Quote:
Originally Posted by August
These Red Flag laws make me wonder.
What is the sense of declaring somebody to be a danger but then only confiscating their guns and just leaving them to their own devices?
In case anyone doesn't know the way these laws work, somebody, a family member, social worker, ex wife, etc makes a claim to a judge that the subject is a danger to themselves or others. The judge issues a confiscation order for the subjects firearms. The cops show up at the subjects home, present the order and demand that the subject surrender all their firearms.
Now here is the strange part.
If the subject complies without resisting then the cops just take the guns and leave him there still depressed or angry or crazy enough to be a danger to themselves or others. Somebody that was supposedly bent on committing suicide or murder is supposedly completely deterred by the lack of a gun. We leave a depressed person with plenty of rope, razor blades and alone standing next to an open window in a room on the top floor of a tall building and we leave a manic free to plot his revenge on those who dropped a dime on him.
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
|
One problem i see with this August is that the weapon confiscation is without due process. What if someone is angry with someone or has an ax to grind and without cause or exercising malice or extreme prejudice decides to call the police to say someone is a danger to themselves and their community.
The authorities may end up taking weapons that never should have been taken in the first place. If on the other hand, someone is a legitimate dangers, by all means : secure : their weapons and as you said, diffuse the situation and get them the help they need.