No matter, it's for the children.Maybe I'm off base here, but it occurs to me that the Constitution is the foundation of the government that creates our country. Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous? I'm not big into government, or politics, so I may be a bit ignorant. I don't like these laws that they're trying to pass and find it disturbing that states are able to hold such control over the people. These laws can easily be manipulated for reasons of vengeance from others or the government itself against individuals, and is really pushing things away from having any freedoms and making it feel more like a tyrannical dictatorship.
Because it's always worked out so well for the children growing up in a tyrannical dictatorshipNo matter, it's for the children.
Even in good faith, people will create havoc here. Therapists who mean well will soon feel pressure to ask (and report on findings if the law changes?) all kinds of invasive questions about firearms to protect society from potentially deranged you, or protect potentially deranged you from yourself. Then people will stop talking to therapists and the people who needed and could have potentially sought help will not get it.Maybe I'm off base here, but it occurs to me that the Constitution is the foundation of the government that creates our country. Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous? I'm not big into government, or politics, so I may be a bit ignorant. I don't like these laws that they're trying to pass and find it disturbing that states are able to hold such control over the people. These laws can easily be manipulated for reasons of vengeance from others or the government itself against individuals, and is really pushing things away from having any freedoms and making it feel more like a tyrannical dictatorship.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Even in good faith, people will create havoc here. Therapists who mean well will soon feel pressure to ask (and report on findings if the law changes?) all kinds of invasive questions about firearms to protect society from potentially deranged you, or protect potentially deranged you from yourself. Then people will stop talking to therapists and the people who needed and could have potentially sought help will not get it.
But let’s be frank, the people who are planning to do things like mass shootings are NOT even seeking help. So more laws on the books will just mess it up for other people.
Here’s a nice haul from the NYPD doing a red flag confiscation...
View attachment 182005
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Is that happening now?Even in good faith, people will create havoc here.
Truth. What worries me is the vindictive jerk off who's gonna make a false accusation just to phuck someone over.Even in good faith, people will create havoc here.
I agree. But even if it WAS unconstitutional, lawmakers and the president can get it through if they want it bad enough. The bump-stock ban was an EX-POST-FACTO law, meaning that it made possessing a bump stock illegal ( legally equivalent to a machine gun) even though they were LEGAL when the owners purchased them, with no grandfather clause to exempt people who bought them legally. This type of "ex-post-facto" law is prohibited in the Constitution so that congress AND THE STATES cannot pass them, but it was done by changing an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulation, not passing a new law. And the supreme court has let certain ex-post-facto laws stand despite the bans in the Constitution to congress and the states. It is all in how it is done, and when.Wouldn't a "red flag law" be unconstitutional and therefore treasonous?
But that's how the law WORKS... It's a FEATURE, not a BUG !Truth. What worries me is the vindictive jerk off who's gonna make a false accusation just to phuck someone over.
The bump-stock ban was an EX-POST-FACTO law, meaning that it made possessing a bump stock illegal ( legally equivalent to a machine gun) even though they were LEGAL when the owners purchased them, with no grandfather clause to exempt people who bought them legally. This type of "ex-post-facto" law is prohibited in the Constitution so that congress AND THE STATES cannot pass them, but it was done by changing an Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms regulation, not passing a new law. And the supreme court has let certain ex-post-facto laws stand despite the bans in the Constitution to congress and the states. It is all in how it is done, and when.
It’s not what is going on now that I’m worried about. Now you are fine. But what you do now, makes records that might be judged by a different standard in the future. And once that record is there, there is no erasing it. I am worried about where all this looks to be going.Is that happening now?
I'd like to take a step back and assess the current situation. You're more in the know than most. Could you briefly outline for us the current state of affairs? For example, if I go to my primary care physician and say "Refer me for a mental health checkup. I don't feel right. I think I'm depressed." I assume my primary will do a basic screening and, if indicated, send me to someone who routinely helps depressed folks. If that doctor assesses me and concludes "Sir, you seem to me to be profoundly depressed. You might even be a suicide risk, though I'm not completely convinced of that. I'm prescribing you something for your depression and I'd like you to start seeing a therapist at least weekly."
Given that scenario, is there any mechanism or would any of the medical personnel involved begin any process whereby, for example, an LTC might be revoked or not granted? Or someone might be involuntarily committed? Or someone might be encouraged to enter in-patient treatment that would lead to involuntary commitment if the person tried to leave? (I have some small understanding of how in-patient facilities require sufficient notice prior to a patient leaving so as to provide time to get a court order for involuntary commitment.)
I'm just trying to get a handle on the situation as it currently exists and whether the fears of gun owners that admitting to something as common as depression might negatively impact their gun rights are actually warranted.
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed
This law is ex post facto because it was legal to possess a bump stock when the owners bought them, but it makes it illegal to possess or own them NOW.
Oh, I get it. They changed the definition of a bump stock from an accessory piece to a fully functioning machine gun. Sort of like when the supreme court changed the definition of marriage from the sacred union of a man and a woman to a random Satanic clusterf#ck of any two Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Eves and Shirleys.No, you misunderstand. It is not ex post facto because you cannot be arrested and prosecuted for possessing a bump stock before the new definition took effect. If your understanding were correct every new law would be ex post facto.