RED FLAG LAWS SUCK AND ARE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

[M]

"Red Flag Laws" will not stop any future shootings, nor will they lessen the innocent individuals killed. All they will do is give the Government unprecedented access to our medical and other records covered by the 4th Amendment. It's an Unreasonable Search!

>

The Red Flag Laws will also have a massive Negative effect on proper Mental Health Treatments. People who already have problems will most likely not share what they need to share with their mental health professionals or doctors if it is going to possibly be scrutinized and politically weaponized by the Government to be used against them in the future.

>

The law will also probably prevent many people who actually need treatment for intense conditions, refuse to seek it, because it would open their lives to Government scrutiny for any purpose the Government decides is a valid reason to intrude Politically. We all know how our mostly benign government has transgressed, what do you think the outcome will be with a Socialist Weaponized Government? 

>

The "Red Flag Laws" are patently Unconstitutional via the 4th Amendment Caveat against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. It would be far better to set up a system where someone who was Targeted/Accused would be brought to a Court or a neutral location, with a Lawyer Present to plead their case before the fact, and to face their accusers.

>

Any Lawyer could be engaged by the party being Accused/Targeted but the Court/Government would be required pay the lawyer fee regardless of the outcome. The accused could face their accusers and Respond/Rebut any and all charges. Should the accusation be considered frivolous, the accuser would have to pay the fees involved.

>

Democrats advocate for a "RED FLAG" law that upends our system of jurisprudence, which considers "Assumption of Innocence", as it's 'BEDROCK PRINCIPLE', and they try supplant it with a RED FLAG LAW which  "PRESUPPOSES GUILT", Solely on the say so of a Third Party, and with no other evidence presented. Then Blindly Accepting and Acting On that Third Parties Statement/Accusation.

>

Consider this; A vicious Divorce, and one of the parties own guns. The Aggrieved Party then makes a false statement to the authorities, and the Authorities go to confiscate the guns. In the process happen to kill the owner of the guns who was not a threat to begin with.

>

Picture and these paragraphs from: Prepared Gun Owners;

The Case in point; GLEN BURNIE, Md. — A suspect is dead after an officer and the suspect struggled over a gun in Glen Burnie, triggering the officer to shoot and kill the suspect. One of Willis’ relatives tells the Baltimore Sun that his sister had filed for the protective order. How ironic that Willis’ sister filed the red flag report to protect her brother, yet her report ultimately killed him.

>

Gun owners knew this would happen. The red flag gun laws lead to subjective judgments about gun owners. And when the cops show up to seize the guns, is anybody surprised when the gun owner is angry or irate? After all, in the majority of cases, the gun owner being targeted has not committed any crimes.

[M]

Something From Oren Long;

The problem with ANY background check, voluntary or involuntary, is that it tells the government exactly what you have and many, many gun owners are wary of telling government anything at all, especially information that could be used to take away their rights.   Huge numbers of guns are transferred between family members, sold to friends, etc.   It's none of the government's business.

Plus, people (at least those of us who count and are paying attention) are realizing that government lies about everything, reflexively, under all circumstances, in all instances, for no reason, and with a straight face.      

The problem with ANY gun control is that it is based SOLELY on the concept that only GOVERNMENT should get to decide who can and cannot have a gun, a concept that flies directly in the face of the Original Intent of the Constitution, that the People control government, by force of arms if necessary, not vice verse.

It is important to note that ONLY law-abiding citizens would be affected by ANY gun control legislation.   Criminals are NEVER going to abide by any law -- THEY'RE CRIMINALS!   And, criminals, SURE AS HELL, are not going to submit to a background check!   The highest number of gun-related crimes occur in states and cities that are "gun-free" and where the law-abiding have been disarmed.   Strangely, these gun free areas are awash in guns.  How'd that happen?   I'll give you 10 guesses and the first 9 don't count.

Related thought:   I find it interesting that the media scream like gut-shot panthers whenever they are attacked, and regardless of what lies they openly tell, pointing to the First Amendment's admonition against "abridging" freedom of the press, in any form and for any reason.   They claim that ANY "regulation", however slight, is unconstitutional.   Yet, these same "defenders" of the Constitution have no problem with "infringing" our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.   They claim gun control measures are not an infringement, just common sense "regulation", for our own good, of course.   

If they are so concerned about guns in the hands of people they deem to be irresponsible, why are they not equally concerned over the power of the press being in the hands of people who are equally, mentally and intellectually irresponsible?   No hypocrisy there, right?   

There is an old joke:   You answer a knock on the door.   There is a man who says, "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."   Yeah, right!

Oren

[Virginia Foulk]

Well, California (LA?) seems to think I'm a terrorist. After all, I am an NRA member!! Guess I'll never travel to California. As for Beto, you will never override my rights to bear arms and stop me from protecting my family and property. By the way, my hat is Red and it says "GOD, GUNS and GUTS!  Made America; lets Keep all three". And I wear it everywhere I go.  Surprising who actually agrees, several older women have stopped me and like it. One even said that she liked the message.

I have already used my 20 gauge shotgun - years ago - to stop a fellow from beating a young woman and taking her car.  

 

[Virginia Foulk]

When I was 12, our school had us all create posters - our choice; funny, for something, against something, or just because. I chose Guns are Dangerous. Why? My dad took my brother and I out o teach us about guns. First thin he did was give me his 12 gauge shotgun to shoot. Wrong. Knocked me on my butt and I hated guns from then on.

Anyway, I acquired 4 little tiny toy handguns to attach to my poster, when it was ready. Next day, the guns were stolen. Made me very angry. I had to draw my own pictures of guns. Never discovered who took the little guns. 70 some years later, I'm still angry about it. So I'm now a proud real gun owner. And Beto and his political partners in crime will not convince me to give them up!!