The Gun Counter

blackeagle603 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:33 pm Jered FTW "That's one reason to keep a taxidermy dog loaded with tannerite in your house."

I got the idea from a Faecesbook meme.

blackeagle603 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:33 pm Jered FTW "That's one reason to keep a taxidermy dog loaded with tannerite in your house."

Absolutely money! I damn near pissed myself laughing at this.

An interesting trend. The fact that it's common sense, is all the more surprising.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ry-permits

Vonz90 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am I see your point, but if someone is a barking moonbat insane, getting their weapons is probably a decent first step. The problem I see is not the basic idea, it is that I doubt it will be well crafted or properly administered or followed up (because government). I am willing to see what they come up with but fully expect it to suck.

We already have a process for the insane. These shooters are not going to meet the legal definition of insane.

BDK wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 am

Vonz90 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:20 am I see your point, but if someone is a barking moonbat insane, getting their weapons is probably a decent first step. The problem I see is not the basic idea, it is that I doubt it will be well crafted or properly administered or followed up (because government). I am willing to see what they come up with but fully expect it to suck.

We already have a process for the insane. These shooters are not going to meet the legal definition of insane.

I do not agree with your statement beyond the theoretical point. Most of the mass shooters have had red flags raised against them with no effect. Meanwhile others are getting their weapons confiscate because their ex sister in law has her panties in a twist. This is a broken system that requires clarity, both in terms of being more effective and better controls.

I think their defense has them heavily medicated/the prison system does. Legally insane is a high barrier, and would bar them from being prosecuted for murder.

I'm not claiming they aren't mentally ill. That is just a different standard than insane.

This is simply a problem the market can't address...

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/interv ... z5wCksFFhf

Vonz90 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:31 pm

MarkD wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:24 pm I've mentioned this before, but it always bears repeating.

Back when I lived in NJ, my wife worked with a guy (we'll call him Bob to make it simpler) who was a gun owner, and who had a brother who was going thru a messy divorce. The soon-to-be-ex-wife said she was afraid that Bob would give his brother a gun so he could shoot her. Cops showed up and Bob's house and took everything, even his bow and arrows. They told him "You don't have a choice, we're taking them, you'll have to go to court to get them back."

This kind of thing WILL happen, and not everyone will accept it lying down like Bob did. Because of course he DOES have a choice, you ALWAYS have a choice, but some choices are life-changing.

So I do not get this (in terms of some of the counter points of view). It is already happening, there are cases (not many but not zero) where it should happen. I think having a law that really defines what can and cannot be done (and preferably precludes BS like above) then I would support it.

If it is a bad law (and some of what is discussed and all of what is coming from the left is bad) sure, oppose it. But I would rather we try to shape it into a positive direction. The left does not like wasting a crisis, well we should not waste this one either and if we are only playing defense it will be the case. Then we will end up with the Left's wish list and nothing of ours.

bargaining with the devil is always a losing proposition. They use incrementalism. We cannot allow that. Not to mention the law as written is very different from how it will be enforced in 2-5-10 years. Not to mention lawyers/ politicians introduce bills that change a sentence or even a word in a law. They do it in omnibus bills and unless we are super vigilant, never know the law changed.

Just no, completely and totally fucking no. There are already laws against nutters with guns --- that go unused. This is solely a weapon against gun owners of all stripes. Give it a clause where the accuser pays $25k bond in case it turns out to be complete BS and maybe. Nah, Still Fuck NO.

Precision wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:04 am

Vonz90 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:31 pm

MarkD wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:24 pm I've mentioned this before, but it always bears repeating.

Back when I lived in NJ, my wife worked with a guy (we'll call him Bob to make it simpler) who was a gun owner, and who had a brother who was going thru a messy divorce. The soon-to-be-ex-wife said she was afraid that Bob would give his brother a gun so he could shoot her. Cops showed up and Bob's house and took everything, even his bow and arrows. They told him "You don't have a choice, we're taking them, you'll have to go to court to get them back."

This kind of thing WILL happen, and not everyone will accept it lying down like Bob did. Because of course he DOES have a choice, you ALWAYS have a choice, but some choices are life-changing.

So I do not get this (in terms of some of the counter points of view). It is already happening, there are cases (not many but not zero) where it should happen. I think having a law that really defines what can and cannot be done (and preferably precludes BS like above) then I would support it.

If it is a bad law (and some of what is discussed and all of what is coming from the left is bad) sure, oppose it. But I would rather we try to shape it into a positive direction. The left does not like wasting a crisis, well we should not waste this one either and if we are only playing defense it will be the case. Then we will end up with the Left's wish list and nothing of ours.

bargaining with the devil is always a losing proposition. They use incrementalism. We cannot allow that. Not to mention the law as written is very different from how it will be enforced in 2-5-10 years. Not to mention lawyers/ politicians introduce bills that change a sentence or even a word in a law. They do it in omnibus bills and unless we are super vigilant, never know the law changed.

Just no, completely and totally fucking no. There are already laws against nutters with guns --- that go unused. This is solely a weapon against gun owners of all stripes. Give it a clause where the accuser pays $25k bond in case it turns out to be complete BS and maybe. Nah, Still Fuck NO.

You are assuming defeatand leaving alll of the disputed territory to the other side. That will not end well. (It already is not ending well for some.)

Think what the law should be and advocate for that. There are some red flags that should bring procedural questioning and others that should be specifically out of bounds. I would also like to preempt state and local action (or at least require they be to the same standard. We might as well help out our brothers and sisters in blue states.

You are right to worry about how it is enforced, but as mentioned, that is already a problem. I would rather tackle that at the same time per above.

OK, if we must discuss Red Flag laws and how they could be implemented:

1) Only definite threats are admissible. "I'm afraid my husbands brother will give him a gun" doesn't fly.

2) Specific evidence, showing that the person has both the capacity AND intent to harm himself or others, must be presented AND sworn to.

3) If the accusation is found to be unreasonable, the person making the charge shall be charged with perjury (that's why I specified sworn to) and making a false report.

4) If the charges are found to be unsubstantiated and/or unreasonable, the person making the charge shall be responsible for all legal fees if the accused pursuant to regaining his property and clearing his name.

So if you really ARE a threat you can be legally disarmed, but if you aren't the person making the claim has some skin in the game.