On the surface, things like this look just fine. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates are fine with keeping firearms out of the hands of people who might well use them for crimes. But, there’s a bit of a problem
(NY Post) A bill that would allow police and prosecutors to confiscate weapons from people deemed a danger to themselves or others passed the state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
The legislation was referred to a second committee before it can go to the floor for a vote, but even Republican opponents acknowledged it could pass. (snip)
“As we’ve seen, these tragedies where someone who clearly demonstrated evidence that they were likely to harm themselves or others eventually did so and local authorities have few steps that they can take – people have realized that this tool of an extreme risk protection order could be very effective in that circumstance,†said state Sen. Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the bill.
The Senate bill would allow family members, household members, law enforcement and district attorneys to get emergency “Extreme Risk Protection Orders†when there’s clear evidence that someone is likely to try to hurt themselves or others. (snip)
Those deemed at risk could contest the move in a hearing. The temporary orders would allow cops to confiscate guns. But the orders would expire in a year, when a second hearing could be held to allow a judge to decide whether the guns could be returned.
This all seems like a good idea. If someone is showing signs that they could be a danger to themselves (I thought Dems approved of suicide?) and others, a temporary order restricting their firearms would not be a bad thing. Law abiding gun owners certainly do not want people using guns to commit crimes. But, see, this is how it kinda shakes out in reality, as we see in Rhode Island
(NRA) Senate Bill 2492A, sponsored by Senator Maryellen Goodwin (D-1), would create broad gun ban powers under the guise of “extreme risk†protection orders. NRA-ILA strongly believes that dangerous individuals should not have firearms. However, this “red flag†legislation is an overreach with few legal protections for those who may be falsely accused.  This sweeping legislation would allow almost anyone to have another’s guns taken with little or no due process. The bill allows seizure and forfeiture through ex parte hearings where a respondent isn’t given notice and a hearing.
Many of the “red flag” laws being passed or attempting to be passed blow off the federal and state constitutional requirements for due process, and make it very easy for people to have their 2nd Amendment Right taken away willy nilly. Which is not a bug, but a feature. And this kind of thing is exactly why Republicans tend to block most wise gun control measures that would keep firearms out of the hands of bad actors: because we know Democrats will include things that would make it easier for Government to mess with the 2A Rights of law abiding citizens, and then demand even more measures.
We already have this.
If you are criminally likely to hurt other people, it’s called “Prison”.
If you are mentally likely to hurt yourself or others, it’s called “institutionalization”, or custodial care.
Basic rule: If you are sane and peaceful enough to be walking around on your own, you are sane and peaceful enough to have all your rights, including the right to self defense. Exceptions are already provided under law for people of diminished capacity, as prescribed in a competency hearing.
So, basically, another feel-good-do-nothing law.
Problem is, it’s this side of impossible to institutionalize people, thanks to the ACLU and the Warren Court.
That’s because the psychiatric profession is full of frauds. If someone isn’t foaming at the mouth and clawing at the walls, modern psychiatry can’t identify them as “sick”. And if they are sick, modern psychiatry doesn’t have a clue about how to fix them. So they dabble in overmedicating the vast majority of their patients who would probably be just fine without psychiatric help.
The camel’s nose.
The Demos are great with this.
Due process is a tool of the white cisheteronormative patriarchy, and must be abolished to ensure no one ever has the power to hold the rich and powerful accountable (unless they’re Republicans).
NRA/Con Men: Loosen the gun laws, more guns mean less crime, blah, blah, blah… And you defy any efforts to take guns from violent lunatics.
St. Peter: They keep sending us “thoughts and prayers”, not to mention “dead kids”.
Statistically, more guns have meant less crime. However, your argument, as always is a misrepresentation of what people who want to protect the rights of people are actually putting forth.
First, they say “enforce the laws that are on the books now.” That’s something that liberals and the left don’t want to seem to do. They would rather create the illusion that more laws (that won’t be enforced) will make situations better.
Another misrepresentation. No one is defying any efforts to take away guns from people like yourself. What we do want is the protection of due process. If you are going to try and restrict a natural / God given right, of someone, the Constitution requires due process.
Having a secret meeting (not even a hearing) where people cannot defend themselves against a charge is ridiculous, yet that is what this proposed bill does. The person loses their rights without their participation in a hearing, without any chance of rebuttal or even to address their accusers
We understand why you have to misrepresent what people are saying and why you hate freedoms and protections under the law.
After all, all the left has is hate..
People should not have their constitutional rights abridged unless they are actually tried and convicted of a crime.