Skip to comments.Rand Paul signals support for Red Flags
Posted on 08/13/2019 11:32:24 AM PDT by RandFan
Paul, a strong gun-rights advocate, signaled his willingness to support something along the lines of "red flag" laws that allow guns to be removed from those who may be a danger to themselves and others.
"I'm not opposed to sort of an emergency order for 48 hours and then you get a hearing in a court where you get the full due-process protections," he said in the interview. "It's the one thing that could fix a lot of stuff. I think most of these homicidal attackers ... are sending off signals to their family and community."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And the IRS and the FBI.. yet from the prez on down.. infringement.
Unfortunately, all the accuser has to say is they were concerned. Pretty hard to prove malice.
This is a true precrime bill if there ever was one. We think you are about to commit a crime therefore we find you guilty and remove your weapons.
No due process
But this isn’t “secret”. It’s also a much lower impact sort of thing.
Fact is, we should have a way to stop potentially dangerous people when they are doing everything but saying, At 2 tomorrow I’m gonna shoot up this school and here’s my gun I’m gonna use.
Ultimately, something like this would be used fairly rarely, but not as rare as the shootings are. But for it to be relatively rare, the safeguards I mentioned (and probably others, if I was carefully thinking it out) would have to be in place.
I would definitely not allow “anonymous” red flags. Otherwise it would just become a new form of “swatting”.
They have to get votes (we don’t), and something like 89% of the country wants the Red Flag Laws...so they’re coming, unless our side can make a credible case that some other option will work just as effectively.
Maybe it’s out there, but I haven’t seen that proposed yet, and I’d rather have Paul and Trump involved in writing those laws than an all-Democrat super-majority writing them in 2021...because they will get written, by one side or the other.
Sorry but I’m just being a realist here - public opinion is simply not on the side of effectively doing nothing (which is how opposition to these laws are presently viewed). Unless we change that...we’re going to lose on this issue, one way or another - particularly when the next shooting happens, and then the ones after that.
I’m actually with Rand on this one - from a philosophical position. And I live in Kentucky.
But as I’ve said, it would need a LOT of safeguards to prevent abuse of it.
No government program has ever worked as advertised. This program would morph into a gun confiscation program just as sure as we are here on free republic. DO NOT let this happen!!!!!!!
A dream of mine is that we gather our guns and buy some rope to test some branches in D.C. should these ninnies keep threatening our rights.
They’re OUR rights, their job, take care of things outside our abilities.
If they can’t uphold their oaths to the constitution, they all need to resign.
Having just said the above (#25), if we are able to show that what the Democrats demand is over-the-top and it’s all or nothing, we can still win on this issue.
But we won’t get there by flat-out refusing to discuss the laws.
(and yes, I expect to be flamed here, but I can take it)
Rand claims to be a constitutionalist, yet, he always comes out as the anti-American liberal.
[[This is a true precrime bill if there ever was one. We think you are about to commit a crime therefore we find you guilty and remove your weapons.]]
That sums up perfectly what they are attempting to do- well put
I’m a fan of Rand but i cannot sit idly by while he goes off the reservation.
It is secret. Check into any real red flag case. They are handled in family court and completely private. That’s why you can’t see all the assets of your neighbors going through divorce. Family court proceedings are closed to the public.
Read articles on the Gary Willis case, the guy killed by the cops in MD doing a red flag call.
The only red flag here is that the law is focused on the gun not the person.
i.e. it IS focused on the person.
But for it to work, it needs tons of safeguards to prevent it being used as a form of “swatting”. And it can’t be enforced, “long term” without more than just a judge thinking a guy might, possibly, maybe do something bad. There needs to be some sort of definable threshold.
One good one would be two or more witnesses testifying that you have made actionable threats, on or off line.
It falls into the concept of “an armed society is a polite society”, by adding the corrolary, “if you own a gun, and you threaten someone on or off line, expect that gun to be taken away from you for a time.”
Any if this sht passes I am DONE with these lying bastards.
[[But as Ive said, it would need a LOT of safeguards to prevent abuse of it.]]
the left don’t even respect our constitution- how can we think they will respect even lower ‘safeguards’?
If it were focused on the person it would’ve been the person being taken away, not the gun.
So they are so dangerous you want their gun. Once that’s gone they are safe now?
It was only the gun making them dangerous?
There are already laws on the books that can require a person to undergo psychiatric evaluation. We don’t need these violations of civil rights known as Red Flag laws.
They are pre-crimes: A person hasn’t committed a crime but we think they might, so take their guns.
Red Flag laws are intended to be outside the constitution and deprive people their rights without a trial.
Colorado has a Red Flag law: The accused is never allowed representation in court. An anonymous person can file a report, the police take it to the court, the court agrees, and a SWAT team is sent to take the person’s guns.
No one should ever have to prove they are harmless and competent to own a gun, it should always be incumbent upon the state to prove they are not, BEFORE taking away any weapons.
Nope- when someone wants to frame someone, they will invent evidence against the person- too many innocent peopel will be jailed, then labelled a felon
Two or more witnesses is a good rule and comes right out of the bible.
And you are right, you can’t really defend yourself against an effective conspiracy to frame you. It’s always been that way, though.
And to be clear, I think the standard would still need to be very high. I also think that anyone of psychotropic drugs should not be allowed to own guns, nor should anyone with whom they share a domicile be allowed to store firearms on the premises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.