Registration equals confiscation ... don’t ever doubt it for a minute.

[Stickman]

So the local LE was dispatched to the Parkland crazy residents 26 times and supposedly they couldn’t do anything. If we had red flag laws in place the guy becomes a official known crazy based on his history of behavior and speech and cannot but guns leagally. Red flagging mental cases becomes a bureaucratic process with certain behavior and speech profiles. Then somebody says something that a mental case said, it’s taken out of context and next thing you know they’re red flagged. Government likes blanket policy because of all the fairness crap. Red flag laws are another step down the slippery slope.

Dispatched 26 times for what? I've been dispatched to the same place multiple times simply because someone didn't like a neighbor and made things up. Police have been dispatched to my place, most recently because of a possible homicide/ rape crime scene I found out in the mountains. They were dispatched because I called for them... Being dispatched to a residence isn't a reason to red flag anyone or anything.

If officers were dispatched 26 times for crazy violent behavior, and never did anything, I'll call BS on their lack of being able to take any action. At an absolute minimum, a report can, and should be generated including a referral to mental health professionals. Documenting activities is part of police work, it isn't always a matter of being able to take action. This is because once a pattern has been identified, additional action may then be taken. Stalking is a great example, but other reasons exist as well.

As stated above, just getting dispatched means nothing. We have also stated that reports to document behavior or activities is part of police work, and an important (yet boring) part that needs to be done. However, we need to look at the obvious, which is that if officers felt the individual was a threat to himself or others, then can involuntarily commit an individual. Once an "invol" has been done, the individual (crazy person) can be held for a certain period of time, and is evaluated by medical and mental health persons trained to determine what issues are actually involved. If they feel there is a threat, or the person has "problems", they can have a legal hearing in front of a judge. If the person is deemed by competent authority to have certain issues or be a danger, the information is already supposed to be "flagged" and sent. The difference here is that we are talking about due process, which the currently wished for "RED FLAG" laws do not give.

[26 Inf]

If officers felt the individual was a threat to himself or others, then can involuntarily commit an individual.

I think you are being a little simplistic about involuntary committals by police. I've done a few. At the scene, unless they are behaving in such a manner that you can seize (arrest) them and transport via ambulance or patrol unit, you generally need to talk them into to going to the ER with you and have a doctor put them in for psych evaluation. Otherwise you need to get to the judge and get an order.

As for this statement -If officers were dispatched 26 times for crazy violent behavior, and never did anything, I'll call BS on their lack of being able to take any action - I would imagine that you and I share essentially the same work ethic when it comes down to doing our jobs. In other words, if something needed to be done, we'd figure a way to get it done. I'd imagine, that just like me, you've cut a lot of paper on deals where other officers wouldn't because something told you that it would be needed in the future. You have to be honest and admit that a lot of officers shine stuff on if they can, even if they can get an arrest out of the deal. They, like many folks in other professions, simply avoid the work that doesn't have to be done. Then you have the officers that don't have the knowledge base to figure their way through situations.

The reason that I am not necessarily opposed to the red flag act is that it mandates officers take action, establishing a responsibility which can come back and bite them on the ass if they don't take action. That motivates the slackers and the good ol' boys. Additionally, it gives officers who aren't particularly agile in thought, a cookie crumb procedural path. The other thing is that such acts also give citizens a roadmap to accessing the court system.

As far as the due process thing goes, there still has to be a finding of probable cause. Essentially it is the same process you go through to arrest someone with a warrant, except you are arresting their firearms, and there is a mandatory hold until the firearms can be bonded.

Some folks have complained that the possessor of the firearms isn't given an opportunity to defend themselves before the gun is taken. I don't know about you guys in the PNW, but down here on the Plains, we don't call guys and say 'hey, I'm getting ready to take an affidavit over for a warrant on you, get on over here so you can tell your side of the story and try to talk the judge out of it.'

[Stickman]

I think you are being a little simplistic about involuntary committals by police. I've done a few. At the scene, unless they are behaving in such a manner that you can seize (arrest) them and transport via ambulance or patrol unit, you generally need to talk them into to going to the ER with you and have a doctor put them in for psych evaluation. Otherwise you need to get to the judge and get an order.

As for this statement -If officers were dispatched 26 times for crazy violent behavior, and never did anything, I'll call BS on their lack of being able to take any action - I would imagine that you and I share essentially the same work ethic when it comes down to doing our jobs. In other words, if something needed to be done, we'd figure a way to get it done. I'd imagine, that just like me, you've cut a lot of paper on deals where other officers wouldn't because something told you that it would be needed in the future. You have to be honest and admit that a lot of officers shine stuff on if they can, even if they can get an arrest out of the deal. They, like many folks in other professions, simply avoid the work that doesn't have to be done. Then you have the officers that don't have the knowledge base to figure their way through situations.

The reason that I am not necessarily opposed to the red flag act is that it mandates officers take action, establishing a responsibility which can come back and bite them on the ass if they don't take action. That motivates the slackers and the good ol' boys. Additionally, it gives officers who aren't particularly agile in thought, a cookie crumb procedural path. The other thing is that such acts also give citizens a roadmap to accessing the court system.

As far as the due process thing goes, there still has to be a finding of probable cause. Essentially it is the same process you go through to arrest someone with a warrant, except you are arresting their firearms, and there is a mandatory hold until the firearms can be bonded.

Some folks have complained that the possessor of the firearms isn't given an opportunity to defend themselves before the gun is taken. I don't know about you guys in the PNW, but down here on the Plains, we don't call guys and say 'hey, I'm getting ready to take an affidavit over for a warrant on you, get on over here so you can tell your side of the story and try to talk the judge out of it.'

I'll argue your first comment by way of having dealt with hundreds of EDP type calls, if not thousands. It is not that hard to invol someone. I can write a report in my sleep that shows how someone is a threat to themselves or others. I don't like to do it, as I feel the weight on the constitution on my shoulders, and do not like to deprive someone of their rights. Officer discretion is the key, and dispatch should be advising when LEO are returning to a call. Typically we go to a side channel and dispatch tells us we've been out to a place for a suicidal person the night before, or 6 times in two months, or whatever. Its easy enough to scan those calls and see what did or didn't happen.

These types of calls are some of my favorites. Some guys live for DUI/ DWIs, other guys love shopliftings, I like dealing with the crazies. I've made it a point to get a lot of training and experience with this area, so it is one I take great interest in and feel I have a fairly solid knowledge base.

[Diamondback]

Feel free to.

Ran it by my boss, he spiked it without some editing--thinks some clown will try to call RedState "racist" over "Felon Pez Dispenser." Dunno why, they ALREADY call us that everyday for not being Open Borders anyway...

[General Mazaki]

It is my understanding that progressives in this country have come to the realization that sweeping gun control legislation will be opposed strongly in the United States, and have since altered their strategy towards substantially more palatable, incremental changes that gradually erode and make irrelevant the protections of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, this incrementalism lures well-meaning, more agreeable types into believing that some of these regulations are "reasonable" like red flag laws or registration, and that if the progressive anti-gun lobby is thrown a bone, they might stop pushing for even worse regulations. The anti-gun lobby is counting on people compromising with them. Registration would be a massive step towards the ultimate goal of the disarmament of the American public. Never forget that is the final goal, no matter what progressives say to the contrary. Registration is the key pivotal piece of incremental legislation.

No more compromise. All gun laws are unconstitutional, the Second Amendment was written by men that were fighting a guerrilla war against the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. The context and supplemental writings by the American founders, along with the language of the Second Amendment itself, supports the conclusion that the amendment is specifically protecting the civilian right to own, carry, and deploy military weapons. How could a citizen militia hope to stand a chance against a foreign or domestic threat if they are not meeting them on equal footing, equipment-wise at the very least?

[prepare]

Do we need more car laws every time there's an accident or a DUI? D0 we need to restrict law abiding drivers for sake of all?
How about keeping mentally ill people locked up in a mental institution. How about punishments for violent crimes that are actually a deterrent?
Theres no such thing as "gun" violence. You either want to reduce/prevent violence or you just want to go after guns.

[Stickman]

Ran it by my boss, he spiked it without some editing--thinks some clown will try to call RedState "racist" over "Felon Pez Dispenser." Dunno why, they ALREADY call us that everyday for not being Open Borders anyway...

I would have no problem at all with that entire sentence being deleted, and do not feel that it would alter the intent or theme of the message in the least.

[Diamondback]

I would have no problem at all with that entire sentence being deleted, and do not feel that it would alter the intent or theme of the message in the least.

Thanks, I'm trying to do a little light editing-for-audience including strike that line (though I think it could be inerted to "just because some people pop out felons like a Pez dispenser," though IMO we let the other team overuse "DAAAAT WAAAAAAYCIST!" and push us around too much with it, SJW's see racism in their Cheerios every morning) and see if we can get you back in the game. If it goes, will link here in it, and link to it here so that anybody who thinks it worthwhile can chime in over there.

[ozarkpugs]

Compromise, common sense gun laws , crime bill !!! It all sounds good and we all are for safer streets and we all want our laws to be based on facts and common sense not emotions . Problem is no matter how well intentioned or sensible a law sounds or may actually be written if it is not a gun grabbing net from the start it will morph into one . We often try to reason with or compromise with liberals to appease them which works about as productive as a screen door on a submarine . We need to stand firm and baulk at supporting any gun related law . As others have stated non of us want mentally disturbed people with guns or anything else dangerous . How far would a bill get if it was designed to allow your family or neighbors to have your car or cellphone taken away because they felt you were a danger to yourself and others because you were always texting and driving .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[prepare]

Define "gun control"?
Why is the left always pushing for more?
Why have the measures they've already pushed for not worked?
Why will more "gun control" work?
Since mentally disturbed people and violent criminals are responsible for violence why not control them instead of guns?