Red flag laws are unlikely to ever survive a constitutional challenge. It’s not a second ammendment issue, it’s a fifth ammendment issue.
Yeah, baring people from exercising rights who have been convicted of no crime is not only going to fail constitutional challenges, but is a very poor path to go down.
Not to mention that even backing it in the first place is just going to give republican media more talking points to galvanize people against Biden/Harris in the 2024 election. Poorly thought out and poor timing. I’m personally in favor of stricter gun laws, but I don’t think this one has much chance of taking effect, so I’d rather they hold off until 2025 at least before trying to push it.
If there’s one thing that makes me put on the tinfoil hat for US politics, it’s how many self defeating takes that the Democrats trot out in election season.
“Hey we need to win over at least some of the rural and suburban votes”
“Hmmm… How about some gun control laws that the Supreme Court won’t even have to be bribed to overturn? Maybe with a little taste of police state?”
Democrats struggle between standing up for the right thing even though it’s unpopular, and doing the politically-great thing albeit with watered-down words and policy. Deciding between which depends on the zeitgeist.
Truth is, something does need done about guns. We’re the laughing-stock of the industrialized world in this respect and for good reason. On the other hand, now probably isn’t the best time, considering how stacked the Supreme Court is. Better to pivot to universal healthcare and alleviating societal stress at every opportunity. Bernie’s 32 hour work week with no loss in pay is another good example.
And if they somehow do, rest assured that red states will use it as an opportunity to disarm LGBT folk for being ‘violently mentally ill’ before the ink is dry on the decision.
No, it’s worse than that. Constitutional sheriffs will simply refuse to enforce the laws with which they disagree. We have elected peace officers openly violating state and federal laws and they’re very outspoken about it.
Red flag laws have already been on the books in various places throughout the country. Do you think the gun nuts just didn’t feel like challenging them with an auto-win case?
The fact is, they’ve tried and been rejected.
They haven’t been tried at a federal level yet, which is all that really matters. It’s going to take time before a case makes it through the whole process.
Removed by mod
So this is one of those slam dunk legal arguments that only works in federal courts? And the gun nuts haven’t managed to get a single federal court to agree to it in all the years red flag laws have been active? Sure.
This center is intended to support those states with those laws, it’s not bringing in any new federal laws wrt gun control.
Operated through the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and paid for by a justice department grant, Erpo is designed to help state and local governments, law enforcement, and others – including behavioral health and social service providers – “optimize” the use of red flag laws, Harris said.
It will provide training and technical assistance, including educational opportunities and workshops “for a wide variety of stakeholders”. But the vice-president also acknowledged that red flag laws, which facilitate the temporary removal of firearms from a person a court believes capable of harming themselves or others, are not universally popular.
We need actual gun controll on a federal level. Even just a register and requirement for private sales to go thru an FFL for a background check would be huge.
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
There’s a reason “new in box” guns get sold at a markup on the private market.
Hint: people that can’t but at a store will pay a premium.
I like guns, but I have too many buddies who buy guns, then sell them less than a year later and brag about how good of businessmen they are for making profit. All theyre doing is likely funneling guns to people who can’t pass background checks. There’s just the plausible deniability on their end that if it’s not legit, it’s not their fault.
What I don’t get is why not open up the 4473 form to people doing private sales? You could have it on a phone app even. It’s not like an FFL isn’t doing anything special, just calling in and reading your answers off the damn form.
Because lots of personal information ends up on there–often a social security number–and the seller/transferor is required to retain copies of the form in perpetuity. (I believe that when a gun store closes they are obligated to turn over their paper copies to the BATF.) It’s paper intentionally, because they wanted to prevent the system from becoming a back-door registry; doing it electronically would mean that, either records wouldn’t be retained, or you would be creating a de facto registry. Personally, I don’t want some guy I met off Gun Broker to have a paper copy of all my PII floating around in his home forever.
There have been proposals that address this. The way it was handled is that the buyer puts their own info in the system on their end and it returns a token/code that is given to the seller. The seller enters the token and name then system gives a red light or green light. It doesn’t include the serial number of the gun or the identity of the seller, there is no retained record to be entered in a database. Just a go/no go response for the seller.
The proposal was rejected by democrats for not going far enough so instead we have nothing.
Ha. Yeah, rejected by Dems sounds about right. In my general experience, establishment Dems aren’t going to be seriously on-board with anything that doesn’t involve bans on models, features, or entire types of firearms. Kinda like Republicans aren’t willing to accept any compromise on “border security” that doesn’t completely ban non-white/non-christian people.
TBH, I’m deeply frustrated that Dems appear unwilling to seriously work for the kinds of changes in material circumstances that would affect rates of violent crime without enacting bans and registries. Even “liberal” cities like San Francisco are backsliding sharply.
I moved from the Seattle area to rural Oklahoma a year and a half ago. 5 years in WA made me not actually be mad about OK.
Probably because that would actually be effective.
There is no reason to add extra expense through an FFL. Just open the system up for all.
Oh, so you hate small businesses?
It’s like $30 to run a background check thru a FFL, often less.
Like, what do you envision the process would be if people just looked themselves or potential buyer up?
Does the seller get the private information of the buyer and run it? Does the buyer just show up with a printout and a matching ID and we pretend that can’t be faked?
There’s a cheap and easy system already in existence that works, just use it.
Does the seller get the private information of the buyer and run it?
Businesses are free to steal that information but your average Joe can’t?
Does the buyer just show up with a printout and a matching ID and we pretend that can’t be faked?
Why couldn’t they fake that at the gun store?
Oh, so you hate small businesses?
Please don’t start things with bad faith arguments.
So you’ve never had a background check?
Or you’ve just forgotten how they work?
Yes I’ve done many background checks in the past. No I don’t care about giving that info to an individual who I’m buying a firearm from. I would trust the individual more with this information than any business. I don’t buy guns the same way I buy an xbox off of Facebook Marketplace.
Side note: The last few times I’ve been they’ve actually encouraged me to lie when filling out the form. So it’s not even like they give two shits. And ironically they’re right next door to a homeland security office.
Side note: The last few times I’ve been they’ve actually encouraged me to lie when filling out the form.
But you haven’t reported it to authorities?
Yeah, you seem like you really care about gun laws and take this seriously.
Guess I should pay more attention to usernames and listen to what people are telling me.
But you haven’t reported it to authorities?
Yeah, you seem like you really care about gun laws and take this seriously.
All gun laws are unconstitutional.
Guess I should pay more attention to usernames and listen to what people are telling me.
Ah yes, ad hominem attacks based off of a username of all things.
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
This really isn’t the loophole that people think it is. If you buy new firearms with the intent to sell it, you’re committing a felony. There was an airport executive killed in a gunfight with the BATF just this past week over just this (the BATF was serving a warrant because he was alleged to have been buying firearms with the intent of reselling them, despite not being an FFL holder and doing background checks; he opened fire on them, and predictably did not survive). This is the essence of what a straw purchase is.
Yes, but straw purchase laws are almost impossible to enforce. Buying with the intent to sell to a prohibited buyer is illegal, but good luck proving it.
Requiring all transfers to go through a background check makes it much more difficult. And it doesn’t even have to involve an FFL - just either open NICS up to the public. Allow someone wanting to buy a gun to generate a code that’s good for X days that they can give to a seller that can be verified along with their name in place of a background check.
It protects privacy by not allowing checks on random people, but does allow for background checks for private sales.
I used to work in gun sales, and the reality is that I was probably involved in a few straws. I actively tried to stop them, and even caught a few people trying it, but if someone just came in, passed a background check, and bought a gun I wouldn’t have known any better. It was the people with the sketchy friend nodding and shaking their heads as I went from product to product or people exchanging cash on camera in front of the store that we caught. People who weren’t idiots about it had no trouble.
Red flag laws do help a bit and they are the only real tool we have. Even if you’re saving a tiny fraction of the lives you could with real enforcement, you gotta do something. There’s just no path to federal gun control now
deleted by creator
Explain what you mean here. Who is abusing red flag laws?
deleted by creator
That doesn’t answer the question though, who is abusing them? I don’t see a lot of stories of them being abused. Many require a family member or a direct threat to issue so the proof isnt “zero”
deleted by creator
That’s the thing though I don’t see any proof what you’re saying is correct. Most ERPOs require proof or a statement from a family member (which is in most cases good evidence) so these do have judicial review.
Only a couple states rely on law enforcement only (Indiana and Florida). And outside of california all arms are supposed to be returned after 1 year which seems incredibly fair if somebody is off their meds or having a breakdown or something.
Have you really never heard of the Black Panthers and similar groups? Those are the sorts of people these laws would be abused to disarm.
Explain like I’m a European – what are red flag laws, and how do they hold up against 2A?
what are red flag laws
The short version is one is banned from owning or possessing guns based on accusations from others. The accusation does not necessarily need to be of a crime nor does evidence need to be provided. The accusation simply needs to be a ‘red flag’ (a term which means many different things in different areas). A common one is accusing one of being likely to commit a crime in the future.
how do they hold up against 2A
They are not likely to fail a 2A challenge as the 5A challenge will be much easier to argue for a defendant. Barring one from exercising a right who has not been convicted of a crime is basically guaranteed to fail a 5A challenge.
Exactly. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Today’s congress would be needed for more sweeping reforms (not going to happen right now) and the judiciary on that side too (not going to happen for a long time). They’re doing what they can. It isn’t much, but it’s what they can do.
and they are the only real tool we have
Because when people give a common sense recommendation for more tools, some people want to insist we can’t do anything new…
Like, do you just not understand what people mean when they say:
We need more gun control
Because it’s a real basic sentence…
There’s just no path to federal gun control now
Just give up without trying because it’s not guaranteed to work…
Fucking trump banned bumpstocks on a whim, but when it’s a Dem in charge suddenly anything being accomplished is impossible. That shit gets old quick.
Biden can do things, he’s just so obsessed with getting Republicans to vote for him that he won’t.
They just tried to remove the speaker for passing a fuckin budget dude. They’d kidnap his children and murder them on a livestream if he agreed to gun control. That’s the MAGA reality. They’re radicals.
We can’t do anything about gun violence because people with guns will use violence…
You’re basically arguing that not only do we negotiate with terrorists, we have to endanger everyone else to keep the terrorists happy
Did you never learn how it worked out when people tried to appease nazis?
Spoilers: they never stay appeased long.
Walk me through the math on gun control. Which GOP reps will support it in the house and senate? Tell me their names. I’ll assume that all dems and independents will go along with it
In 2021 Dems controlled the House, Senate, and presidency… It wasn’t till 2023 the Republicans had the House.
So why do you assume it wasn’t done during those two years?
Walk me through the Senate math as to how they could have achieved the 60 votes in 2021 then
deleted by creator
if you want a gun without a papertrail, you shouldnt have a gun.
deleted by creator
I’m all for owning anything and everything. with proper licensing, checks, and procedures.
But anyone that wants to buy shit without paperwork, without paper trails, without background checks? There is not a single, good, legitimate reason to avoid that shit… and there is a whole lot of bad, dangerous, threat to society reasons to want to avoid that shit.
i’m not gonna agree to disagree on this. You’re wrong. Full stop.
deleted by creator
He says, using a thing that’s never happened as a backdrop for his taking point
deleted by creator
but its happened dozens of times, man.
Dozens!
Helen says so, so it must be true!
I guess the same argument could be used for privacy aswell. If you’re not going to do anything illegal then why not let the government read your messages and monitor your browser history? What’s the problem if you have nothing to hide?
99.999% of gun owners are never going to shoot anyone. These kind of databases infringe on the privacy of perfectly innocent citizens only because of the extremely rare number of bad actors among them.
I guess the same argument could be used for privacy aswell
You could, if you wanted to comically misrepresent the point.
What is the comically large difference between the two that I’m not seeing then?
Yesterday’s compromise is tomorrow’s loophole…
We don’t need more gun control, we need ‘criminal control’. If you commit a serious violent crime, you need to go away and not come back out, ever. Taking away the rights of the people who don’t commit crimes is never the answer.
What kind of distopian nightmare are you wishing for? All crimes come with a life sentence?
You better hope you never make a mistake in your life and fear as all criminals now have everything to lose if they get caught.
A simple robbery? Might as well turn it into multiple homicide. Can’t leave witnesses behind and risk life.
We do not give people the right to own nuclear warheads, despite the plain text of the 2nd amendment suggesting we have that right (the right to arms, not just guns). Compelling public interest requires a limit on this right. I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree with this premise. The question comes down to what level of potential body count/property damage constitutes a compelling public interest? Focusing on guns specifically is a distraction. If we invented a firearm that could level a city would everyone have a right to own one?
Oh dear god the red hats are going to fucking lose it on this one.
How many are going to get brain aneurysm? Any amature guesstimates?
Robert Card should have been red flagged multiple times. It didn’t happen. Implementing this nationwide just means it’s going to fail just as bad nationally.
Theres actually good data showing that red flag laws do stop some violence. The reality is, it’s this crappy half measure or nothing, that’s just how our political system is. Yes, it’s a band aid on a gushing wound, but at least it saves somebody’s life
IMO the model should be,
Title and insure all firearms so that even private sales will have to go through at least one government official to run a background check,
Require secure and separate storage of the gun and ammunition verified randomly at least once a year, subsidize the locker though so it’s not just a barrier to ownership for the poor,
Require separate licenses for different loading actions and holding classes (one vs two handed),
Provide a permanent office that facilitates both buybacks and also display rendering for folks who just want to keep a hand-me-down for show,
Have a class of criminal and felony law related to the firearm titled to you being used in the committing of a crime or being found in someone else’s hands without you having reported it stolen, especially if it can be proven that you handed them the weapon willingly,
Subsidize gun stores being able to build ranges so that people can get their itch out by renting for a day to shoot at targets since let’s face it most people buying guns are doing it because they’re enthusiasts who’ll probably test fire it once and then barely use it again except to pose with it,
Immediately seize firearms owned by someone who is a suspect of a violent crime,
Subsidize replacing firearms for people who were wrongly suspected or convicted of a crime which got their weapons seized,
Prohibit bringing the guns into public spaces aside from hunting grounds and shooting clubs and events,
Post federal security at the entrances to gun shows and shooting events to detain anyone who’d fail the background check that’s trying to get entry.
jfc what an absolute hellhole of a police state you’ve dreamt up. so many of your hairbrained ideas amount to “cops should have unlimited access to your private life”. how exactly do you think this would play out given the US and it’s systemic racism and classism?
If your entire private life is guns then maybe the police should have unlimited access to it.
Most black and poor people aren’t ammosexuals believe it or not!
I think his point was that this sentence “Require secure and separate storage of the gun and ammunition verified randomly at least once a year” would imply that police could enter anyone’s home at any time during a year without consent or prior notice. Which is a big 4th amendment violation here in the US.
Buying a firearm should be considered consent to measures of accountability.
Your rights as a firearm owner are worth less than your responsibility to society as a firearm owner.
Not to mention “unreasonable search and seizure” is pretty well ruled out by it being a law establishing it as common procedure.
It’d be like ruling the very concept of mandatory vehicle inspections or probation to be unconstitutional.
Not to mention “unreasonable search and seizure” is pretty well ruled out by it being a law establishing it as common procedure.
I don’t mean to be rude or blunt. But bills passed by Congress do not supercede the constitution or act as a qualifier of constitutionality. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
If Congress decided you can’t speak your mind well tough cookies the Constitution says 1st Amendment. A law establishing something as common procedure doesn’t make that procedure virtuous or constitutional.
No but there’s a wide gulf between proving unreasonable search and seizure vs proving restriction of free expression.
My point is that laws establishing warrantable causes for search rarely fall afoul of unreasonable search and seizure, mainly because they involve the reasonable procedure of warrants and having to prove cause without.
Cool, but the current implementation of the constitution won’t really let that happen.
Literally none of what’s described above has been stopped by anyone except not being able to menace the public with your firearm, because yes, just having the gun at all is still menacing. Even if only you know you have it, every situation you’re involved in is 10X more escalated than it needs to be because a gun is involved at all.
Also, frankly, fuck what the founding fathers have to say about anything, they were slave oligarchs who believed that letting women, minorities, or even just non land owning white men vote was too much to bear, so the old syphilis ridden bags can continue to fucking rot for what they say we should do about the fact that one man can annihilate a crowd in the time it takes authorities to even realize where he is, let alone do anything to stop him.
“every situation you’re involved in is 10X more escalated than it needs to be because a gun is involved at all”
absolutely delusional, please explain how a vulnerable individual concealed carrying is escalating anything.
Well for starters them having the gun doesn’t help protect them, it just raises the odds that their killer will take the murder weapon from them after a struggle.
Not to mention how you having the gun still puts you in an escalated frame of reference compared to where you’d be at without a weapon.
The only way for the presence of a firearm to not put anyone on edge is for everyone to be completely unaware it’s even there, so unless you feel like taking short term memory loss pills before you walk out already strapped, you’re still menacing and escalating the situation by having the gun on you.
