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 ...
Either a crime has been committed or it hasnt. Anything else is pre-crime.
However, what makes this unique is it is not a blanket law. It is applied only to specific people based on their actions and threatening words.
And the key is this: It is only temporary, unless a solid case can be made regarding mental health. It’s akin to be ing arrested by the police. They can lock you up and take away your rights for a certain amount of time before they have to either charge you with a crime or let you go.
i.e. the state is already allowed to take away your rights for a short time even if you are never charged with a crime. And as is the case now, if they just do it willie nillie, they will have problems. It’s why it doesn’t happen often.
It’s also a little like that stop and frisk thing NYC had going for it. Sure, they harassed “innocent” people, but we all know who was really getting “harassed”, and that, yes, it WAS effective against crime.
Same thing here.
If they are such a danger, then why aren’t they being institutionalized? That’s the way it used to be done before we had all these mass shootings. If they are crazy and want to kill, just taking away their guns isn’t going to stop them.
Pretty disappointed over this one myself.
“The only option that works effectively is constitutional carry.”
Maybe so, but we’re a generation or so removed from having a public that can deal with large numbers of armed people in public. Walk around your block open-carrying and you’ll quickly light up 911.
Rand watched as a gunman mowed down congressmen on the ball field. That had to affect him.
No flaming here. I agree with you.
Rand Paul has lost his effing mind.
The guy in MD that was killed did not make any threats. It was a heated political discussion and his sister in law was frightened by how upset he was.
What the problem is with the 48 hr red flag law is gun owners simply do not trust the US or state governments to abide by the law and fully expect it to be abused by these entities. Why? FISA court abuses and enough lies from the US government the last 70 yrs. for Pinocchio’s nose to be in the Andromeda galaxy if he worked for them.
It all boils down to no one trusts the US government to follow the law, wonder why.
But this isnt secret. Its also a much lower impact sort of thing.
The first is a good point, not sure about the second yet. Guess we’ll have to see.
I suppose ALL states don’t have something similar in place for involuntary commitment, but seeing how Californiastan is already enacting illegal laws just to spite Trump....
I have a feeling that pwned LEO will be very likely to dispose of the collected weaponry sooner than they “should”.
I’m still trusting Trump, but am growing more concerned about 2025.
If Trump can’t put away at least some of the worst of our domestic enemies, he and his family and anyone who expresses support for him will be attacked the rest of our lives.
Same for Sarah Palin, by REPUBLICANS.
Constitutional carry is for concealed. Open carry is like a MAGA hat.
The next step is that owning too many guns, or too many of the “wrong” guns is a felony and suddenly — innocent people are disarmed and prohibited from ever owning a gun again.
That process does a lot more than just take away firearms. That takes away the ability of the person to post on the internet, threaten people, use other dangerous weapons like their car or a knife, and it provides time for an actual determination of dangerousness. Of course the psychiatry community has shown that it is difficult to identify dangerous people, several recent mass murderers passed their psychiatrist's examinations.
If somebody is too dangerous to have a gun aren't they too dangerous to be, for example, flying a commercial jetliner?
The reason politicians want to focus on guns is that provides them a way to disarm the population without raising the concerns that are raised when you force someone into a mental hospital for 3 days. I suspect if you just proposed a 30 day ban on internet usage and video game playing along with the firearms seizures the Democrats would vote the bills down.
True - I was confusing that. I do think concealed works, and works fine.
But given the condition of Democrats today, they’ll probably get more ‘triggered’ by a MAGA hat than if you’re spinning a loaded revolver on your index finger.
Not really, When I moved to Az in 2000 just about everyone open carried and it was not alarming to anyone at all. Everyone was used to the fact it was just part of the culture and common normal everyday attire like suits and ties were are in the city. Or Bib overalls in farming country, or Cowboy hats here.
“It was a heated political discussion and his sister in law was frightened by how upset he was.”
Was the SIL a liberal and the dead guy a conservative who voiced an objection to her in some way? Because simply disagreeing with them is considered ‘violence’ and ‘shouting’.
Cuz this is how it will work out every. single. time. with these laws.
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.