Our State Support ~ Red Flag Law *

[RedBull]

 

[Sandow]

I support that law and think its a very good idea. Sad for the cops who had to go thru this, but thats what happens sadly when you dont cooperate!

 

[c10]

There are better ways to go about this than hitting home base where person resides at.
Like a public place under cover officer to judge situations, and give a green light to go / move in.
Last place to try anyone is on their little piece of territory.

 

[Sandow]

There are better ways to go about this than hitting home base where person resides at.
Like a public place under cover officer to judge situations, and give a green light to go / move in.
Last place to try anyone is on their little piece of territory.

From my understanding- they have a warrant kinda thing to go there and take his guns away. How are you gonna do that undercover in a public setting? Also...how much resources/ manpower/ planning would that take?

 

[c10]

From my understanding- they have a warrant kinda thing to go there and take his guns away. How are you gonna do that undercover in a public setting? Also...how much resources/ manpower/ planning would that take?

Simply detain them when not suspected. Situation under control. Then move in for weapons.

 

[Mr Brown]

Some people shouldn't have guns. Period.
But this should have been handled differently. People are red flagged for a reason, it makes no sense to me that trained professional leaders thought this would end well.

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

Seems odd that the subject of the weapons restriction order (the dead guy) stating he was a potential risk to himself and others wasn’t present when such an order was issued. Had he been, a subsequent search of his property for weapons could’ve been effected while he wasn’t present. A raid before dawn is designed to surprise and disorient the occupants. With it comes the risk of deadly force from either side no matter how well the plan was deployed.

 

[Mr Brown]

Seems odd that the subject of the weapons restriction order (the dead guy) stating he was a potential risk to himself and others wasn’t present when such an order was issued. Had he been, a subsequent search of his property for weapons could’ve been effected while he wasn’t present. A raid before dawn is designed to surprise and disorient the occupants. With it comes the risk of deadly force from either side no matter how well the plan was deployed.

Agreed there is inherent risk, but this plan was doomed from the start.

 

[RedBull]

Agreed there is inherent risk,
but this plan was doomed
from the start .

 

[Mr Brown]

View attachment 1587740

Nice sentiment, but some people have demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibilities that come with the right.

 

[Dougyp333]

Nice sentiment, but some people have demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibilities that come with the right.

I agree in principle but these red flag type laws usually have multiple flaws.

Fist is the removal of rights without the opportunity for the "accused" to defend themselves. They are usually notified of the ruling when the cops show up to take the guns.

Second is that in many cases the accused can't get their guns back. They have to prove that they are stable/not a threat. NO and I mean NO doctor or judge is going to sign off on that. If they give a guy his guns back and that guy goes off the deep end their career is over. Why would they take that risk.

Given my profile pick you most likely could guess my opinion

 

[Bailey9r]

Trey Gowdy questioned someone in that office asking "Can you name another right under the constitution that can be denied without a hearing or remedy?" Of coarse the answer is NO.

 

[Mr Brown]

I understand the concern about losing rights without a hearing, and I understand what the process is for having that right revoked. There should be a process in place to have the decision overturned, and in Illinois there is. If a trained professional thinks you are a danger to yourself or others I'm perfectly fine with your right to own guns being taken away.

 

[Mr Brown]

I agree in principle but these red flag type laws usually have multiple flaws.

Fist is the removal of rights without the opportunity for the "accused" to defend themselves. They are usually notified of the ruling when the cops show up to take the guns.

Second is that in many cases the accused can't get their guns back. They have to prove that they are stable/not a threat. NO and I mean NO doctor or judge is going to sign off on that. If they give a guy his guns back and that guy goes off the deep end their career is over. Why would they take that risk.

Given my profile pick you most likely could guess my opinion

Just because you're responsible enough to own guns, doesn't mean everyone else is. Some people should not have all the same rights as others, when they've demonstrated an inability to exercise them responsibly. Most people have no issue with people forcibly losing their right to liberty, even until they've demonstrated their innocence in a system designed to assume it. The right to bear arms is no different.

 

[Bailey9r]

I understand the concern about losing rights without a hearing, and I understand what the process is for having that right revoked. There should be a process in place to have the decision overturned, and in Illinois there is. If a trained professional thinks you are a danger to yourself or others I'm perfectly fine with your right to own guns being taken away.

Don't we already have enough laws on the books to cover that? Baker act etc. Why do we need yet another specifically targeting gun owners? I had a nutty stalker ex girlfriend that would have jumped all over this if she thought it would give me grief. So you could end up dead and never even know where the attack came from?

 

[Mr Brown]

Don't we already have enough laws on the books to cover that? Baker act etc. Why do we need yet another specifically targeting gun owners? I had a nutty stalker ex girlfriend that would have jumped all over this if she thought it would give me grief. So you could end up dead and never even know where the attack came from?

There is absolutely no reason to allow someone with documented mental illess access to firearms. None. If your nutty exgirlfriend alleged you were unstable in this state, it would have been handled like any other allegation and you would have been evaluated by a licensed mental health professional. If you weren't deemed a threat, (and there are specific standards for this, it's not arbitrary) you're good to go. If you are, then your right is forfeit. Agreed it's an imperfect system, all of them are.

 

[Mr Brown]

Don't we already have enough laws on the books to cover that? Baker act etc. Why do we need yet another specifically targeting gun owners? I had a nutty stalker ex girlfriend that would have jumped all over this if she thought it would give me grief. So you could end up dead and never even know where the attack came from?

And it's not a law targeting gun owners, it's a law targeting mentally ill people. Who own guns and shouldn't.

 

[Bailey9r]

Who

There is absolutely no reason to allow someone with documented mental illess access to firearms. None. If your nutty exgirlfriend alleged you were unstable in this state, it would have been handled like any other allegation and you would have been evaluated by a licensed mental health professional. If you weren't deemed a threat, (and there are specific standards for this, it's not arbitrary) you're good to go. If you are, then your right is forfeit. Agreed it's an imperfect system, all of them are.

Who evaluated the dead guy in the video? And there are already laws restricting gun ownership/applications for mental cases. So why the need for this red flag sneak attack?

 

[Bailey9r]

And it's not a law targeting gun owners, it's a law targeting mentally ill people. Who own guns and shouldn't.

Oh so they don't come take just your guns? They also get your Hayabusas? Okay got it now.

 

[Mr Brown]

Who

Who evaluated the dead guy in the video? And there are already laws restricting gun ownership/applications for mental cases. So why the need for this red flag sneak attack?

I don't know the answer to that.
The application restrictions are woefully inadequate, clearly. If a few people who are not mentally ill have to do without their guns temporarily so that events such as what we have seen in the past few weeks are avoided I'm good with that, and so should everyone else.