which the Senate will eventually have to vote has yet to be written. A top Senate aide told Politico, “One of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.” Gun owners, Second Amendment supporters and those who represent them must insist that any “text” that is agreed to must answer the questions above in an acceptable way. If not, the text and the framework should be scuttled.

Most states can already temporarily detain or disarm anyone deemed dangerous. As in so many instances, new laws would not be necessary if existing laws already on the books were fairly and uniformly enforced. The same can be said about the “framework” agreement to toughen laws against “straw purchasers” buying firearms for others. This is already illegal and is one of the least enforced of all firearms laws; enhancing it will do little other than allow politicians to say they’ve done “something.”

Democrats also wanted to outlaw anyone under 21 from buying a gun. That is off the table and the compromise “framework” would instead somehow allow background checks to include sealed mental health and juvenile criminal records for younger potential purchasers. This may make some sense as most school shooters fall into this category, and a few may have been prohibited from legally acquiring a gun if this could be done now. Getting the states to agree to allow access to these records, however, is likely to be far more difficult than anyone suspects. Not only do state requirements limiting access to such information vary widely, but the proposal will stir up juvenile rights advocates and mental health advocates along with their elected allies.

Still, the belated recognition by Congress of the importance of enhanced school security and the way in which a flawed mental health system has allowed those who even under existing law shouldn’t have access to firearms is good news. Senate Republicans didn’t do badly in getting Democrats to take some really bad ideas off the table and the substance of what they agreed to in principle isn’t all that bad, but slippery slopes are dangerous places to be and opening the door to far worse restrictions if a package based on the agreement makes it to the floor could prove disastrous.

These Senators have not “sold out” gun owners — yet — but they have put them in real danger. They will be judged by millions of gun-friendly voters on whether what makes it to the Senate floor meets the concerns of gun owners and whether they make it clear that they will oppose any additional restrictions. If they don’t, they will have abandoned their principles to stand before the cameras with their anti-gun colleagues to claim they’ve “done something.”

David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.

[G M]

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/06/16/lying-to-your-face-twitter-law-school-thread-on-red-flag-laws-and-how-they-will-absolutely-be-abused-an-infuriating-must-read/

[ccp]

https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/acp-advocate/archive/june-17-2022/acp-strengthens-advocacy-to-prevent-firearm-violence-amid-recurrence-of-mass-shootings?utm_campaign=FY21-22_NEWS_ACPADVOCATE_061722_EML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

funny . I don't recall them making a stink about all the inner city gang violence .

wonder why that is.

just like I never in 38 yrs heard anything that would be construed as pro LIFE [corrected]
or unborn baby rights.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/street-brawls-gang-gunfights-dominate-causes-267-m/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=V9zHQXPVefqjzx14bnVFluaRipgTtauWPL0a7E4odUS%2BdM0qrtrZMOJwlvPTpZpe&bt_ts=1655404399133

[Crafty_Dog]

An example of why I hesitate with Mercola.  Is the 98% number really true?  Only 2% of mass shooting occur in black gang fights?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/97-8-of-mass-shootings-are-linked-to-this_4537542.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-06-18&utm_medium=email&est=WV9sXCkADyIXENwDLHTR%2BqqfXyVeTcsrafuiJycekmVbR%2F69kfHkWuQvSnso%2FrQJB2nU

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/colorados-red-flag-law-used-to-target-officer-involved-in-fatal-shooting/73-f52ddaca-893d-493b-983c-db9ecf250ad3?fbclid=IwAR2HZdH6vKJlsQjXCgMLzJebXV0UR25SPdIGdza5Ib_Tb-XwQwpIPH_yfuA

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/public-safety/2019/11/22/gun-control-nj-red-flag-law-tested-case-between-middletown-man-and-doctor/4253289002/?fbclid=IwAR288XczToZpwGy69dQ9ItHchfxMWMgYVRKX_iAGIvVLHHfIW2KkmYPeY2o

[G M]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220616/treachery-white-house-moves-to-strangle-us-ammunition-supply

[Crafty_Dog]

Was on the road for 12 hours today.  Heard we won on the SCOTUS Second Amendment case.  Anyone have the citation for the case?

[G M]

Was on the road for 12 hours today.  Heard we won on the SCOTUS Second Amendment case.  Anyone have the citation for the case?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/historic-win-gun-rights-scotus-rules-ny-draconian-restrictions-are-unconstitutional

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

This is shorter than the decision haha

The Supreme Court Strikes a Historic Blow for Second Amendment Rights

Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., October 21, 2021. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Share
631 Comments
Listen to article
By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
June 23, 2022 2:19 PM
In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court affirmed that gun rights are due the same protection as all other constitutional rights.
Today’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is not only the most important Second Amendment ruling since D.C. v. Heller, it is potentially the most important Second Amendment ruling in American history.

For all the brouhaha, the question at hand in Bruen was rather straightforward: Can the state of New York require that applicants for gun-carry permits “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” or is New York obliged by the Constitution to offer a “shall issue” regime of the sort that 43 of the other 49 states have adopted? By a 6–3 vote, the justices decided that the latter approach is required. In the United States, Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion concluded, “authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.” Moreover, while there is nothing illegal about America’s existing state-level permitting systems, those systems may not be mere smokescreens for outright prohibition, unequal protection, or unacceptable delay. “We do not rule out,” Thomas added in a footnote, any “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

As Justice Alito was keen to note, this “holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.” It concludes solely that:

The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

Bottom line: New York is allowed to exclude carry-permit applications on a categorical basis (e.g., the applicant has a felony conviction), but not on a subjective one (e.g., the applicant doesn’t “need” a gun in the view of the determining officer).

To get there, the majority first determined that “nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, “to confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home,” the majority observed, “would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.” This, Thomas explained, would not do, because “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

Next, the majority examined the relevant history. In its brief, the state of New York offered up three objections to the claim that broad gun-carry rights have a long historical pedigree in the United States: the existence of “common-law offenses” prior to the Second Amendment’s ratification; the existence of “statutory prohibitions” before, during, and after the late 18th century; and the existence of “surety statutes” that required Americans who carried guns in public to post bond before doing so. As in Heller, the majority made short work of all three contentions.

The “common law” in question is primarily the Statute of Northampton, an English law that was passed in the 14th century and adopted by many American colonies in the 17th century. But, as Thomas noted in what is a thorough and much-deserved fisking, even if one believed that the meaning of the Statute of Northampton (1328) could somehow limit the meaning of the Second Amendment (1791), the interpretation presented by the plaintiffs would still be wrong. (And probably deliberately so: During oral arguments, Justice Alito chided one of the state’s lawyers for cutting out some of the Statute’s key words.) By its plain text, the Statute of Northampton prohibited the carrying of arms in order to terrify others or to breach the peace; it did not prohibit the carrying of arms per se. That being so, the Court concluded that there is “no evidence indicating that these common-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to peaceable public carry.”

The same problem pertained to the “surety statutes” that were offered up in New York’s defense. As Thomas noted, such laws did indeed require people who “could not prove a special need for self-defense, to post a bond before publicly carrying a firearm,” but — and this is crucial — only in such cases as those people were deemed “reasonably likely to ‘breach the peace.’” To explain this, Thomas cited William Rawle, who explained at the time of the Constitution’s ratification that the carrying of arms was “sufficient cause to require [the carrier] to give surety of the peace” only when it was “attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them.”

The final area of inquiry was into the various statutory prohibitions and limits on carry that have been in force throughout American history. This area of the law is a little more complex — especially given that, under Thomas’s judicial approach, “historical evidence that long predates or postdates” the passage of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment “may not illuminate the scope of the right” — but, on balance, Thomas was correct to note that, historically, “concealed-carry prohibitions” have been “constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry.” Or to put it another way: Even if one believes that statutes regulating carry are important to ascertaining the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, one has to reckon with the fact that New York prohibits open carry completely, that it refuses to permit concealed carry on an equal basis, and that it is therefore in violation of the plain meaning of the “bear arms” provision within the Second Amendment as incorporated via the 14th.

Summing up his approach, Thomas submitted that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In so doing, he clarified many of Heller’s loose ends, and took a great stride toward ensuring that recalcitrant lower-court judges are unable to wiggle out of its terms. “Since Heller and McDonald,” Thomas noted, “the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.” Heller, Thomas confirmed, “did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.” Message: Going forward, those courts must stop playing games.

This clarification evidently infuriated Justice Breyer, who began his dissent by recording that “in 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms,” and then insisted that, “when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms.” “In my view,” Breyer wrote, “the question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem—one that should be solved by legislatures rather than courts.” A few paragraphs later, however, he gave the game away. By defending New York’s law on the basis that “there is nothing unusual about broad statutory language that can be given more specific content by judicial interpretation,” he made it clear exactly why Thomas is so committed to the idea that, while “historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced . . . reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to ‘make difficult empirical judgments’ about ‘the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,’ especially given their ‘lack [of] expertise’ in the field.”

“Much of the dissent,” Justice Alito wrote in concurrence, “seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided.” And, indeed, it does. At various points, Breyer lists mass shootings, shares suicide statistics, and discusses domestic violence, as if the Court were a legislature, as if the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and as if the presence of evil in American life magically negated the law. But it doesn’t, as Thomas was keen to point out. “That,” he wrote, “is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense,” either.

[DougMacG]

One point on the so called compromise bill, the Left and Democrats are completely open about the slippery slope tactic.  'We will get all we can get now, in pieces and pieces, and keep coming back until we get all of what we want', which is presumably no guns whatsoever in the hands of law abiding citizens.

[G M]

One point on the so called compromise bill, the Left and Democrats are completely open about the slippery slope tactic.  'We will get all we can get now, in pieces and pieces, and keep coming back until we get all of what we want', which is presumably no guns whatsoever in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Hard to put armed people into camps.

[G M]

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/109/576/980/original/f25867360d85118b.png

[Crafty_Dog]

Pithy.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/gun-laws-story-right-keep-bear-arms?fbclid=IwAR11GYEchzeRGxkJ4uGDVkufSl3VRD5vZJ8j3F4a-mWeGmVo0ZkRO6c5UWw

[Crafty_Dog]

https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/stephen-hunter-the-assault-weapon-massacres-of-1964/?goal=0_0d355b7f6d-e01f6f802c-424032021&mc_cid=e01f6f802c&mc_eid=1954b5d655

[Crafty_Dog]

third

More Legal Guns Reduced Crime in Brazil
Homicide fell 34% after Bolsonaro made firearms permits easier and cheaper.
By John R. Lott Jr.
June 26, 2022 5:35 pm ET

‘Lives are on the line,” President Biden said after the Supreme Court held New York state’s restrictive gun-permit regime unconstitutional last week. Gov. Kathy Hochul warned: “This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way.” Brazil’s experience suggests otherwise.

In 2018, the year before Jair Bolsonaro became president, Brazil had one of the highest homicide rates among developed countries: 27.8 per 100,000 people, compared with 5 per 100,000 in the U.S. Mr. Bolsonaro’s solution: “Give guns to good people. Let people have guns so that they have the chance to defend themselves.”

In Brazil black-market firearms are widely available to criminals, and 70% of murders in 2019 involved guns. When Mr. Bolsonaro took office, there were about 330,000 licensed firearm owners in Brazil. At the time, according to the BBC, “only strictly defined groups of people, including police and security officials are able to obtain a gun license.” In 2019, when Mr. Bolsonaro’s many changes began taking effect, Brazil added more than 400,000 licensed firearm owners.

During his presidential campaign, critics said he had it dangerously wrong. A Bloomberg Opinion writer scoffed: “It’s hard to buy the current proposals championed by gun lobbyists and a few political yahoos who aim to make Brazil safer by slackening controls.” The New York Times wrote in a news story that his proposals were “worrying some experts who argue that more guns fuel more violence.”

Brazil’s pre-2019 laws looked like the wish list of American gun-control advocates. Owning a gun without a license carries a four-year prison sentence. By comparison, almost no state in the U.S. requires a license to own a gun, and 25 states don’t require a license to carry a gun.
In Brazil aspiring gun owners have to be at least 25, undergo psychological and technical aptitude screening, show proof of employment, and explain why they want a firearm. Mr. Bolsonaro eliminated the psychological and other screening requirements.

By November 2021, Mr. Bolsonaro had made 32 changes to ease Brazil’s gun laws. Brazilians were allowed to own more and more-powerful guns—up to six guns and up to .50 caliber, the same maximum caliber as the U.S. He raised the maximum annual ammunition purchase to 5,000 rounds a year from 50. He made it easier to carry concealed handguns in public.

Before Mr. Bolsonaro, Brazilians had to pay $260 for a new gun license and $25 every three years to renew it. This put legal gun ownership out of reach of the poor. The initial license fee has fallen to around $18.50, and licenses are good for 10 years.

Instead of surging, crime declined sharply in Brazil. In three years under Mr. Bolsonaro, the homicide rate has fallen 34%, to 18.5 per 100,000.

The media and gun-control advocates were wrong about Brazil. Mr. Biden and Ms. Hochul should take note.

Mr. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

[G M]

https://gunsandgadgetsdaily.com/why-new-gun-control-bill-sucks-collapsing-star/?trk_msg=3358AQ3UIUJKTAALDS5J683DOS&trk_contact=TQFOPF6JEA41M3NTU7L8UHB7GG&trk_sid=PUFJ3HRD87AG38TT6BG3BO4TTK&trk_link=FECFGTVLMDR4RC1TBK0JA6EFJG

[Crafty_Dog]

Forget whether I posted this previously:

 On This Day in History > April 3, 1776:
Congress authorizes privateers to capture British ships

"On April 3, 1776, Congress authorizes privateering vessels to capture British ships during the American Revolution. Because of the heavy dependence on shipping in the 18th century, it was immediately necessary for Congress to create its own navy after the Revolution began. Congress created the Continental Navy in the fall of 1775. Several states created their own navies as well, but these small navies were no match for the gigantic British Royal Navy which had the largest naval force in the world.

To help in the fight against the British Navy, Congress and several states authorized privately owned merchant vessels to combat and capture British owned naval or merchant vessels. This practice was called "privateering" because the vessels were privately owned. Privateering was essentially the same as piracy, but privateers were not considered pirates by the authorizing nation. Privateering vessels would be outfitted with guns and cannons by their owners and could capture vessels flying an enemy flag.

Privateers were issued a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" which authorized them to engage in privateering. After an enemy vessel was captured, the vessel was brought to an American port and presented to a judge who would look over the Letter and see that the capture had been handled according to the law. If all was well, the spoils captured on the ship were sold and the proceeds split between the ship's owners and crew, with a small percentage going to the American government as well. The splitting of the spoils in such a capture made privateering quite lucrative, so lucrative in fact that sailors were much more likely to want to serve on a privateer than on a ship run by the Continental Navy.

The contribution of privateers during the American Revolution cannot be overestimated. While the Continental Navy had about 60 ships with 3,000 soldiers during the course of the war, there were two to three thousand privateers with more than 70,000 sailors aboard! Continental Navy vessels carried around 2,800 guns on board, while privateers carried more than 20,000 guns!

With this massive firepower, privateers captured over 3,000 British vessels during the war, while the Continental Navy captured around 200. In addition to the captured vessels and their cargoes, privateers captured more than 10,000 British sailors. Primary locations for privateering included Long Island Sound, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the Caribbean and even British waters off the coasts of England and Ireland.

How lucrative was privateering? Some estimates put the spoils of American privateers during the Revolution at around $300 million dollars. Clearly, many fortunes were made from the practice. Britain estimated that 10% of all the cargoes it shipped to America were captured by the privateers, earning the privateers the honor of being one of the most influential forces giving America it's victory in the Revolutionary War."

2020 Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com

===============================
My comments:   
 
Some very interesting implications for Second Amendment theory here-- it sure sounds like the Founding Fathers envisioned calling upon citizenry owning ships capable of acting as ships of war against the British navy!  After all, they were already defending themselves from the Pirates of the Caribbean (attempt at humor here) and the Spanish.  What else can the Letters of Marque language mean?

Similarly, the American Revolution began at Lexington and Concord when the British came to confiscate our guns.  A little mentioned historical fact is that this included the Colonialists' cannons.

Why would they have had cannons?  Because they were left over from them having to defend themselves from the French in the French Indian Wars because the British Crown was not around to defend them.

Nothing has changed.  Today we have the quasi-military level of the Narco Cartels claiming our border regions-- and our government-- Federal, State, and Municipal is nowhere to be found.

Our Second Amendment and Ninth Amendment say that as Americans we have the Natural Law Right of effective Self-Defense.

'Murica!
Marc

[ccp]

https://www.conservativereview.com/california-leaks-gun-owners-names-home-addresses-in-massive-privacy-breach-2657577590.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Red Flag Laws: What Are They & How Do They Work?
March 24th, 2022|Tags: National, Nonvideo|0 Comments

Over the past few years, “Red Flag” laws have been one of the hottest topics in the gun control debate. Ever since 17 people lost their lives during the 2018 tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, there’s been a massive push for lawmakers to “do something” and prevent weapons from falling into the hands of the mentally ill. But Red Flag laws are not a new concept, and the issue of how to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals is one that gun rights advocates and politicians have been debating long before the media sensationalized it.

If you’ve ever listened to anyone talk about gun control, you’ve probably heard the term “Red Flag law” more times than you can count. But what actually are these laws? What do they accomplish that existing regulations don’t? Most importantly, how do Red Flag laws affect law-abiding people like you?

What Are Red Flag Laws?
Red Flag laws are intended to preemptively disarm people who show warning signs that they could be dangerous to themselves and/or others. The term “Red Flag law” is actually a collective nickname for the various court orders states have in place, including: Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders (ERFPO), Risk Protection Orders (RPO), Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO), and risk warrants. When information emerged that the Parkland shooter had documented mental health issues, legislators across the country began pushing for laws that would take guns away from individuals whose unstable behavior raised a “red flag.”

Many states with Red Flag laws allow a court order to not only remove someone’s current firearms, but to also prevent them from owning, purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms and ammo for a specified period of time. Generally, there’s an initial temporary firearm restraining order that lasts for several weeks, but this initial order can last even longer in some states. And most jurisdictions allow the extension of these orders if the person is still “deemed a threat.”

How Do Red Flag Laws Work?
The Red Flag law process begins when a law enforcement official, family member, or household member petitions a state court to temporarily remove firearms from someone they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. In some states, the list of eligible petitioners can include school officials, health care workers, or even coworkers!Preponderance of the evidence

After a petition is filed, the court will hold a hearing where the concerned party provides evidence to support their claim that the person in question (the “Respondent”) is a threat. States use two main standards of proof in these hearings:

Preponderance of the evidence, or
Clear and convincing evidence.
(For context, these standards are both lower standards of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard required in a criminal trial.)

If the order is granted, the judge may issue a warrant allowing law enforcement officials to search the Respondent’s property and confiscate weapons, sometimes without any prior notice. At that point, most states require the police to arrange safe storage of the firearm(s) for the duration of the order.

Sometimes, the initial hearing is conducted “ex parte,” meaning the Respondent is not present to defend themselves. If the hearing is ex parte, then the court will schedule another hearing to take place within the following weeks, giving the Respondent the chance to fight the claims. If they’re successful in their defense, the temporary order is dismissed, and the seized firearm(s) will be returned. But if the Respondent is not successful (meaning, the judge rules against them), the order is typically extended up to one year (depending on the state).

Clear and Convincing Evidence

What Happens if You Violate a Red Flag Law?
If a “Red Flag” order has been issued against you, then you’re prohibited from possessing firearms and ammo for as long as it’s active­—even during the initial temporary period! If you come into possession of any prohibited items, you are in violation of the court order. Most states with Red Flag laws impose criminal penalties for both the unlawful possession of a firearm and the violation of a court order. These penalties differ by state but can include felonies.

For example, under California’s Red Flag law (a Gun Violence Restraining Order), a person could be prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms and ammo for anywhere between one and five years, with the potential for the order to be renewed and extended indefinitely.

How Do You Fight a Red Flag Law?
Unfortunately, there isn’t much you can do to fight a Red Flag law order. As mentioned earlier, the initial hearing is usually an ex parte hearing, so you’re not able to defend yourself or give your side of the story (because you’re not there). Also, it’s highly unadvised (not to mention dangerous) to try and fight a Red Flag order by not cooperating with the police officers sent to execute it. In fact, a Maryland man tried to fight police officers over a Red Flag order in 2018 and was fatally shot in the process. Beyond the physical danger, interfering with law enforcement’s duties can lead to numerous different criminal charges.

That means the time and place to fight against a Red Flag law order is in court, during the second hearing. This is when the judge will determine whether to extend the order, and you have the chance to present your side of things and fight the petition. Sadly, this does mean you’ll have to give up any weapons initially when police officers come to execute the order. But if your defense is successful, they will be returned!

What States Have Red Flag Laws?
As of 2020, there are 19 states (plus D.C.) that have some sort of Red Flag law in place:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Several other states have proposed Red Flag law measures of their own but haven’t been successful.

Oklahoma & the Anti-Red Flag Act
Of the states without Red Flag laws, Oklahoma is the only one (at the time of this writing) that has gone so far in the other direction that it has an anti-Red Flag law. The Anti-Red Flag Act (SB 1081) was signed in May 2020 amidst the flurry of Red Flag laws passed by other states in reaction to the school shooting in Parkland. State Sen. Dahm (Senate author of the measure) said the reason he wanted this kind of law was because he’s concerned the federal government may try to offer grants to states or municipalities to enact Red Flag laws, but “these types of laws are a serious abuse of constitutional rights.” Likewise, State Rep. Steagall (House author of the bill) said Red Flag laws “[strip] American citizens of their rights to due process under the law.”

Oklahoma state legislators have also argued that the current Oklahoma Victim Protective Order procedure is effective enough at keeping firearms out of the hands of those deemed dangerous. And Oklahoma courts have the authority to remove a person’s weapons and freedom if there is evidence that person is a threat to the public. The courts also maintain a mental health docket and if someone is suicidal, unable to care for themselves, or is a danger to others, the courts can—and do—intervene.

Maine & the Yellow Flag Law
In 2019, Maine passed a sort of Red Flag law compromise that has come to be known as a “Yellow Flag” law. It’s essentially a Red Flag law, but with an additional requirement that has made it significantly more popular than the standard Red Flag laws and extreme risk protection orders. Before a court order to confiscate weapons may be issued, there must be an assessment by a medical practitioner specifically finding that the person in question poses “a substantial risk in the foreseeable future of serious physical harm” to themselves or others based on recent behaviors. In practice, this requirement makes it considerably more difficult to successfully petition the courts to have someone’s firearm(s) removed.

Enjoying this content? Find out how you can get more sent straight to your inbox.
Is There a Federal Red Flag Law?
As of this writing, there are currently no federal Red Flag laws in place. However, there have been several bills introduced at the federal level over the years that have proposed one. In fact, both Trump and Biden presidential administrations publicly supported Red Flag law policies.

President Biden made a federal Red Flag law attempt part of his early agenda, while former President Trump urged Congress to consider Red Flag policy and formed the Federal Commission on School Safety(which openly endorses Red Flag laws). In an even rarer display of bipartisanship, Senate Judiciary Committee members from both parties have stated their support for the Red Flag law and Extreme Risk Protection Order movement. And when high-profile members of the Republican party (like U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell) back Red Flag law policy, it makes other party members much more willing to compromise on various versions of these laws. But, despite these efforts and all the attention these laws have attracted, attempts at a federal Red Flag law have been unsuccessful so far.

What Amendments Do Red Flag Laws Violate?
According to rulings and precedents set by various courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court), Red Flag laws don’t inherently violate any constitutional amendments. The courts have recognized that the Second Amendment does not create an absolute right to possess firearms that can’t be restricted under any circumstances. For example, convicted felons and persons determined mentally incompetent are prohibited from possessing firearms. But in that example, individual rights are taken away only after due process of law. Meanwhile, Red Flag laws allow someone’s rights to be restricted without any prior knowledge or opportunity for defense. So, aren’t Red Flag laws a clear violation of our constitutional rights? Not exactly…

While the U.S. Constitution guarantees us “due process” as a protection from the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government (in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), SCOTUS has noted that due process requirements depend upon the circumstances:

“‘[D]ue process’ is a flexible concept—the process required by the Clause with respect to termination of a protected interest will vary depending upon the importance attached to the interest and the particular circumstances under which the deprivation may occur.”

This means—in respect to Red Flag laws and ex parte hearings—the state’s interest in preventing you from harming yourself or others (in theory) is of enough importance to allow flexibility with the due process requirement.

Do Red Flag Laws Work?
Now that you know how Red Flag laws work, you’re probably wondering do they work? If they’re intended to reduce and prevent violence caused by potentially unstable gun owners, do they accomplish that? Are they reducing the number of mass shootings or suicides? Are they saving lives?

First, despite Red Flag laws often being advocated as a way to prevent future mass shootings, they’re mainly used to combat suicide rates. Take Connecticut for example, the first state to enact a Red Flag law. Passed because of the mass shooting incident at the state lottery building (and enforced much more heavily after the Virginia Tech tragedy), the law hasn’t had a huge impact on the state’s homicide rates. However, one study found that from 2007 to 2015 (after the law was enforced more), the rate of gun-related suicides dropped by 13.7%. Similar results were also seen in Indiana, the second state to enact a Red Flag law. Other studies estimate that for every 10-20 gun confiscations, one life was saved.

Then Red Flag laws must work, right? Not quite… Although there was a nice drop in gun-related suicides seen after these states passed a Red Flag law, there was also a spike in non-firearm suicides. Not to mention, mass shootings still happened (like the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut). So, what does this mean? It means the underlying roots of the issue—such as mental health—are not being addressed. States would rather slap a cheap band-aid over the problem than put in effort to actually solve it. Leaving law-abiding, responsible gun owners to pay the price with their self-defense rights and freedoms.

**Suicide is a serious subject and impacts gun owners far beyond the scope of Red Flag laws. Learn more about what gun owners can do here.**

How Do Red Flag Laws Work?
Future of Red Flag Laws
What is the future of Red Flag laws in America? Surprisingly (or maybe not, depending on your view of the game of politics) there’s been more bipartisan support for Red Flag laws than one might think. Former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush both advocated for various “common sense” gun control measures during their term, and the Biden and Trump administrations have both publicly endorsed Red Flag laws specifically. Why? To please their constituents, of course…

A 2019 study showed that 77% of Americans support family-initiated Extreme Risk Protection Orders, and 70% support police-initiated Red Flag laws. Even more surprising, it reported that 67% of gun ownerssupport ERPOs. Why would gun owners be in favor of something that could take away their rights? Well, the specific wording of the questions asked tend to pose risk orders as simply “temporary removals” and only for those with mental health risks. And who doesn’t want to help solve the mental health crisis?

Despite the massive outcries for “something to be done” after another mass shooting incident makes headlines and all the bipartisan support Red Flag laws are getting on Capitol Hill, no federal Red Flag laws have succeeded. Why? While pro-gun legislators have repeatedly stated their willingness to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals by way of Extreme Risk Protection Orders, those against guns have refused to accept anything not paired with mandatory, universal background check legislation. Because their goal isn’t actually to address mental health, it’s to take away your guns and your rights.

Red Flag Laws & You
How can a gun owner protect themselves against Red Flag laws? Although there’s not much you can do to stop the process, you can prepare for it. U.S. LawShield® members can have peace of mind knowing Extreme Risk Protection Order and Red Flag law coverage is included in every base membership. So, if you’re a member and fall victim to an unlawful, unwarranted, or improper Red Flag law action, you don’t have to fight it alone. You’ll have U.S. LawShield by your side at every step of the process to help you fight for your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Because, honestly, the best thing (and just about the only thing) you can do to counter a Red Flag law order is to know your local laws and come prepared with a strong and solid defense.

[G M]

Own ghost properties. Store some guns/ammo there.

Reminder to the left, this is what turns things hot.

Red Flag Laws: What Are They & How Do They Work?
March 24th, 2022|Tags: National, Nonvideo|0 Comments

Over the past few years, “Red Flag” laws have been one of the hottest topics in the gun control debate. Ever since 17 people lost their lives during the 2018 tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, there’s been a massive push for lawmakers to “do something” and prevent weapons from falling into the hands of the mentally ill. But Red Flag laws are not a new concept, and the issue of how to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals is one that gun rights advocates and politicians have been debating long before the media sensationalized it.

If you’ve ever listened to anyone talk about gun control, you’ve probably heard the term “Red Flag law” more times than you can count. But what actually are these laws? What do they accomplish that existing regulations don’t? Most importantly, how do Red Flag laws affect law-abiding people like you?

What Are Red Flag Laws?
Red Flag laws are intended to preemptively disarm people who show warning signs that they could be dangerous to themselves and/or others. The term “Red Flag law” is actually a collective nickname for the various court orders states have in place, including: Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders (ERFPO), Risk Protection Orders (RPO), Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO), and risk warrants. When information emerged that the Parkland shooter had documented mental health issues, legislators across the country began pushing for laws that would take guns away from individuals whose unstable behavior raised a “red flag.”

Many states with Red Flag laws allow a court order to not only remove someone’s current firearms, but to also prevent them from owning, purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms and ammo for a specified period of time. Generally, there’s an initial temporary firearm restraining order that lasts for several weeks, but this initial order can last even longer in some states. And most jurisdictions allow the extension of these orders if the person is still “deemed a threat.”

How Do Red Flag Laws Work?
The Red Flag law process begins when a law enforcement official, family member, or household member petitions a state court to temporarily remove firearms from someone they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. In some states, the list of eligible petitioners can include school officials, health care workers, or even coworkers!Preponderance of the evidence

After a petition is filed, the court will hold a hearing where the concerned party provides evidence to support their claim that the person in question (the “Respondent”) is a threat. States use two main standards of proof in these hearings:

Preponderance of the evidence, or
Clear and convincing evidence.
(For context, these standards are both lower standards of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard required in a criminal trial.)

If the order is granted, the judge may issue a warrant allowing law enforcement officials to search the Respondent’s property and confiscate weapons, sometimes without any prior notice. At that point, most states require the police to arrange safe storage of the firearm(s) for the duration of the order.

Sometimes, the initial hearing is conducted “ex parte,” meaning the Respondent is not present to defend themselves. If the hearing is ex parte, then the court will schedule another hearing to take place within the following weeks, giving the Respondent the chance to fight the claims. If they’re successful in their defense, the temporary order is dismissed, and the seized firearm(s) will be returned. But if the Respondent is not successful (meaning, the judge rules against them), the order is typically extended up to one year (depending on the state).

Clear and Convincing Evidence

What Happens if You Violate a Red Flag Law?
If a “Red Flag” order has been issued against you, then you’re prohibited from possessing firearms and ammo for as long as it’s active­—even during the initial temporary period! If you come into possession of any prohibited items, you are in violation of the court order. Most states with Red Flag laws impose criminal penalties for both the unlawful possession of a firearm and the violation of a court order. These penalties differ by state but can include felonies.

For example, under California’s Red Flag law (a Gun Violence Restraining Order), a person could be prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms and ammo for anywhere between one and five years, with the potential for the order to be renewed and extended indefinitely.

How Do You Fight a Red Flag Law?
Unfortunately, there isn’t much you can do to fight a Red Flag law order. As mentioned earlier, the initial hearing is usually an ex parte hearing, so you’re not able to defend yourself or give your side of the story (because you’re not there). Also, it’s highly unadvised (not to mention dangerous) to try and fight a Red Flag order by not cooperating with the police officers sent to execute it. In fact, a Maryland man tried to fight police officers over a Red Flag order in 2018 and was fatally shot in the process. Beyond the physical danger, interfering with law enforcement’s duties can lead to numerous different criminal charges.

That means the time and place to fight against a Red Flag law order is in court, during the second hearing. This is when the judge will determine whether to extend the order, and you have the chance to present your side of things and fight the petition. Sadly, this does mean you’ll have to give up any weapons initially when police officers come to execute the order. But if your defense is successful, they will be returned!

What States Have Red Flag Laws?
As of 2020, there are 19 states (plus D.C.) that have some sort of Red Flag law in place:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Several other states have proposed Red Flag law measures of their own but haven’t been successful.

Oklahoma & the Anti-Red Flag Act
Of the states without Red Flag laws, Oklahoma is the only one (at the time of this writing) that has gone so far in the other direction that it has an anti-Red Flag law. The Anti-Red Flag Act (SB 1081) was signed in May 2020 amidst the flurry of Red Flag laws passed by other states in reaction to the school shooting in Parkland. State Sen. Dahm (Senate author of the measure) said the reason he wanted this kind of law was because he’s concerned the federal government may try to offer grants to states or municipalities to enact Red Flag laws, but “these types of laws are a serious abuse of constitutional rights.” Likewise, State Rep. Steagall (House author of the bill) said Red Flag laws “[strip] American citizens of their rights to due process under the law.”

Oklahoma state legislators have also argued that the current Oklahoma Victim Protective Order procedure is effective enough at keeping firearms out of the hands of those deemed dangerous. And Oklahoma courts have the authority to remove a person’s weapons and freedom if there is evidence that person is a threat to the public. The courts also maintain a mental health docket and if someone is suicidal, unable to care for themselves, or is a danger to others, the courts can—and do—intervene.

Maine & the Yellow Flag Law
In 2019, Maine passed a sort of Red Flag law compromise that has come to be known as a “Yellow Flag” law. It’s essentially a Red Flag law, but with an additional requirement that has made it significantly more popular than the standard Red Flag laws and extreme risk protection orders. Before a court order to confiscate weapons may be issued, there must be an assessment by a medical practitioner specifically finding that the person in question poses “a substantial risk in the foreseeable future of serious physical harm” to themselves or others based on recent behaviors. In practice, this requirement makes it considerably more difficult to successfully petition the courts to have someone’s firearm(s) removed.

Enjoying this content? Find out how you can get more sent straight to your inbox.
Is There a Federal Red Flag Law?
As of this writing, there are currently no federal Red Flag laws in place. However, there have been several bills introduced at the federal level over the years that have proposed one. In fact, both Trump and Biden presidential administrations publicly supported Red Flag law policies.

President Biden made a federal Red Flag law attempt part of his early agenda, while former President Trump urged Congress to consider Red Flag policy and formed the Federal Commission on School Safety(which openly endorses Red Flag laws). In an even rarer display of bipartisanship, Senate Judiciary Committee members from both parties have stated their support for the Red Flag law and Extreme Risk Protection Order movement. And when high-profile members of the Republican party (like U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Mitch McConnell) back Red Flag law policy, it makes other party members much more willing to compromise on various versions of these laws. But, despite these efforts and all the attention these laws have attracted, attempts at a federal Red Flag law have been unsuccessful so far.

What Amendments Do Red Flag Laws Violate?
According to rulings and precedents set by various courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court), Red Flag laws don’t inherently violate any constitutional amendments. The courts have recognized that the Second Amendment does not create an absolute right to possess firearms that can’t be restricted under any circumstances. For example, convicted felons and persons determined mentally incompetent are prohibited from possessing firearms. But in that example, individual rights are taken away only after due process of law. Meanwhile, Red Flag laws allow someone’s rights to be restricted without any prior knowledge or opportunity for defense. So, aren’t Red Flag laws a clear violation of our constitutional rights? Not exactly…

While the U.S. Constitution guarantees us “due process” as a protection from the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government (in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), SCOTUS has noted that due process requirements depend upon the circumstances:

“‘[D]ue process’ is a flexible concept—the process required by the Clause with respect to termination of a protected interest will vary depending upon the importance attached to the interest and the particular circumstances under which the deprivation may occur.”

This means—in respect to Red Flag laws and ex parte hearings—the state’s interest in preventing you from harming yourself or others (in theory) is of enough importance to allow flexibility with the due process requirement.

Do Red Flag Laws Work?
Now that you know how Red Flag laws work, you’re probably wondering do they work? If they’re intended to reduce and prevent violence caused by potentially unstable gun owners, do they accomplish that? Are they reducing the number of mass shootings or suicides? Are they saving lives?

First, despite Red Flag laws often being advocated as a way to prevent future mass shootings, they’re mainly used to combat suicide rates. Take Connecticut for example, the first state to enact a Red Flag law. Passed because of the mass shooting incident at the state lottery building (and enforced much more heavily after the Virginia Tech tragedy), the law hasn’t had a huge impact on the state’s homicide rates. However, one study found that from 2007 to 2015 (after the law was enforced more), the rate of gun-related suicides dropped by 13.7%. Similar results were also seen in Indiana, the second state to enact a Red Flag law. Other studies estimate that for every 10-20 gun confiscations, one life was saved.

Then Red Flag laws must work, right? Not quite… Although there was a nice drop in gun-related suicides seen after these states passed a Red Flag law, there was also a spike in non-firearm suicides. Not to mention, mass shootings still happened (like the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut). So, what does this mean? It means the underlying roots of the issue—such as mental health—are not being addressed. States would rather slap a cheap band-aid over the problem than put in effort to actually solve it. Leaving law-abiding, responsible gun owners to pay the price with their self-defense rights and freedoms.

**Suicide is a serious subject and impacts gun owners far beyond the scope of Red Flag laws. Learn more about what gun owners can do here.**

How Do Red Flag Laws Work?
Future of Red Flag Laws
What is the future of Red Flag laws in America? Surprisingly (or maybe not, depending on your view of the game of politics) there’s been more bipartisan support for Red Flag laws than one might think. Former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush both advocated for various “common sense” gun control measures during their term, and the Biden and Trump administrations have both publicly endorsed Red Flag laws specifically. Why? To please their constituents, of course…

A 2019 study showed that 77% of Americans support family-initiated Extreme Risk Protection Orders, and 70% support police-initiated Red Flag laws. Even more surprising, it reported that 67% of gun ownerssupport ERPOs. Why would gun owners be in favor of something that could take away their rights? Well, the specific wording of the questions asked tend to pose risk orders as simply “temporary removals” and only for those with mental health risks. And who doesn’t want to help solve the mental health crisis?

Despite the massive outcries for “something to be done” after another mass shooting incident makes headlines and all the bipartisan support Red Flag laws are getting on Capitol Hill, no federal Red Flag laws have succeeded. Why? While pro-gun legislators have repeatedly stated their willingness to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals by way of Extreme Risk Protection Orders, those against guns have refused to accept anything not paired with mandatory, universal background check legislation. Because their goal isn’t actually to address mental health, it’s to take away your guns and your rights.

Red Flag Laws & You
How can a gun owner protect themselves against Red Flag laws? Although there’s not much you can do to stop the process, you can prepare for it. U.S. LawShield® members can have peace of mind knowing Extreme Risk Protection Order and Red Flag law coverage is included in every base membership. So, if you’re a member and fall victim to an unlawful, unwarranted, or improper Red Flag law action, you don’t have to fight it alone. You’ll have U.S. LawShield by your side at every step of the process to help you fight for your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Because, honestly, the best thing (and just about the only thing) you can do to counter a Red Flag law order is to know your local laws and come prepared with a strong and solid defense.

[DougMacG]

quote author=G M
Own ghost properties. Store some guns/ammo there.
Reminder to the left, this is what turns things hot.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A friend had his things stolen in a situation like this.

Red flag laws run straight into a conundrum.  These mass shooters have given warning signs short of being convicted murderers, makes us wish we could keep just these future mass shooters from getting g + a.  But red flag laws will hurt good people too, even if well intended, AND we know these laws and enforcement will all not be well intended.

Some here are more anonymous than others.  Probably none perfectly so. If targeted by a not so well meaning govt, what we write here can and will be used against us, out of context etc.

I would be very interested in being a fly on the wall in a more secure setting on some of these topics, such as a proton mail group.

If our govt became as tyrannical as Russia or China, some argue it already is, how are we going to communicate?

[G M]

quote author=G M
Own ghost properties. Store some guns/ammo there.
Reminder to the left, this is what turns things hot.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A friend had his things stolen in a situation like this.

Red flag laws run straight into a conundrum.  These mass shooters have given warning signs short of being convicted murderers, makes us wish we could keep just these future mass shooters from getting g + a.  But red flag laws will hurt good people too, even if well intended, AND we know these laws and enforcement will all not be well intended.

Some here are more anonymous than others.  Probably none perfectly so. If targeted by a not so well meaning govt, what we write here can and will be used against us, out of context etc.

I would be very interested in being a fly on the wall in a more secure setting on some of these topics, such as a proton mail group.

If our govt became as tyrannical as Russia or China, some argue it already is, how are we going to communicate?

In person.
ALL comms via technology are vulnerable.

Understand that the actual power of the Feral Gov is a mile wide and an inch deep. The left and their pawns and useful idiots don't live in fortified green zones. I was working with a recently retired Fed not long ago, we had hours to discuss CW2 scenarios. He agreed with my assessments, including red flags setting things off.

American law enforcement can't even perform baseline services now. Even at it's peak, it was never structured to fight a domestic insurgency.

I expect that LEOs that serve red flag orders will find that the danger only starts after the guns are taken

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEa2lMXismw&t=3s

[Crafty_Dog]

Fresno County Sheriff's Office
16h  ·
CA DOJ's CCW Permit Holder Data Breach is Worse than Previously Expected
On Wednesday, the California Department of Justice issued a press release outlining preliminary details of its investigation.  The first paragraph describes the type of personal information that was exposed.  Some of which came as a surprise to us at the Fresno County Sheriff's Office.
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO –  The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event. Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Certificate Safety, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”

On the afternoon of June 27, 2022, DOJ posted updates to the Firearms Dashboard Portal. DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal. After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning. The dashboard and data were available for less than 24 hours.

In the coming days, the Department will notify those individuals whose data was exposed and provide additional information and resources. California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.

DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information.  In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)

We are communicating with law enforcement partners throughout the state. In collaboration, we will provide support to those whose information has been exposed.

In an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice will provide credit monitoring services for individuals whose data was exposed as a result of this incident. DOJ will directly contact individuals who have been impacted by this incident and will provide instructions to sign up for this service.

Any Californian may take the following steps to immediately protect their information related to credit:

• Monitor your credit.  One of the best ways to protect yourself from identity theft is to monitor your credit history.  To obtain free copies of your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus go to https://www.annualcreditreport.com.

• Consider placing a free credit freeze on your credit report. Identity thieves will not be able to open a new credit account in your name while the freeze is in place. You can place a credit freeze by contacting each of the three major credit bureaus:

o Equifax: https://www.equifax.com/.../credit-report.../credit-freeze/; 888-766-0008
o Experian: https://www.experian.com/freeze/center.html; 888-397-3742
o TransUnion: https://www.transunion.com/credit-freeze; 800-680-7289

• Place a fraud alert on your credit report. A fraud alert helps protect you against the possibility of someone opening new credit accounts in your name. A fraud alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed. To post a fraud alert on your credit file, you must contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. Keep in mind that if place a fraud alert with any one of the three major credit reporting agencies, the alert will be automatically added by the other two agencies as well.

• Additional Resources. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office right away. You may also report identity theft and generate a recovery plan using the Federal Trade Commission’s website at identitytheft.gov. For more information and resources visit the Attorney General’s website at oag.ca.gov/idtheft.

Link to article:  https://oag.ca.gov/.../california-department-justice...

[ccp]

Democrats middle finger ->

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-gov-hochul-signs-law-limiting-concealed-carry-guns-after-supreme-court-ruling_4572849.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

[G M]

A key element of Anarcho-tyranny is keeping the public disarmed, while street thugs and government thugs are armed.

Democrats middle finger ->

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-gov-hochul-signs-law-limiting-concealed-carry-guns-after-supreme-court-ruling_4572849.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport

[Crafty_Dog]

https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/291030050_10159957104454803_5505981892123134627_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=UdJJkLbd-cwAX84jGto&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&oh=00_AT-wS9uc2wt7DPYmRN_XBqx5SSXpv0bZaX9CvnWs-e_3Pw&oe=62C699A7

[Crafty_Dog]

https://thegunwriter.substack.com/p/breaking-ups-cancelling-gun-dealers

[ccp]

in working diligently to deflect away from gun laws

we hear this :

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/07/05/highland-park-shooter-was-known-to-law-enforcement-n2609739?57

I disagree with blaming law enforcement who might have had previous contact with a shooter blaming them for his actions .

You cannot say it is the fault of law enforcement for not interceding prior to an action that might or might not have occurred before it does

then at the same time
bitch about the new gun law that allows for police to investigate someone for even the slightest inference of violence reported by anyone who knows him

You can't have it both ways

I am not for confiscating guns but if you say this person was known that person was known by police then complain they did not put him in a straight jacket before he makes the gun lobby look bad
then don't bitch about a gun law that allows for an acquaintance
to call the police and report a suspicion that he is a future shooter.

We need to maintain logic folks

or we sound just as stupid as the LEFT.

[Crafty_Dog]

That is a very fair point.

That said, there is a legit problem with the absence of Due Process in most of the Red Flag laws.  There ARE laws about dealing with crazy people that do have Due Process.

[ccp]

".There ARE laws about dealing with crazy people that do have Due Process."

problem is who defines "crazy"

and how can you know the exact ones who will go on to shoot up a place
from the 99+ % who do not

not easy to do

unless you have someone who explicitly documents their plans or fantasies in writing in advance police can pay that person a visit
but then what do they do?
lock up
confiscate guns etc
put ankle monitor on ?
lock the person up?

it is someone else's word against another

a secret service agent told me the SS stop mostly people who make threats to do harm to the president
but said anyone who is not telegraphing their exact intent to do so
would be easy to get through and he told me plan to do it
of course that was back in '78 or '79.

[Crafty_Dog]

My thought: 

There ARE due process procedures for declaring people crazy and being crazy is a reasonable basis for denying guns-- no need for explicit threats.

[ccp]

we can flood the courts even more

I guess:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html

I don't think there is a good answer; if there was we would have heard it by now

we have sick world

internet clearly makes it 100 x s worse

[G M]

".There ARE laws about dealing with crazy people that do have Due Process."

problem is who defines "crazy"

The general legal standard is "Gravely disabled, or a serious threat to self or others". Every state has a law that allows for law enforcement to place individuals that meet that standard into custody for a psych eval. The state of IL. has this:

https://www.oflaherty-law.com/learn-about-law/involuntary-commitment-to-a-mental-health-facility-in-illinois

Emergency admission by certification: In a true emergency situation, an individual may be admitted to a mental health facility against his or her will; however, if the person with mental illness proposes immediate harm to himself or herself or others, a court order is not necessary. If local authorities are contacted first due to immediate danger, they can escort the respondent to a mental health facility for treatment. Once the patient is out of immediate danger, the police can take it upon themselves to initiate the petition filing process with a quick certification.


and how can you know the exact ones who will go on to shoot up a place
from the 99+ % who do not

not easy to do

unless you have someone who explicitly documents their plans or fantasies in writing in advance police can pay that person a visit
but then what do they do?
lock up
confiscate guns etc
put ankle monitor on ?
lock the person up?

it is someone else's word against another

a secret service agent told me the SS stop mostly people who make threats to do harm to the president
but said anyone who is not telegraphing their exact intent to do so
would be easy to get through and he told me plan to do it
of course that was back in '78 or '79.

[G M]

A sick culture.

It didn't used to be this way.

we can flood the courts even more

I guess:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-procedural-due-process-civil.html

I don't think there is a good answer; if there was we would have heard it by now

we have sick world

internet clearly makes it 100 x s worse

[Crafty_Dog]

The presumed killer wanted to arrest all Congressmen involved in J6:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/multiple-people-shot-during-4th-july-celebration-chicago-suburb?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=755

[G M]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

[G M]

https://www.revolver.news/2022/07/just-in-picture-of-highland-park-july-4th-parade-shooter-bobby-crimo-wearing-womens-clothing-after-attack/

Here’s a few more things we know about the shooter:

-He was an isolated marijuana smoker who lost touch with reality.

-He was ‘known’ to law enforcement.

-Watch his weird, bizarre, psychotic videos and see his face tattoos…

Very strange developing story…

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

[G M]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/local-pds-fbi-hide-information-july-4th-killer-crimo-connected-antifa-progressives-occult/

https://www.revolver.news/2022/07/just-in-picture-of-highland-park-july-4th-parade-shooter-bobby-crimo-wearing-womens-clothing-after-attack/

Here’s a few more things we know about the shooter:

-He was an isolated marijuana smoker who lost touch with reality.

-He was ‘known’ to law enforcement.

-Watch his weird, bizarre, psychotic videos and see his face tattoos…

Very strange developing story…

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

[ccp]

"-He was an isolated marijuana smoker who lost touch with reality."

this could be the key

This marijuana craze is really bad for an already sick country

maybe do once in a while on vacation ...

but for young active working people it is not helpful

as for pain control I don't really buy it
for depression or anxiety I doubt it is good
I have not seen the latest "studies "

but the last time I looked it up the "experts" would say there is a dirth of studies and none really any good.

[DougMacG]

If I'm reading this right, we already had a red flag law.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

[ccp]

OK, would Crimins III
have been subject to the laws on the books?

[DougMacG]

"-He was an isolated marijuana smoker who lost touch with reality."

this could be the key

This marijuana craze is really bad for an already sick country

maybe do once in a while on vacation ...

but for young active working people it is not helpful

as for pain control I don't really buy it
for depression or anxiety I doubt it is good
I have need seen the latest "studies "

but the last time I looked it up the "experts" would say there is a dirth of studies and none really any good.

Right.  The pain relief thing is over-rated, at least with THC.  Maybe CBD works some there.  If it does work, then it's safer than opioids.

Like you suggest, fine for most as a mild and occasional recreational or relaxant alternative to alcohol or worse drug.

But there is significant connection between marijuana and psychotic break within the very small percentage who have psychotic breaks.  Probably because it's the most commonly used psycho-active drug.  Any talk that it is "completely harmless" overlooks this.  It's not for everyone.  A psychotic break is dangerous.