Think about red flag laws. Think about the person who likes guns, and shoots for fun, maybe they hunt too. Lawfully. Then they have a mental health break. They get help, but the state, and you could argue rightfully, temporarily takes their guns. OK. They were a threat to themselves, and the law in place set guidelines resulting in 6 months of no guns, no ammo, and cannot make any purchases.
Important note: this person is NOT a criminal, and hasn’t broken any laws. They would be breaking the law by buying a gun, or ammo, or possessing such during the 6 months to a year (that’s a range in Minnesota).
Honestly, I am a fan of red flag laws in principle. It’s a good idea all told. Now, we’re going to place 3D printers in the same category? What if this person’s favorite hobby, something that is helping them recover, is 3D printing? You, the state, in the interest of preserving health, are now forcibly eroding it by edging toward treating a 3D printer as a gun.
Yes, this comes from a true story, not in New York. This bill really shouldn’t leave committee.
I very much appreciate your take, but I fear you’ve not thought about a few things.
Red flag laws sound great until your psycho ex calls the police. And I’ve had psycho exes do far worse than merely make an accusatory phone call.
Important note: this person is NOT a criminal, and hasn’t broken any laws.
I can’t get behind withholding a constitutional right over a third-party accusation. And talk about a good way to get police murdered. “Yeah, computer says this guy is armed and fruity. Proceed with all caution.” If the flagged person actually has a mental breakdown, and the police are called, they’re getting executed. We all know this.
With fascism incoming, do you want to be on a list of armed citizens?
(Doesn’t matter if the reader doesn’t believe the 2A should exist, it does and the courts have upheld it again and again.)
I think that’s why I meant in principle. Due process ought to come quickly. No, the police in this country don’t have a good track record regarding people with mental health concerns.
The reality of the situation makes things far darker. If we lived in a place in which a law like this could exist and truly help people, I’d be for it, especially in the absence of even better scenarios. Ideally, no laws at all perhaps?
Your points here certainly don’t make me more likely to support this bill! Which it sounds like you agree.
Being a liberal gun nut, I think on gun laws a lot, watch a lot on content on the subject. Just don’t have answers.
I think we should be mandating safe storage though. Less kids and thieves with guns sounds great and I don’t see a 2A issue. Maybe allow one unsecured firearm in the home for defense. Maybe even 1 long gun and 1 pistol. Dunno.
And yeah, the 2A is the issue. We can’t ignore or repeal it, stuck for now.
One other thought; If we require a mental health professional to make the call, they’re always going to err on the side of caution. Can you imagine going to therapy and being advised, first visit, “You have zero mental health issues, a perfectly balanced mind. Go home.” Yeah, that’s never going to happen for anyone.
I think we should be mandating safe storage though. Less kids and thieves with guns sounds great and I don’t see a 2A issue. Maybe allow one unsecured firearm in the home for defense. Maybe even 1 long gun and 1 pistol. Dunno.
Couple things on this one:
For it to be effective, it would have to be ALL guns in the house. If you leave out two, what’s stopping those from being the stolen two? Kids and robbers could still get them.
Safes are either A) expensive as hell or B) dogshit that can be bypassed in 30sec and there is not much in between. So either you have the $2k to spend on an actual decent safe (that can still be broken into, just harder) or you buy a cheap safe that will only keep honest people honest. If we mandate the safes be good, that’s “guns only for the rich with an extra 2k for a safe,” if any stack on cabinet can do we may as well not have the law as you can get in with a screwdriver.
Furthermore, I have no kids nor roommates. I don’t think my cat is likely to steal a rifle 2x her weight and 4x her length, and my whole house should be considered at least on par with the security of a stack-on cabinet (more I’d argue, frankly.)
Now 3) If you do mandate all be stored in a good rich person’s safe, that still leaves us at “no guns out for home defense,” meaning gun thefts now just occur by making the homeowner empty the safe at gunpoint and nothing has been solved.
No. Just no. Seriously.
Think about red flag laws. Think about the person who likes guns, and shoots for fun, maybe they hunt too. Lawfully. Then they have a mental health break. They get help, but the state, and you could argue rightfully, temporarily takes their guns. OK. They were a threat to themselves, and the law in place set guidelines resulting in 6 months of no guns, no ammo, and cannot make any purchases.
Important note: this person is NOT a criminal, and hasn’t broken any laws. They would be breaking the law by buying a gun, or ammo, or possessing such during the 6 months to a year (that’s a range in Minnesota).
Honestly, I am a fan of red flag laws in principle. It’s a good idea all told. Now, we’re going to place 3D printers in the same category? What if this person’s favorite hobby, something that is helping them recover, is 3D printing? You, the state, in the interest of preserving health, are now forcibly eroding it by edging toward treating a 3D printer as a gun.
Yes, this comes from a true story, not in New York. This bill really shouldn’t leave committee.
I very much appreciate your take, but I fear you’ve not thought about a few things.
Red flag laws sound great until your psycho ex calls the police. And I’ve had psycho exes do far worse than merely make an accusatory phone call.
I can’t get behind withholding a constitutional right over a third-party accusation. And talk about a good way to get police murdered. “Yeah, computer says this guy is armed and fruity. Proceed with all caution.” If the flagged person actually has a mental breakdown, and the police are called, they’re getting executed. We all know this.
With fascism incoming, do you want to be on a list of armed citizens?
(Doesn’t matter if the reader doesn’t believe the 2A should exist, it does and the courts have upheld it again and again.)
I hear what you’re saying, I think.
I think that’s why I meant in principle. Due process ought to come quickly. No, the police in this country don’t have a good track record regarding people with mental health concerns.
The reality of the situation makes things far darker. If we lived in a place in which a law like this could exist and truly help people, I’d be for it, especially in the absence of even better scenarios. Ideally, no laws at all perhaps?
Your points here certainly don’t make me more likely to support this bill! Which it sounds like you agree.
Being a liberal gun nut, I think on gun laws a lot, watch a lot on content on the subject. Just don’t have answers.
I think we should be mandating safe storage though. Less kids and thieves with guns sounds great and I don’t see a 2A issue. Maybe allow one unsecured firearm in the home for defense. Maybe even 1 long gun and 1 pistol. Dunno.
And yeah, the 2A is the issue. We can’t ignore or repeal it, stuck for now.
One other thought; If we require a mental health professional to make the call, they’re always going to err on the side of caution. Can you imagine going to therapy and being advised, first visit, “You have zero mental health issues, a perfectly balanced mind. Go home.” Yeah, that’s never going to happen for anyone.
Couple things on this one:
For it to be effective, it would have to be ALL guns in the house. If you leave out two, what’s stopping those from being the stolen two? Kids and robbers could still get them.
Safes are either A) expensive as hell or B) dogshit that can be bypassed in 30sec and there is not much in between. So either you have the $2k to spend on an actual decent safe (that can still be broken into, just harder) or you buy a cheap safe that will only keep honest people honest. If we mandate the safes be good, that’s “guns only for the rich with an extra 2k for a safe,” if any stack on cabinet can do we may as well not have the law as you can get in with a screwdriver.
Furthermore, I have no kids nor roommates. I don’t think my cat is likely to steal a rifle 2x her weight and 4x her length, and my whole house should be considered at least on par with the security of a stack-on cabinet (more I’d argue, frankly.)
Now 3) If you do mandate all be stored in a good rich person’s safe, that still leaves us at “no guns out for home defense,” meaning gun thefts now just occur by making the homeowner empty the safe at gunpoint and nothing has been solved.
deleted by creator