Should gang members be included in Red Flag restrictions? We know that affiliates of various racial supremecy groups are being included, due to the likelihood they will commit a hate crime. Gangs represent the majority of shooting violence in this nation. FTR, I oppose Red Flag laws on the basis that they restrict citizens from constitutional rights without due process. But if folks deemed to be affiliated with 'hate' groups are to be included in Red Flag, gangs ought to be as well. What do you think? Would the disclusion of gang members from Red Flag laws render the whole thing pointless? Is there more justification to include 'hate' groups than there is to include gangs?
Dems won't stand for that. More than 80% of gang members are either Hispanic or Black. Red Flag laws target whites so Dems are all for it. Gang members don't vote GOP, so Dems wont cripple their base by including gangs.
I'm sure they will support Red Flagging gang members. All they want to do is reduce gun violence, that's the whole point here. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by gangs, so I'm sure the dems will be full on board supporting including gangs in the Red Flag laws. Right, dems?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws The Democrats are nothing but a gang empowerment organization.
Because being in a gang isn't a crime, and not all gangs engage in violence. Mostly, but not all. However, this is also true for hate groups (especially if we're going by designations assigned by the SPLC for example). Red flag laws circumvent due process, and I have zero faith they will be used unbiasly or unpartisanly. Whether its gangs or hate groups, its guilt by association. Do you support red flag laws? If so, would you still support them if gangs were not included in the database?
Funny, but most might miss the a bit of the underlying truth in the above. Hate groups are always the ‘them’.
We really have very different understandings of red flag laws. I'm thinking of temporary restrictions on gun purchases/possession, not permanent. However, to argue the idea of due process as you mentioned, I would ask you if you'd allow a person who belongs to a radical group that has threatened mass death to keep guns or an admitted terrorist to keep explosives. Maybe the problem is in who gets labeled and why? My feelings on red flag laws are, for example, if someone is making threats, acting violently, bragging online, etc., then we should step in and take action to stop that person. As I see it, we would be complicit in any deaths that happened because we didn't act to prevent it.
As in securing a restraining order, due process can be be followed, evidence considered and one granted very quickly. As with both restraining orders and search warrants there are requirements to be met. For instance for a search warrant must meet four requirements: (1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer; (2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search; (3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and (4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized. However, one major exception is if it is, reasonably and credibly believed evidence might be destroyed or lives are believed to be in immediate danger which in the case of someone issuing direct and credible threats would qualify. Merely belonging to a group labeled a hate group does not qualify. In most grants of restraining orders (in domestic situations), previous records of behavior or evidence of threats often exist, or corroborating testimony of credible witnesses and are presented and considered by a detached magistrate. He said, she said usually isn’t enough. The question for Red flag laws is if they follow the templates already defined by warrants and restraining orders or if they open opportunity for selective abuse, crossing the line into violating the 4th A.
After the fisa abuses used to overthrow a elected president its hard to trust these red flag issuers.
I sure hope you are correct . I sure have my doubts , seems like our elected officials live by different rules then everyday Americans. That has got to change , and change quickly.
After being raised in Belfast during ‘the Troubles’, then consulting to government for the last 40 years, I have evolved as a skeptic those elected to office as well. The ‘swamp’ as Trump labeled it, is a name born of a good analogy of political culture in all levels of government; lots of quicksand, gators, poisoners things that traps what enters. However, the one saving grace is that from political antagonists, the ‘Truth’ often is exposed in the bloodshed and blood, mark my words, will be spilled.
A one year period of time is temporary. But an individual not being able to legally purchase or own a firearm for that one year period, on the basis of mere accusation, is a grave harm to suffer.
I see no problem there--for the most part. If they followed the templates that fit the situation, it shouldn't be a problem. My issue with not having the authority to take preventive measures. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest a problem and we decide to wait until after the fact, I see it as a moral failing.
If we have such laws, are they a good fit for the problem or are we trading a moral duty for a constitutional right? I'm not at all against rights, but (and this is an extreme example) if someone is pointing a gun at people in public and saying "bang, bang," we don't think twice about stopping that person, but if a person is doing that online, are we to ignore that? How should we handle it?
How do you point a gun at someone online? Perhaps you could cite a specific example of an incidence that current laws arent/werent sufficient to address but new red flag laws would be.
If You really believed that, hopefully you'd be doing more about it than posting on a forum and voting.
I was speaking metaphorically. As for the laws, I'll have to rely on you to point them out. I'm not familiar with them. My point is we should take active measures to reduce to problem. So far, I'm not seeing that, even when there have been lots of warnings.
Its illegal to threaten anyone. Its illegal to brandish weapons. What would you consider a 'warning' that you think we need new laws to be able to address adequately?
To a large extent, the authority and processes are already defined, By the rules for obtaining a search warrant I previously posted, including the exception associated with a time critical need where someone’s life is in immediate danger. If the threat isn’t immediate, there is time to follow due process and remedy via a court/independent magistrate who reviews the evidence/testimony and issues a court order that balances a potential threat against protecting an individual’s rights. A he said, she (Emergency) said must be considered in the face of corroborating or obvious evidence, followed by an opportunity for ‘a day in Court’ where purjury, slander, civil liability and other protections exist. Courts already allow emergency actions when the ‘emergency’ can be shown to have existed after the fact. Being a member of a group doesn’t automatically mean a person will commit an act of violence. The problem with some drafts of the RedFlag laws they are being passed off as a separate public safety law for gun confiscation where legal means already exist to remove weapons from credible threats to self or others and written to be weaponized for political abuse. Deciding to apply such laws against a hate group solely because membership is alleged opens the opportunity for abuse on so many levels. Consider, how many cases there are of traffic stops where searches/arrests happened of minorities that would not have happened if the person was a white, middle age, graying fellow. I have been told by some liberal friends that my conservative views and being called a Constitutionalist (?) means I support White Supremacy. I not only don’t but have put my life on the line with my activist support of minority rights and was the one that presented proof positive that redlining lending practices were occurring by banking institutions that lead to a Supreme Court case. The accusation that I support White Supremacy, born of my disagreeing with certain liberal doctrine, under some Red-flag drafts could potentially subject me to having my guns confiscated based on the spurious allegation. BTW, when I was in Belfast in the late 60’s and began attending Queen’s University after early passing of my GCSE exams, I became a member of the NICRA, Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (think counter part to the UCLA), that called attention to the rampant violation of civil rights for targeted citizens. The government, in an attempt to silence those of the NICRA and to quell peaceful civil rights marches not unlike those in the US, erroneously (though intentionally) labeled those in the NICRA as members of the IRA (membership was illegal). That allegation resulted in kick-in and grab operations of NIRCA members based on who signed a petition for the government to address grievances. I was imprisoned for 6 months, never appearing before a magistrate. I was 13. Since then, I had been accused of being an IRA member many times (I wasn’t), though if it were proven, I would have been convicted of a crime. The false allegation, placed my life in greater danger than it already was living where I did, prompting me to come to the US. That allegation followed me here resulting in interviews with the Authorities here, who ultimately dismissed the allegations.
If someone on line is advocating violence or issuing threats, they can be reported to the FBI who can then investigate/assess the threat. They already have the apparatus to act on credible threats.
