[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[TXSG8R 3355]

6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Even if we have robust red flag laws, there is always going to be someone who manages to slip through the system. Part of that is inevitable, but part of that is due to the nature of our rights that require due process to be stripped of them. I'm not sure we want to set a precedent where we allow rights to be stripped without due process, because that leads us down a very dark rabbit hole. So we need the judgement of salespeople as a last bastion of defense against those who slip through.

Then again, we may be headed down that rabbit hole already due to the nature of technology. It is already possible to manufacture your own magazine fed semi automatic (and probably fully automatic) gun with a couple weeks and about 500 bucks using 3D printers. And that is including the cost of the printer. None of the parts required are regulated as firearm components in the EU, which is much stricter than anything here. Even the barrel can be created with rifling using electrochemical machining and 3D printed jigs. The only way to really prevent someone from a mass shooting using something like that likely involves significant erosion of rights that even people who oppose the second amendment care deeply about. 

FGC-9

 

I have doubts about the sustained performance of a 3d printed gun using cheap printers and standard materials like PETG, but even if they get stable enough for sustained fire you can still track ammo sales to find a potential shooter. We track fertilizer and other bomb component sales, it’s not a stretch to drive monitoring that direction. Honestly, it’s probably already happening but is limited to brown people with ME names. 

[BabaYaga 15202]

1 hour ago, TXSG8R said:

I have doubts about the sustained performance of a 3d printed gun using cheap printers and standard materials like PETG, but even if they get stable enough for sustained fire you can still track ammo sales to find a potential shooter. We track fertilizer and other bomb component sales, it’s not a stretch to drive monitoring that direction. Honestly, it’s probably already happening but is limited to brown people with ME names. 

Only in bulk.  Anyone that can fog a mirror knows you make incremental purchases over time.  

[Chopper 17126]

10 hours ago, tbone_ said:

If only there were some ideas that might be more effective

How many times do we need to say it. If you don't have an AR15 to kill a fox going after your chickens, you are incredibly fucked.

Also if you played the game of Telephone when you were a kid, you should understand how easy it is to get a message to your friends out far & wide. 100 mile radius easy.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Chopper

[Foosters 17691]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Even if we have robust red flag laws, there is always going to be someone who manages to slip through the system. Part of that is inevitable, but part of that is due to the nature of our rights that require due process to be stripped of them. I'm not sure we want to set a precedent where we allow rights to be stripped without due process, because that leads us down a very dark rabbit hole. So we need the judgement of salespeople as a last bastion of defense against those who slip through.

Then again, we may be headed down that rabbit hole already due to the nature of technology. It is already possible to manufacture your own magazine fed semi automatic (and probably fully automatic) gun with a couple weeks and about 500 bucks using 3D printers. And that is including the cost of the printer. None of the parts required are regulated as firearm components in the EU, which is much stricter than anything here. Even the barrel can be created with rifling using electrochemical machining and 3D printed jigs. The only way to really prevent someone from a mass shooting using something like that likely involves significant erosion of rights that even people who oppose the second amendment care deeply about. 

FGC-9

 

How are rights being stripped without due process if legislation is passed by elected representatives?

Regulating the sale and possession of firearms is no more a "very dark rabbit hole" than the myriad regulations that already exist with respect to the first amendment.

And regardless, no matter how dark your speculative rabbit hole, is it darker than the day where 20 innocent children had their faces blown off?

[aggie08 21380]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Even if we have robust red flag laws, there is always going to be someone who manages to slip through the system. Part of that is inevitable, but part of that is due to the nature of our rights that require due process to be stripped of them. I'm not sure we want to set a precedent where we allow rights to be stripped without due process, because that leads us down a very dark rabbit hole. So we need the judgement of salespeople as a last bastion of defense against those who slip through.

Then again, we may be headed down that rabbit hole already due to the nature of technology. It is already possible to manufacture your own magazine fed semi automatic (and probably fully automatic) gun with a couple weeks and about 500 bucks using 3D printers. And that is including the cost of the printer. None of the parts required are regulated as firearm components in the EU, which is much stricter than anything here. Even the barrel can be created with rifling using electrochemical machining and 3D printed jigs. The only way to really prevent someone from a mass shooting using something like that likely involves significant erosion of rights that even people who oppose the second amendment care deeply about. 

FGC-9

 

How about we take care of teenagers having legal, easy access to purchasing firearms over the counter before we tackle them constructing their own with 3D printers? Just a thought. Something tells me that the Uvalde dipshit wasn't going to go home and boot up SOLIDWORKS had his initial purchase attempt failed.

 

[Chopper 17126]

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

I take no issue with the content of that, but if it’s real then the presentation is ridiculous. 

[Dahobbs 17420]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Even if we have robust red flag laws, there is always going to be someone who manages to slip through the system. Part of that is inevitable, but part of that is due to the nature of our rights that require due process to be stripped of them. I'm not sure we want to set a precedent where we allow rights to be stripped without due process, because that leads us down a very dark rabbit hole. So we need the judgement of salespeople as a last bastion of defense against those who slip through.

Then again, we may be headed down that rabbit hole already due to the nature of technology. It is already possible to manufacture your own magazine fed semi automatic (and probably fully automatic) gun with a couple weeks and about 500 bucks using 3D printers. And that is including the cost of the printer. None of the parts required are regulated as firearm components in the EU, which is much stricter than anything here. Even the barrel can be created with rifling using electrochemical machining and 3D printed jigs. The only way to really prevent someone from a mass shooting using something like that likely involves significant erosion of rights that even people who oppose the second amendment care deeply about. 

FGC-9

 

What are you talking about? It isn't a per se violation of due process to enact regulation. The Constitutional allows reasonable regulation of our rights, including rights much more fundamental than gun ownership, such as freedom of speech and the right to vote. Regulation can include age limits, license requirements, and even banning the sale or possession of certain types of guns. I don't understand what due process violation you're thinking about (or what you even think due process is). 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

Do y'all really not understand how red flag laws can be abused if they aren't carefully constructed to allow for due process?

[Foosters 17691]

Just now, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Do y'all really not understand how red flag laws can be abused if they aren't carefully constructed to allow for due process?

Yes. But you're warning of a slippery slope when we're standing on a flat plane surrounded by dead kids.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Yes. But you're warning of a slippery slope when we're standing on a flat plane surrounded by dead kids.

No, I'm for red flag laws, I'm just saying they ha e to be carefully constructed so that an abusive ex can't make up false accusations that result in people losing their rights and having to spend years and a lot of money to get them back.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

And regardless, no matter how dark your speculative rabbit hole, is it darker than the day where 20 innocent children had their faces blown off?

What I'm saying, and more for theoretical discussion than opposition to better gun control laws, is that eventually it will happen again with a 3D printed gun, and how do we guard against that without violating the first, fourth, and fifth ammendments of all Americans?

[Js1 85056]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Yes. But you're warning of a slippery slope when we're standing on a flat plane surrounded by dead kids.

Red flags can be "abused" so let's just continue to do nothing! 

[Captainant 27311]

4 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

No, I'm for red flag laws, I'm just saying they ha e to be carefully constructed so that an abusive ex can't make up false accusations that result in people losing their rights and having to spend years and a lot of money to get them back.

Look, at this point we've spilt so much blood from children at the altar of gun rights for hypothetical men getting falsely accused, I'm ready to try something different. Because what we're doing now certainly isn't reducing the number of kids getting shot in their schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What I'm saying, and more for theoretical discussion than opposition to better gun control laws, is that eventually it will happen again with a 3D printed gun, and how do we guard against that without violating the first, fourth, and fifth ammendments of all Americans?

[Foosters 17691]

5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

No, I'm for red flag laws, I'm just saying they ha e to be carefully constructed so that an abusive ex can't make up false accusations that result in people losing their rights and having to spend years and a lot of money to get them back.

I understand your position. Then an applicant should be entitled to a hearing. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could do. Its not a due process violation for a person to be convicted at trial based solely on the testimony of a victim, so not sure why this would be any different considering its not the person's actual liberty at stake.

[Dahobbs 17420]

17 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Do y'all really not understand how red flag laws can be abused if they aren't carefully constructed to allow for due process?

I don't think you understand what due process is or how laws work. 

For instance, let's say a law made the possession of assault rifles illegal. Confiscating all assault rifles wouldn't be a violation of due process. Convicting someone of having a assault rifle without allowing them a jury trial would be a violation of due process. 

For red flag laws, so long as the person affected has opportunity of a hearing, minimum due process is met.

So, really, what is your point? Yes, it is possible for bad laws to be enacted. Fortunately, we have a court system to help vet out these issues if necessary. Certainly the mere possibility that bad laws could be enacted doesn't mean that we shouldn't enact any laws. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

8 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I understand your position. Then an applicant should be entitled to a hearing. Other than that, I'm not sure what you could do. Its not a due process violation for a person to be convicted at trial based solely on the testimony of a victim, so not sure why this would be any different considering its not the person's actual liberty at stake.

I would say the hearing needs to be before any rights can be stripped except in rare circumstances where there is a clearly urgent and demonstrable need. We would have to define the urgent and demonstrable need part, however. Do that and make it fair and I am in full support.

[tbone_ 14020]

No, I'm for red flag laws, I'm just saying they ha e to be carefully constructed so that an abusive ex can't make up false accusations that result in people losing their rights and having to spend years and a lot of money to get them back.

Fuck everyone’s fucking gun “rights”

[Sbbruin 21697]

Just now, tbone_ said:

Fuck everyone’s fucking gun “rights”

That's all fine and good, but that position will lead to everyone digging their heels in and nothing getting done.  Again.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you understand what due process is or how laws work. 

For instance, let's say a law made the possession of assault rifles illegal. Confiscating all assault rifles wouldn't be a violation of due process. Convicting someone of having a assault rifle without allowing them a jury trial would be a violation of due process. 

For red flag laws, so long as the person affected has opportunity of a hearing, minimum due process is met.

So, really, what is your point? Yes, it is possible for bad laws to be enacted. Fortunately, we have a court system to help vet out these issues if necessary. Certainly the mere possibility that bad laws could be enacted doesn't mean that we shouldn't enact any laws. 

Maybe you should go to the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to do Other Things Good Too.

[tbone_ 14020]

That's all fine and good, but that position will lead to everyone digging their heels in and nothing getting done.  Again.  

I don’t think my personal desire to melt every gun on the planet will factor into anything.

And just in case I wasn’t clear before, everyone can take their gun “rights” and shove them up their ass a far as I’m concerned.

[Da Fino 2719]

13 hours ago, Handcruser said:

Yea everyone knows. We also work with other local stores to let them know when someone is attempting a straw sale etc.

There is more communication than you think.

How common are straw sales? I've always assumed that only a fraction get stopped. 

[Foosters 17691]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I would say the hearing needs to be before any rights can be stripped except in rare circumstances where there is a clearly urgent and demonstrable need. We would have to define the urgent and demonstrable need part, however. Do that and make it fair and I am in full support.

They issue protective orders every day in this country preventing parents from going within 100 yards of their biological children prior to any finding of guilt or wrongdoing. Based solely on accusations. People are held in confinement before any finding of guilt all over this country. Today, there are tens of thousands of people sitting in cages "innocent until proven guilty." I'm struggling to see why guns should be different.

[Brisketexan 104465]

I would say the hearing needs to be before any rights can be stripped except in rare circumstances where there is a clearly urgent and demonstrable need. We would have to define the urgent and demonstrable need part, however. Do that and make it fair and I am in full support.

Well then, you will be pleased to find out that most every red flag legislation proposed on any state or federal level works exactly that way.

Seriously, you’re arguing against a concept of law that isn’t even on the table.

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I would say the hearing needs to be before any rights can be stripped except in rare circumstances where there is a clearly urgent and demonstrable need. We would have to define the urgent and demonstrable need part, however. Do that and make it fair and I am in full support.

Play this one out for me. How do you envision this working? Are you only speaking of laws that would physically take away someone's existing guns? Or are you also talking about laws that would prevent a seller from selling guns to someone based off some set of criteria? Would a license requirement, in your view, violate due process since technically someone's "right" to own a gun is restricted until that person proves they qualify? 

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Maybe you should go to the Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to do Other Things Good Too.

Again, I don't think you understand what due process is. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

 

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Well then, you will be pleased to find out that most every red flag legislation proposed on any state or federal level works exactly that way.

Seriously, you’re arguing against a concept of law that isn’t even on the table.

Why do you think I'm arguing against it? I've said repeatedly said I am for them as long as they aren't written poorly. Go back to posts 921 and 922. I laid out a pretty comprehensive proposal that would likely get enough support from gun rights advocates to pass. Red flag laws were a part of that.

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

Just now, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

Why do you think I'm arguing against it? I've said repeatedly said I am for them as long as they aren't written poorly. Go back to posts 921 and 922. I laid out a pretty comprehensive proposal that would likely get enough support from gun rights advocates to pass. Red flag laws were a part of that.

I’m for them as long as they do what I want!

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Play this one out for me. How do you envision this working? Are you only speaking of laws that would physically take away someone's existing guns? Or are you also talking about laws that would prevent a seller from selling guns to someone based off some set of criteria? Would a license requirement, in your view, violate due process since technically someone's "right" to own a gun is restricted until that person proves they qualify? 

Again, I don't think you understand what due process is. 

Unless you are aware of some other type of red flag law, they take away both a person's right to own guns they may already posses and their right to aquire new ones. If someone is mentally unstable, but there is no evidence of them planning to harm anybody, then there should be time for a hearing before taking away their second amendment rights. If someone has made specific threats, then I have no problem taking away their rights as long as there is a hearing within a reasonable amount of time. What about due process am I not getting? Or are you projecting what you think my opinions are on me and not actually reading what I am writing?

[Dahobbs 17420]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

Why do you think I'm arguing against it? I've said repeatedly said I am for them as long as they aren't written poorly. Go back to posts 921 and 922. I laid out a pretty comprehensive proposal that would likely get enough support from gun rights advocates to pass. Red flag laws were a part of that.

Because you're introducing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into gun regulation either by referencing a thing that doesn't exist or by misunderstanding the fundamental nature of our legal system. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Because you're introducing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into gun regulation either by referencing a thing that doesn't exist or by misunderstanding the fundamental nature of our legal system. 

What thing that doesn't exist? What misunderstanding? Be specific.

[Dahobbs 17420]

6 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Unless you are aware of some other type of red flag law, they take away both a person's right to own guns they may already posses and their right to aquire new ones. If someone is mentally unstable, but there is no evidence of them planning to harm anybody, then there should be time for a hearing before taking away their second amendment rights. If someone has made specific threats, then I have no problem taking away their rights as long as there is a hearing within a reasonable amount of time. What about due process am I not getting? Or are you projecting what you think my opinions are on me and not actually reading what I am writing?

I'm asking whether you're specifically talking about only red flag laws or whether you're also talking about other types of laws, such as age limits and license requirements, which would also restrict rights prior to a hearing.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17420]

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What thing that doesn't exist? What misunderstanding? Be specific.

A red flag law that takes away a person's guns prior to any hearing. 

[Goredho 17302]

Colorado has two phases to its red flag laws (called extreme risk protection orders or ERPOs).  First, a court can examine a petition for an ERPO against a respondent and if they determine that the concern is legitimate based on a "preponderance of evidence", issue a temporary ERPO where guns must be surrendered for a maximum of 2 weeks.  During that time, the court can issue a final ERPO with a higher burden of "clear and convincing" proof that the respondent poses a significant risk of gun violence.  If this happens, they must surrender their guns for 364 days.  A respondent is allowed to be present and provide evidence on their behalf in both cases.  A respondent has to have their guns returned within 3 days of an ERPO expiring.  Petitioners for an ERPO can face criminal charges for filing malicious and/or false petitions.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I am fine with background checks and red flag laws.  As to the latter, not sure how much good it will do for those who already own guns.  If you want to make AR rifles subject to NFA, I can live with that.  But the ATF has to fucking move faster than a year to approve (still waiting on a suppressor I bought spring of 2021).  I have heard the new electronic submission of NFA has sped things up to 3-4 months, which is okay with me.  Put ARs on the list and remove suppressors.  Zero reason for them to be NFA and have the extra delay and tax. Open up NICS to public for private sales.  Or have a national ID that has your voter registration and your ability to legally buy a firearm linked to the bar code.

The scary random mass shootings in public places generally account for 100 or so deaths a year.  And schools are very, very safe places for children.  Homicides in schools in our country of 350 million people are exceedingly rare and random.  I don't think much can be done about school shootings.  I would allow school employees who have their license to carry the option to carry at school.  I believe around 200 school districts in Texas allow this now.  My understanding, though I cannot confirm 100%, is that Uvalde was not one of them.

The last 20 years, the USA has ranged from 10 to 34 school children being murdered in schools per year.  As parents we worry about our kids. But worrying about them being shot and killed while at school is not a rational fear.  The hours they are in school are the safest hours of their day.  

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A red flag law that takes away a person's guns prior to any hearing. 

How many states have red flag laws that allow ex parte orders to be issued to remove guns? The answer is all states that have red flag laws. I have no issue with that as long as there is a clear requirements and the courts are obligated to give the person a hearing within a set amount of time or the order is automatically rescinded.

[Goredho 17302]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

How many states have red flag laws that allow ex parte orders to be issued to remove guns? The answer is all states that have red flag laws. I have no issue with that as long as there is a clear requirements and the courts are obligated to give the person a hearing within a set amount of time or the order is automatically rescinded.

Why don't you tell us which states have aspects of their red flag laws you disagree with and why?  I posted the details for Colorado where I live, you can start there.  Or are you just here to argue against your own vague suppositions of how red flag laws operate in the various states where they exist?

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Yes. But you're warning of a slippery slope when we're standing on a flat plane surrounded by dead kids.

And as we know, the only slippery slope that exits is legislation tied to RoevWade. That’s when slippery slope argument becomes valid. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Why don't you tell us which states have aspects of their red flag laws you disagree with and why?  I posted the details for Colorado where I live, you can start there.  Or are you just here to argue against your own vague suppositions of how red flag laws operate in the various states where they exist?

I'm not arguing against them. I am arguing for them as long as they are well crafted. I have no problem with what you said, as long as it is actually followed. I would say that that is a good example of one. Two weeks is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for a hearing. Is there a provision for a hearing that doesn't involve immediate removal of guns before the hearing in cases where there isn't demonstrable immediate danger? If not that could be a good enhancement. Are there penalties for local governments who don't follow through with the law?

[BurntOrange&White 39486]

I’m for them as well @NotActuallyALonghorn I just hope they do what we want them to do and nothing we don’t! 

[fattyflattie 4636]

26 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Or have a national ID that has your voter registration and your ability to legally buy a firearm linked to the bar code.

You racist motherfucker. 

[Captainant 27311]

25 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am fine with background checks and red flag laws.  As to the latter, not sure how much good it will do for those who already own guns.  If you want to make AR rifles subject to NFA, I can live with that.  But the ATF has to fucking move faster than a year to approve (still waiting on a suppressor I bought spring of 2021).  I have heard the new electronic submission of NFA has sped things up to 3-4 months, which is okay with me.  Put ARs on the list and remove suppressors.  Zero reason for them to be NFA and have the extra delay and tax. Open up NICS to public for private sales.  Or have a national ID that has your voter registration and your ability to legally buy a firearm linked to the bar code.

The scary random mass shootings in public places generally account for 100 or so deaths a year.  And schools are very, very safe places for children.  Homicides in schools in our country of 350 million people are exceedingly rare and random.  I don't think much can be done about school shootings.  I would allow school employees who have their license to carry the option to carry at school.  I believe around 200 school districts in Texas allow this now.  My understanding, though I cannot confirm 100%, is that Uvalde was not one of them.

The last 20 years, the USA has ranged from 10 to 34 school children being murdered in schools per year.  As parents we worry about our kids. But worrying about them being shot and killed while at school is not a rational fear.  The hours they are in school are the safest hours of their day.  

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01

that's alot of words and posts to say that you only support it because you don't think it would work.

 

Also, it would have prevented Uvalde and several of the other recent mass shootings. Because we're at such a fucked up point - we HAVE to take measures to reduce the frequency of occurrence - even if it doesn't cover every corner case as you and your peers take every opportunity to remind us.

Carrying MORE guns into a school isn't the fucking fix. Stop suggesting it as if it's something that is actually wanted by teachers, parents, or students - really anyone that's not suckling at the NRA teat.

[Foosters 17691]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And as we know, the only slippery slope that exits is legislation tied to RoevWade. That’s when slippery slope argument becomes valid. 

Slippery slope? The right to abortion is gone. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Slippery slope? The right to abortion is gone. 

Gay rights and interracial marriage, too?  My understanding it would all be gone like a fart in the wind.  A slippery slope, if you will. 

[Foosters 17691]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Gay rights and interracial marriage, too?  My understanding it would all be gone like a fart in the wind.  A slippery slope, if you will. 

Yes, that's the argument. Because the side that went after Roe has explicitly stated they want to do the same to those protected rights. 

I'm not sure why proposing regulations on gun ownership is a slippery slope when other protected rights are also regulated.

What you've done is see both sides use the same term and reflexively shout "both sides" without understanding the differences. In other words, a strawman.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Foosters

[Blotto 23418]

34 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Colorado has two phases to its red flag laws (called extreme risk protection orders or ERPOs).  First, a court can examine a petition for an ERPO against a respondent and if they determine that the concern is legitimate based on a "preponderance of evidence", issue a temporary ERPO where guns must be surrendered for a maximum of 2 weeks.  During that time, the court can issue a final ERPO with a higher burden of "clear and convincing" proof that the respondent poses a significant risk of gun violence.  If this happens, they must surrender their guns for 364 days.  A respondent is allowed to be present and provide evidence on their behalf in both cases.  A respondent has to have their guns returned within 3 days of an ERPO expiring.  Petitioners for an ERPO can face criminal charges for filing malicious and/or false petitions.

I'm not a gun guy, so I dont know how a lot of this shit works. To my knowledge there is no gun registry that tracks how many and what type of guns each gun owner has. So in a situation where somebody's behavior would trigger the red flag laws, is it just assumed that the person will turn over all their guns voluntarily? Consider a guy that has 20+ guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, what ensures that he surrenders the entirety of his arsenal? If he was planning on shooting up a school, I'm not sure he will be particularly inclined to fully comply when the authorities tell him to surrender all his guns. 

And I'm not asking that as someone opposed to any gun regulations. I'm just trying to understand how effective some of these other measures can be as an alternative to legislation that just simply bans the sale of AR-15s and other similar weapons. 

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Gay rights and interracial marriage, too?  My understanding it would all be gone like a fart in the wind.  A slippery slope, if you will. 

Sounds more like you would have experienced a shart in the wind

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I'm not sure why proposing regulations on gun ownership is a slippery slope when other protected rights are also regulated.

Because look at your first paragraph, then ask how much of one side feels about firearms. Sheila Jackson Lee and Feinstein have been telling us for years how the left views our rights to the 2nd.  Should we not take them at their word?  They mirror tbones thoughts above.  Or is it different in this case because…reasons?

[Captainant 27311]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Because look at your first paragraph, then ask how much of one side feels about firearms. Sheila Jackson Lee and Feinstein have been telling us for years how the left views our rights to the 2nd.  Should we not take them at their word?  They mirror tbones thoughts above.  Or is it different in this case because…reasons?

Yes, and your side has been telling us for decades and continue on this very page of this very thread that you would prefer more children be murdered in their classroom than take ANY prophylactic step to reduce the frequency of children getting slaughtered in their classroom as the police sit around outside tazing the parents

[Johnny Sack 8397]

32 minutes ago, UnivTex34 said:

WAHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

JOHHNY SACK MAD!

 

Someone repped him and it hurt his fe-fes......

 

Stop bitching about rep you pussy.

[Goredho 17302]

35 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I'm not arguing against them. I am arguing for them as long as they are well crafted. I have no problem with what you said, as long as it is actually followed. I would say that that is a good example of one. Two weeks is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for a hearing. Is there a provision for a hearing that doesn't involve immediate removal of guns before the hearing in cases where there isn't demonstrable immediate danger? If not that could be a good enhancement. Are there penalties for local governments who don't follow through with the law?

Thanks for engaging in specifics.  As stated, here in Colorado there are two hearings, both of which may result in no removal of someone's guns or restoration of their guns.  In the first where the maximum duration of losing guns is up to 2 weeks, and the petitioner has the burden to show a "preponderance of evidence" that the respondent is a threat for gun violence.  Only if they can do that will the respondent have their guns confiscated.  The vast majority of petitioners here at least are law enforcement.

As for your second question about penalties for local governments who don't follow through with the law, I don't think there are, because several rural sheriffs in Colorado say they will refuse to enforce it.  I am not aware of a case where they have been brought to task for that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/

 

[Goredho 17302]

27 minutes ago, Blotto said:

I'm not a gun guy, so I dont know how a lot of this shit works. To my knowledge there is no gun registry that tracks how many and what type of guns each gun owner has. So in a situation where somebody's behavior would trigger the red flag laws, is it just assumed that the person will turn over all their guns voluntarily? Consider a guy that has 20+ guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, what ensures that he surrenders the entirety of his arsenal? If he was planning on shooting up a school, I'm not sure he will be particularly inclined to fully comply when the authorities tell him to surrender all his guns. 

And I'm not asking that as someone opposed to any gun regulations. I'm just trying to understand how effective some of these other measures can be as an alternative to legislation that just simply bans the sale of AR-15s and other similar weapons. 

Sounds more like you would have experienced a shart in the wind

I don't know exactly how that process is handled.  The best I can find is this:
 

Once the ERPO is issued, the respondent must surrender all their firearms and concealed carry permits, according to the webpage. The respondent has the option to surrender the firearms to law enforcement or federally licensed firearm dealer, or if it’s an antique or relic, the firearm can be surrendered to a family member.

Also of note from the same article:

However, despite concerns raised during the 2019 legislative session, abuse of the red flag procedure was noted in the report as being low in number last year. In analyzing more than 100 red flag petitions, CSPH researchers identified only four instances of “clearly inappropriate” attempts to use the red flag process. In all four instances, the report states that the petitioner falsely characterized their relationship to the respondent.

“In all four cases, courts denied the red flag petition,” the report states. In one case, the petitioner was left with perjury charges. In one instance the petitioner was incarcerated and filed a petition against prison guards, another appeared to have “misunderstood law requirements and filed against a neighbor” and in another, the petition was filed against an entire police department by a petitioner with evidence of mental illness “in the petition.”

https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/in-first-year-of-colorado-red-flag-law-ags-office-reveals-misuse-was-rare/