Check out this story on USATODAY.com: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/01/red-flag-laws-temporarily-take-away-guns/3521491002/.
Check out this story on USATODAY.com: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/01/red-flag-laws-temporarily-take-away-guns/3521491002/Duh.....yes
Fuck yes. Sooner the better.
Yes temporarily
YES
Nope. Just like we don’t take away first amendment rights just because someone is a stupid liberal.
If someone is an imminent threat to others, they should be arrested. If there are no grounds to arrest, then there are no grounds to take away their rightful property...
whise killing whom in mass
who decides that? shit is always racist, dos it include cips?
As opposed to permanently?
Like the our government. I think they pose a major threat
You treat the person inpatient otherwise you a dangerous person waiting to go off
No the person should be hospitalized for 15 days
That's a big yes, anybody that disagrees with that is a asshole or Republican or both.
Yes.
I’m pretty sure this already happens in many states...
that will not change that person's behavior one bit !
Without a doubt yes
Then you’d remove guns from almost all white males between 14 & 55 because that where the crazy lies in America!
TrumpityDumpity Yes!
If judges were totally unbiased and non partisan, this might work. But too many judges have become political activists and the system has become corrupted because of it. Nope, it won’t work.
What about that persons car? He can use that as a weapon as well.
This is a question?
I think that is reasonable to protect them or others
There are always more guns to be had, but sure.
Absolutely!
Yes with due process only
No. The judicial system is too biased.
Yes!
So, a person can chose to kill their unborn child without government intervention, but they can't kill themselves? 'It's their bodies!' Isn't that the argument? 'Who are you to decide what another person does with their body?' Seems like a liberal conundrum.
Yes
This isn’t gonna end well.
This should be an option, yes.
Yes.
It’s a good idea if temporary and reversible without a burdensome expensive process ....but let’s face it, this will be abused if enacted.
I wonder if something like this could be misused. I heard of a case of a vet, who had ptsd, and a court wanted to take his guns. He was sane and just had some nervousness sometimes from war. He's had guns for years and had been responsible. It'd be hard to monitor this.
Hell No! We have some pretty crazy liberal judges that will go full auto on gun control. Maybe after they get weeded out,but they grow back when the libs gain office. So sorry.
Yep.
Preventative, sounds like a good plan to me.
Yes
Who gets to decide if they are suicidal or dangerous. What would the deciding factors be ? What is temporary ? Or is this a ploy to disarm Americans like the people of Venezuela. BTW, If a person wanted to commit suicide, lack of a gun will not stop them.
Yes
Yes. Why is this even a questikn?
Silly question. Of course
Yes!
Duh! Stupid question deserve stupid answer
Seems like a Indictment where only half the story is told. A lot of possibilities for abuse like civil forfeiture.
Does the question really need to be asked?
How would you measure and pose threats to whom?
Why not add to this that any person who falsely tries 2 use this law as a way of harassing gun owners shall be imprisoned and fined and forced to pay the costs for the gun owner to defend themselves in court. If this is really being done 4 good reasons this shouldn't be an issue
Is that a rhetorical question? Duh....
To the people who are disagreeing with this in the comments,,,,,,,PLEASE TURN OVER YOUR WEAPONS !!!!!!
Yes
Take away their Rx drugs that have Black Box Warnings including psychotic & SUICIDE side effects
Who determines that someone is suicidal or an eminent threat? How is that determination made? If we can tell that so easily, then why haven’t all suicides and murders been prevented or at least predicted already.
Without a doubt!!
Georgia needs to get this red flag 🚩 law! Immediately!
Yes
How is this even a talking point?
Think
1. Do you consider white supremacist/racist “an imminent threat to others”? Because this would mean the majority of “Caucasian “ gun owners would have to denounce their ignorant beliefs OR turn over their guns.
If someone is suicidal we should provide support and comprehensive medical services which would include the removal of weapons. Just taking a gun away is not the answer.
Maybe we should worry about treating the someone instead of just disarming them. Gunphobia is running rampant.
Ya think Of course! Lives are more important than your ability to have a gun!
Do you mean like WHITE NATIONALIST/SUPREMACIST, RACISTS (which are mostly TrumpSupporters ) and Repeated violent offenders? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!
No. 2nd must be upheld. Trick question also. Who would define someones Sanity? Piss off! This article is a trap. Playing off of emotion and fear.
Well no shit
Of course they Bloody Should!
Trump would never sign a bill which would take guns away from his followers.
yes and probably shouldnt be temporary. Only a matter of time before they snap.
Why do liberals think that a murder will follow the courts order... They will hide the gun or find a different means to access a gun. Why don’t liberals suggest locking up the person rather than targeting guns🤔It’s not about solving the issue, it’s simply targeting guns.
Not temporarily, But permanently
Good question. I think yeah. You have your rights until you start violating others and I think that should include yourself.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!
Um, yeah - rhetorical question at its most basic!
No problem. Just revoke the 4th Amendment.
Stories like this do nothing except spread fear of both firearms and people who bravely battle through their mental health struggles. Just adds to the stigma.
Yes
Duh
Lol america
Absolutely
Um. Duh
YES UNCCStrong
Depends on who deems them Suicidal or a Threat. That's very relative. The 2nd A is pretty clear 'shall not infringe'.
Yes
Without due process? Not having your day in court? Guilty until proven innocent? How is any of that 'justice'?
(4) If you hate the 2nd Amendment, fine, then you can advocate for its repeal. These kinds of laws are dangerous and will be abused for nefarious purposes, which is why we have a Due Process Clause in our Constitution, designed to protect people from these types of vague laws.
In a word—yes!
Yes yes and yes
(3) This is why we have a Constitution in the first place - If we don't like the 2nd Amendment, there's a procedure we can follow to change it. If we don't respect these procedures, then we'll soon find that we don't have much left to protect.
(2) Consider the possibility that these mass shootings are not random acts of violence but are instead organized terrorism. It is under this view possible that these people intend to first commit violence, and then use that violence as an excuse to undermine our Constitution.
Yes police do this thankfully. I had a lady come see me (lawyer) one time because she was upset her neighbors were blaring subliminal “harassment tapes” over loudspeakers and that police seized her guns. She later stormed out, mad that I too was playing harassment tapes.
Are we also going to take their cars also, what about their kitchen knives? Maybe we should lock them up? A firearm is just a tool, it can be used for good or bad, it’s the person using it that makes that difference! Gun ownership is a RIGHT!
Yes
It's not clear that the law being passed at the State level helps the Constitutional argument, since the 2nd Amendment is on its face not limited to laws passed by Congress. Also if someone is about to commit a crime, then you arrest them. These laws might violate Due Process.
One would think that should be a no-brainer.
Is this seriously a question
Hell yes.
Yes most definitely
Yes
This isn’t difficult, YES.
yes
I'm gonna say.. YES! 💯
You will never take our guns. Run for the hills, losers. MolonLabe
Seems reasonable
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »