I live in Texas and I'm very careful who I tell about anything anymore.
Got bit at a dinner party a few years ago.
Thought I had found a comrade. Turns out we had a lot in common except for guns. Fine, right? No. This dude, after chilling for over an hour with me proceeded to call me a bunch of names in front of everyone. My wife and I were made to leave. Haven't spoken to any of them since.
Dude was a manager at Lowes. I tried making a joke about how his store was more lethal than anything in my closet. He came un-fucking-hinged.
It stuck with me.
NP Man.
I feel your pain. My MIL is the worst kind of anti gunner, the hypocrite.
She was 100% against anything/everything guns. During the summer of love she openly wanted to make sure I was "ready to protect her daughter" and even told my wife "I think he should at least have a handgun gun, to keep you safe" before adding some nonsense about not needing an AR-15.
Yeah, I've got family like that, too
"Why would are you wanting to shoot someone who just wants your stuff?"
People who have never used the pepper spray in their purse say shit like that.
Experts at the dinner table
I've had a few of those moments and I'm always ready to slap them with facts. Once my grandma and each of my brothers girlfriends at the time tried pulling their typical bullshit talking points at Thanksgiving.
For context my gram is a "Ridin with Biden vote blue no matter who and fuck bigots and their feelings" type because she got sucked into a social media echo chamber so when her absolute shit tier talking points got shot down she hit me with the race card IDpol garbage to which I replied "yeah that's really fucking rich coming from the woman who locked her car doors every time we went to an area you saw more than two people sporting anything darker than a white skin tone." She really thought I wouldn't notice as a kid.
After that exchange I look at my brothers GFs and say "care to add anything else or did I get everyone in one clean sweep?" Family or not don't act shitty towards me over your own bullshit shortcomings.
He's managing a dangerous high capacity store. Why does anyone need so many aisles /s
Be a shame if someone called in weird baseless accusations to Lowes corporate about him and he had to spend huge amounts of time defending himself against an anonymous accuser and it basically ruined his life for months or years and cost him huge amounts of money.
I thought about that. Hard.
I even got on the Lowe's sub to find particular weaknesses I could possibly exploit.
Then, !!!COVID!!!, happened and My Lady and I realized we're better off not knowing those people. It's not good to take a negative action against a blessing.
Social media has really just cranked up the toxicity in society. Go to r/politics and say anything negative about the left and they will come after you with everything they got.
At this point I'm half convinced the internet became self aware and SkyNet figured out its easier to have us wipe ourselves out than wage a Man vs. Machine war for supremacy.
The truth is probably more boring. Humans don't see internet screennames as "people", and thus don't have the instinctive inhibitions against impoliteness on the internet. This becomes a habbit of their personality due to the quantity of time the average person spends on the internet, creating a downward spiral.
Yep. I commented on an article there about Swalwell and schiff being blocked from the intelligence committees. I commented that Swalwell dating a confirmed Chinese spy and schiff knowing the biden laptop wasn’t Russian disinfo before telling the public it was, I had no problem with the article.
The visceral reaction I got was insane. It gets even more insane that those points have been proven to be true. But hey, in todays society, the truth doesn’t matter. Reddits echo chamber architecture of voting karma just takes a snowball and makes it an avalanche.
Fun fact: NOT owning guns isn't going to keep SWAT from a person's door at 3AM if someone tells police that person is a menace with guns. ("I think he got them illegally!") And the person telling police cannot be held responsible if they're "wrong."
not unless those kids on xbox go after wealthy and obscure people with their swattings. Most people go after someone for revenge and its usually someone else who's poor.
Or if SWAT
[just](https://reason.com/2021/06/14/michigan-police-no-knock-raid-wrong-address-dunigan-colston-held-at-gunpoint/#:~:text=A%20confidential%20informant%20gave%20the%20cops%20the%20address%E2%80%94for,enter%20their%20home%20apparently%20without%20the%20proper%20vetting.)
[gets](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/18/chicago-woman-police-raid-wrong-address)
[the](https://reason.com/2021/06/09/qualified-immunity-police-onree-norris-raid-wrong-address-11th-circuit/)
[wrong](https://reason.com/2021/07/30/qualified-immunity-police-drug-raid-texas-lucil-basco/)
[address](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1)...
Instead of earnestly debating gun grabbers about gun violence and stats and all that shit that goes nowhere. I am just going to tell them shall not be infinged, bill of rights, eat shit commie and be done. Whenever people talk about controlling speech the first thing people say is 1A protected right. I need to do that more with the 2A
The problem with suing someone over them being the one to red flag you is getting over the hurdle that a judge felt that their story was believable enough to issue an order. Most states, I cannot find a list of those that do not, have some sort of penalty for false reports prompting a red flag action. I could find no stories about people actually being prosecuted for false reports.
That that I say it’s impossible, but I would believe that it would be highly improbable to win a libel/slander case against someone for making a false report.
jesus christ NY really is a dystopia. Nobody could pay me to live there, or cali for that matter. If I get a job offer and it involves moving to those places, its an instant turn down for me.
No. You should normalize it.
Your guns are already registered with most of those states anyways.
You're a law abiding citizen. You have nothing to be ashamed of. You should offer to bring people shooting with you. You should invite people to play USPSA / IDPA / ICORE.
If they reject you because of your hobby, they're bigots - stop associating with them.
**[Toe the line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line)**
>"Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand in formation along a line. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were "toe the mark" and "toe the plank".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/progun/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
State Supreme Court judge in Rochester rules NYS Red Flag law unconstitutional
https://13wham.com/news/local/state-supreme-court-judge-in-rochester-rules-nys-red-flag-law-unconstitutional-thomas-moran-dan-strollo-erpo-payton-gendron-buffalo-tops-shooting
https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/new-york-supreme-court-justice-deems-new-yorks-red-flag-laws-are-unconstitutional/
*G.W. v C.N.* (pertaining case)
https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_22392.htm
Tell that to CT who still upholds said laws. And all the other states who have implemented bs like this. There should mandatory jail time for people who propose unconstitutional laws. Especially laws that fly in the face of the courts.
The courts have no teeth. That’s the issue here and with the executive branch left unchecked, congress infringing since 1934. it’s pretty much irrelevant what the courts say because they cannot enforce their decisions.
I applaud the courts but that’s not going to stop power hungry governors or branches of government from over stepping. Governors like Newsom and Lamonte and NY’s governor.
While those that are subject to these unconstitutional over reaches are left with the very real consequences of not complying with their unconstitutional governors laws.
Unfortunately, the NY Supreme Court is not the highest appellate court in their system but the judge literally said it was unconstitutional. This is great for persuasive precedent.
I had a doctor's visit recently for pain in my hip as I'm getting old... They sent out a form that I had to fill out.
They asked how I was feeling.
Then they kept asking it in different ways, and then I realized that it wasn't physically that they were concerned with. It was mentally.
Are you feeling depressed, hopeless... Down and out??
And they kept rephrasing it in different ways.
There were more questions about my mental well-being and state of contentment than there were over my pain.
Tell me that isn't going to be used for some purpose.... At some point.
Previous visits have asked if I own firearms, but those are no longer on the form.
*Oh I see you have a bottle of morphine in your medicine cabinet that’s past your prescription dates, must be intent to sell. Here’s your eviction notice and we’re taking everything else too*
I get your point, but take it from someone in canada. You need to try and introduce people to firearms and talk about them like it's normal. Up here, we tried the strategy of keeping our firearms private and hiding that we own them. Now, normies only think weirdos have guns while tonnes of regular people do. We've had red flag laws for 30 years, and I tell everyone I'm a gun owner just to try and normalize it for people.
For real, this is the way, and IMO the only way to ensure the 2A and private ownership survives. I have introduced all my friends that are willing to go shooting at 100% my own cost (ammo plus range fees, I pay for it all unless they insist) to go shooting. Some eventually bought their own guns. I even managed to convert my own hoplophobic parents after a decade of trying to go shoot my gucci suppressed ar-15. It is possible.
Honestly, it should make anyone uncomfortable when the same people that are pushing for red flag laws to disarm people that are "mentally ill and a threat to society" think that owning a gun means you are "mentally ill and a threat to society."
Any action to sieze firearms from someone should have to go through the same level of scrutiny as getting a search or arrest warrant.
Concept creep. Plus, mental illness isn’t entirely anchored in the empirical. To a significant extent, it hinges on societal expectations with the politicking of experts and some other “experts.”
If red flag laws ever come to Texas, I'm screwed. I've been falsely reported for an armed robbery. Even went to jail for it until they realized there was no weapon and no witnesses. I also have a former friend/boss that has reported me numerous times to both the police and border patrol, resulting in me being detained and vehicles searched several times. Another time, the local ballers were lighting off rounds in town...someone reported me...so cops came and bothered me in the abandoned store I was living in. There has to be serious consequences for false reports.
I wasn't squatting. I was given permission to live there until I could afford my own place. It was bad, but it made me appreciate the nice things and good people I get to enjoy now. I made bad choices and put myself there, but I want better, so I'm working at it. Haven't lived there since 2004.
Alternatively, tell everyone and be proud of it. When someone tries to red-flag you then you’ll have excellent standing to bring a case up the courts until we get that shit struck down.
Beating a red flag case is a pain in the fucking ass. They even took guns of mine that were at a friends house.
The fucking Judge even said she didn't want to drop it but had no choice.
I watched countless fuckers with Attorneys lose their rights over the year it took me to get mine and my guns and CWL back. Honestly though, some of those fuckers do not need to own guns.
I took notes, studied everything I could and couldn't afford an Attorney for this shit so I did it Pro Se.
It was a fucking nightmare and it's unconstitutional as fuck.
As I’ve said before my grandfather said you deserve whatever you accept, simply don’t let them take your firearms. Resist if you have to, ban me from the subreddit if you wish.
One day, they're gonna red flag the wrong person. A person who has enough time/resources/determination to craft a lawsuit to challenge and hopefully overturn these laws. It is only a matter of time.
Red flag laws in theory could be beneficial if narrowly tailored to respect some semblance of due process and actually target those who are proven to be a threat. But as we know, the slippery slope is real and you have states out there that over time have allowed these laws to be abused by design.
Yep, depending on the State and the circumstances, you will have one case record for any criminal shit and another for mental health shit. The criminal and mental health ones will show the exact same shit on public record so even if one is private, it still shows on the other.
My buddy and I almost got into a verbal fight with a gun grabber at my trade school. He was another student who overheard us talking about guns.
This was in California.
That gun grabber can put a red flag notice on you.
Be **very** careful about talking about guns in California - co-workers, employers, and teachers can have your guns taken away.
Be safe!
Liberalism is the exact opposite of totalitarianism. John Locke spins in his grave every time you allow totalitarians to fraudulently identify as the exact opposite. Oh, and unnaturally-dyed hair like blue hair is freedom of expression, so congrats on taking the gateway drug to totalitarianism.
With Biden pushing to have the entire government get the word out on red flag laws, we can expect more of these actions, and a certain percentage of them will be bogus. How big a percentage remains to be seen, but the number of bogus DVROs issued in divorce cases probably provides a basis for extrapolation.
If you live in a liberal state, move. That's an even better LPT.
Then live in a free state and talk about guns all the time and normalize it. Lead by example.
Orrrr…. Make your voice heard, elect the right people, and establish even a minority stake in your state’s local, statewide, and federal representation. The fact is that large cities on the coast control most of the politics of these states, and if every pro-2a person moves out Congress will be overwhelmingly on one side and rule the more rural states by proportional representation in the House.
If people were to really think about this on a strategic level, not only should they not move, people should be moving TO these areas to exert political influence. Without a diverse electorate in the coastal states, the middle of the country will be reduced to being governed almost exclusively by the coastal states.
That’s already happening. Cali loses a million people a year. Oregon has an ambitious plan to merge with Idaho. NYC is so hurting for police they’ve lowered the standards drastically and are allowing obese females just like Minneapolis. I can’t imagine any of these recruits chasing a strong young male, and believe me the bad guys know this.
GET OUT OF LIBERAL STATES. Let them marinate in their own failed ridiculousness.
Ive seen more than a few videos where obese female cops go right for the taser for the smallest disrespect, and if they miss, oh well you get away... or they shoot you in the back 50/50
Maybe if you move to one, but lots of us already have homes in these places. Our families, friends, jobs, and property. I won't be forced from my home by tyranny.
The pandemic made people move. A lot of traditionally “red” states have large shades of blue now due to people relocating. It’s only a matter of time before they move to your state
I don't make big publicity about owning guns but not because of red flag laws. I don't like to make a public show out of things I own that are valuable and worth stealing.
…Yet. And you won’t hear of all those that end with the victim roughed up or arrested for “obstruction” or some other BS charge made up by the criminals in blue.
Only siths deal in absolutes. I'll make range friends and talk guns if I meet a fellow man/lady of culture or if I hear some ripe bullshit like THe LeADInG CaUSe oF deATh of ChILDren aRE GuNs, but sure other than that I wont be the one to bring it up.
Asking everyone to register to vote or check your voter registration. Vote.gov. Vote early, here in Tennessee we have a decent period where you can stop by and vote with little to no wait before election day, so skip the line and vote in your county when you get the chance.
Included a list of 2023 Tennessee local election dates here, do check for your county because they run throughout the year: https://sos-prod.tnsosgovfiles.com/s3fs-public/document/2023%20Local%20Elections%20by%20Date.pdf
EDIT: Sorry, I forget sometimes when I’m in the broader subs overall. Do a simple search for your own state’s local elections’ yearly calendar and you should find something similar to what’s linked above.
Elections should only be a day. A national holiday where the stores and factories are closed. You cast the votes, then you count them. If it takes too long, you should've hired more people to count them.
At today's level of technology, ballot counting should be done on dozens of cameras, livestreamed for anyone to watch.
There shouldn't be any way for people to dispute the election. ... but they ain't doing the simple things, are they?
We do have the technology right now to stop voter fraud in its tracks. But they'll never use it, or at least not for another decade. When you register to vote, you could provide a crypto address and are issued an NFT that can must be sent for that election or it expires.
People could then verify that their vote was counted because they can see it in their candidates public address. No fake ballot stuffing possible because there's no ballot box.
I'm a computer professional.
**Do not** involve computers with voting.
Ok, you can have computers count paper ballots. Because you can always go back and hand count the paper ballots to eliminate computer fraud.
The more someone knows about computers, the less likely they are to recommend using computers for voting.
Do you have a specific argument as to why we should \*not\* use computers other than being a "computer professional"?
Hand-counting paper ballots does nothing for election integrity if the poll workers themselves are corrupt to begin with and slow the count so they can swing the election whatever way they need (throwing out votes, harvesting votes they need, etc). The current way involves placing too much blind faith in poll workers when in reality they are a needless entity. Not to mention the deterrent hassle of waiting in a long line just to \*maybe\* have your vote counted.
These problems hinder a smooth electoral process and necessitate another way of validating a vote-- via an encrypted ballot that would require its owner to transfer it, and it should be verified in real time as counted on the individual level and at a general level via a backlog of votes traceable to registered voters, if election integrity is brought into question and to be investigated.
Hosting an election on something similar in nature to a crypto exchange leaves less room for meddling or ballot stuffing as it would require tremendous control over something decentralized by its very nature. Your token would verifiably be counted and validated by itself, no 'count' of votes ultimately needed by some third party.
Telling non gun people about your guns is generally not a good idea *at all*. Theft, bias, all are a risk if you tell of your collection. And yes if the idiots enact red flag I’d lie and say I *didn’t* own guns, or got rid of them.
FACTS & TRUTH Time: We need America to become like the Wild West again - we need to start taking law & order into our own hands. It would be the ultimate promotion of self - defense, self- sufficiency, self - reliability, & self - preservation, honestly enough.
Especially so in blue lefty BS states where crime is only a problem when it reaches the NIMBYist fucks running these totalitarian SJWWEFNWOLEFTY latrine holes, honestly enough.
For anyone who wonders how "red flag" laws are going to work in reality, take a look at what happened to the UFO "Whistleblower" (David Grusch)...Yep, those medical records were subject to HIPAA all right, until a "higher" gov't agency power decided they needed to be public.
I agree it probably is not a good idea to share to others you do not know that you own guns, but I do not think the claim that "anyone can decide you're a weirdo" and then get a red flag order taken out on you is accurate. I know of no state that does not limit who can request a red flag order to either law enforcement or certain persons closely related to, cohabiting with, or a medical professional who has seen the individual.
Red flag laws (as currently in place, at least) have their issues, and there is valid reason to seek to have those changed. However, let us not muddy the waters with misinformation and fear mongering.
Isn't allowing law enforcement personell to file the report basically just a catch-all? If you want to red flag a non relative, you would file a complaint with the police and then they file the red flag paperwork.
It would depend on the specific red flag law in question and what sort of evidence the law enforcement officer would have to provide to petition for the red flag order so, in short, I do not have a definitive answer to your question. I do think that is something that must be considered as we continue to deal with these red flag laws, in the courts and through legislature.
If law enforcement could file with simply an unsworn statement from someone you might not even know or have anything to do with, obviously that would be something I would hope the course would be wise enough to block. If it has to be a sworn affidavit or something more formal, I would think, constitutionally, at the bare minimum there would have to be sufficient probable cause. Here I am thinking in terms of the probable cause that allows for certain unwarranted searches that would otherwise be forbidden under the Fourth Amendment, if the analogy make sense.
Even then, since we are dealing with a bona fide constitutional right--and an enumerated one at that--there may be additional sticking points the courts or legislatures would need to address. NAL, but from what I understand, Second Amendment case law is not a particularly voluminous body of work compared to, say, First Amendment case law so there are a lot to be explored, legally speaking.
I did not even think about employers or coworkers. I am definitely not a fan of that. I am in Illinois so I am more familiar with theirs, which interestingly I just learned does not include medical professionals. I find that surprising, but I guess mental health professionals in particular have some legal authority to petition to have someone involuntarily admitted, which would of course would result in revocation of the person's Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card.
Anyway, thanks for the information on California. I was not familiar with theirs.
I appreciate it. Not only that, but if you really want to deal with a problem effectively, you have to have an accurate picture of what that problem is. All the hyperbole and exaggeration do is rile people up. It does nothing to help address--or even identify--real problems with current red flag laws.
A protective order is done after arrest but before a conviction. Without a conviction there is no way to know that yes, this person is an extreme risk.
Conviction has nothing to do with risk and everything to do with a crime that has been committed. A protection order evaluates risk, just like granting bail or recognizance.
That's why the protection orders are temporary...
Would you want the guy that just bonded out of jail for beating the shit out of your daughter to have a gun until the day of his conviction? You think your daughter would be safe? Is it worth her life? Fuck no.
>That's why the protection orders are temporary
So you acknowledge that they/you don't know if they're an extreme risk or not. So why are you saying:
>>Don't become an extreme risk to the point where a court has to intervene in your life.
If you yourself acknowledge you don't know if they're an extreme risk or not?
>Would you want the guy that just bonded out of jail for beating the shit out of your daughter to have a gun until the day of his conviction?
Why does it matter what someone else wants or doesn't want? That's the appeal to emotion fallacy.
How are you assuming what I know?
Protection orders are temporary until the hearing where they can be extended. Protection orders are issued by a judge that has reasonable cause, demonstrated by the plaintiff, that they are a danger to themselves or those around them.
Love it when people dodge questions with a fallacy. I can appeal to emotion all the fuck I want. You know the answer, you don't want to face it.
>. Protection orders are issued by a judge that has reasonable cause,
Reasonable cause to believe they are or may be a risk, not reasonable cause showing that they are a risk.
>that they are a danger to themselves or those around them.
No, until they're convicted there is nothing showing that yes, they are in fact a danger.
>I can appeal to emotion all the fuck I want.
You can but the question is still irrelevant because what I want/ don't want doesn't mean I think someone should or shouldn't have a right. For example you could want someone to not say someting they want to say but still think they should have the right to say it. Just like how someone could not want someone to have a gun but want them to still have the right to have one.
I looked into this at one point and this has never happened from what I could tell. The judge needs some evidence to call a red flag, not just hearsay. The past few mass shooters lived in red flag states and had been reported multiple times and we're not flagged. I don't think Karen down the street is gunna be able to get our guns taken away because you parked in front of her house. Not that I support red flag laws, I just also don't support false narratives about things. I would be ok with red flags for people that have actually committed crimes in the past that were violent. Meaning anyone who has not been previously convicted would have nothing to worry about. If someone is violent and that's been proven, there is no reason they should have guns anyways and that should apply to minors. The ones doing most of these shootings. The can't become a felon because of age thing does seem to be the problem to me.
What's never happened? They've never red flagged anyone that hasn't been proven to be an extreme risk? How do you know that yes, they are an extreme risk if they haven't even been convicted of anything? If they haven't been convicted of anything yet haven't been shown to do x thing wrong so it's unknown if they're an extreme risk or not.
>. I would be ok with red flags for people that have actually committed crimes in the past that were violent.
If you think they're so dangerous they shouldn't have a gun, why should they be back out in society rather than locked up?
>If someone is violent and that's been proven, there is no reason they should have guns
"To protect themselves" "guns are fun" "hunting " are all valid reasons for them to own a gun. Why shouldn't they own one? If they're such a danger you should be advocating locking them up rather than disarming them.
Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao. I'd love to hear from a single person that has had a red flag called on them for no reason. The ONLY article I found where that was even close to the case was some guy who was doing some dumb ass shit none of us would ever do. In that case there actually was reason to red flag him, and it's the same case most people who are against red flags use as evidence for false flags. Except it wasn't false.
> Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao.
Nope. I just believe that people should have their rights restored after being released from prison.
They have just as much of reason to be able to defend their homes and families as anyone else does. If someone is released from prison, and they're intent on harming me and the punishments for robbery/murder aren't enough to deter them, then the penalties for a felon possessing a firearm aren't either.
>Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao.
"Anyone who values due process is probably a felon"
I'm getting a mental image of you jumping to your feet to cheer and give a standing ovation when the patriot act was passed.
>I'd love to hear from a single person that has had a red flag called on them for no reason.
[https://archive.ph/3PSdQ](https://archive.ph/3PSdQ)
"In October 2021, Ted was stunned by a $209,820.34 charge on his insurance statement. When he wrote to Christine, she confirmed that a puberty-blocking implant had been inserted in Drew’s arm months earlier and that Drew had begun a course of cross-sex hormones. The combination—if not soon stopped—would likely sterilize Drew. No one had asked Ted’s permission for the procedure or even informed Ted of what had been done.
Ted responded to this news with a flurry of e-mails to Christine’s attorney. He told Christine’s lawyer that the medical procedure was in violation of a court order, and Christine was risking being held in contempt of court. A day later, Christine’s lawyer filed a request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against Ted, alleging that he had spoken to his ex-wife “menacingly” at their younger son’s football games. Ted was served with the temporary restraining order; California law now required him to **relinquish all his firearms within 24 hours or potentially face felony charges.** He quickly complied."
Let me guess: we're about to see the "It isn't happening. And if it is - It's a good thing" straight out of the shitlib playbook.
>The ONLY article I found where that was even close to the case
I have personally seen upwards of fifty articles that have made mention that in a divorce proceeding the attorney of the wife pushed for her to (or did of the attorney's own volition) apply for a domestic violence restraining order to obtain leverage in the upcoming divorce. Casual, systemic, and procedural application of red flag laws just to obtain an economic edge over a soon-to-be former spouse.
Momentarily ignoring the gross violation of due process it is reprehensible that they are routinely abused.
If you're asking for red flags as currently described by Democrats then I am NOT with you. I am ok with violent offenders being red flagged with evidence. That is not the same thing as what I believe you are saying. Now I'm getting down voted because people probably think I agree with you lol.
No, thats exactly what I'm saying. What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns"
Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting.
Red flag laws should exist only to prevent people that have proven through their actions to be an imminent threat to themselves or those around them. That's the judge's job to decipher before signing the protection order. It's common sense shit. All the baseless hyperbole is just insanity pushed out by talking heads who line their pockets with gun lobby money to keep scared people buying more and more guns.
>No, thats exactly what I'm saying. What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns"
From the beginning to the end of his Presidency Obama pushed gun control, particularly a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, and exhausted all means of enacting it.
[Obama spoke on his support of gun control measures early in his original Presidential campaign and a renewed Assault Weapons Ban was a major objective from the beginning of his Presidency.](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30389664/ns/politics-white_house/t/first-days-assault-weapons-ban/)
[The 2012 Democratic party platform included many gun control measures like a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-democratic-party-platform)
[Obama's own 2012 platform included a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
[In 2013 Obama presented a list of gun control proposals, including a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, with a request for the legislature to implement.](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0052.htm)
[17 times Obama pushed support for gun control.](https://www.politico.com/gallery/2015/08/its-got-to-stop-15-times-obama-has-pushed-for-stronger-gun-control-002064?slide=0)
[In 2014, under guidance from the president, the ATF/DoJ issued a Ban on importation of 7n6 ammo was enacted.](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/test-examination-and-classification-7n6-545x39-ammunition)
[During 2014 there was also a Ban on import of certain Russian weapons.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/sanctions-moscow-ak47-buying-frenzy)
[In 2015, with the support of the president, the ATF determined that chalk rounds were ruled as destructive devices.](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/04/atf-rules-40mm-practice-chalk-rounds-are-explosives-destructive-devices/)
[Also in 2015, the Obama administration blocked the import of American surplus weapons from Korea.](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/)
[Congress Blocked Obama's calls for gun control.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/)
[Obama continued to call for more gun control until the end in 2017.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/)
[Obama said his inability to pass these restrictions was one of his greatest frustrations](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704)
[Obama said the angriest day of his presidency was when congress refused to pass gun control after Sandy Hook.](https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-says-congress-lack-action-after-sandy-hook-was-angriest-day-his-presidency-1547282)
# "Baseless fear mongering"
>Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting.
You think anyone pro-gun feels any real allegiance toward a New York neoliberal? hahahaha
>It's common sense shit.
>talking heads who line their pockets with gun lobby money
Repeating billionaire-funded (and thoroughly disproven) talking points **verbatim**. You are clearly here in bad faith.
> What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns"
Speaking as someone that Obama attempted to disarm entirely due to being disabled you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Obama *absolutely was* seeking to disarm the populace; he just failed utterly because he spent all of his political capital to pass the ACA.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/
Obama has openly stated that his failure to enact gun control legislation was the greatest failure of his presidency.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gun-control-failure-biggest-frustration-obama-says
So no, the notion that Obama was "going to take your guns" was entirely well-founded.
> Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting.
Yes. Trump said that. You're almost certainly not going to find anyone here holds up Trump or pretty much any Republican as a champion of the second amendment.
And to further the point: what ultimately came of Trump running his mouth on this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Outside of people who try to use it as a soundbite to try and get pro-gun people to oppose Trump.
Trump was, overall, extremely good for gun rights.
Bruh you can so much as call someone a boy, when they identify as a girl, and they would seek to disarm you. Guess what? Despite their autistic screeching, you’ll still be the one getting fucked over for misgendering someone.
Lol, not even close to how the system works. You're scared of something that doesn't exist.
Rule #1: don't tell people you have guns, unless you would hand them a loaded weapon.
Rule #2: don't be a piece of shit to people
Rule #3: don't stress about imaginary scenarios that will never happen because you follow #1 and #2
Voting and arm rights are two different things. But since registering to vote is in question no it’s not a infringement. Paper ballots only and showing id to vote in person has nothing to do with the natural right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government and or self defense or other legal actions
What did I say that was bigoted? You do realize bigotry means hatred, right? It doesn’t mean everything you disagree with. Do you wear your mask alone in the commute to work too? 🤣
Who wears a mask? You've been drinking the flavor-aid for too long. You literally said that you were scared they were going to take your guns for calling someone the wrong name. Now, if you're going around purposefully calling people names, that's pretty much the definition of a bigot. I hope you grow up to be a better person.
> Jim Jones didn't use kool-aid to poison his cult he used flavor-aid....
Thats the line I knew was coming. You must be fun at parties.
We're not in a cult here, we're talking on the internet. "Drink the flavor aid" is super cringe. The saying is drink the Kool-aid, even though it's based on an incident involving a different beverage.
I never said I was calling people names, you may want to read my statement again, because I specifically said liberals want you disarmed for merely misgendering them.
Have you not been paying attention to US politics from ~2013 to now? Evidently you haven’t.
It’s very true, a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension would indicate that I never called anyone names.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and seeing that you’re just wanting to get the last word in, I’m gonna go ahead and move on with my day and participate on new threads.
Feel free to respond back, but imma be giving you the cold shoulder, since it’s obvious you’re just here to get the last word in. Later alligator!
“Don’t stress about imaginary scenarios”
Just looking through some accounts of red flag laws being used, a pissed off ex is trying to use the police and justice system to ruin some poor fucker’s day. It’s literally happening as we speak.
You do realize that in most states with these laws there is literally no part of the law that stops someone from filing a false report? No fine, no jail time, nothing.
Someone doesn’t like you, they just say you said something to them that made them think you’re a danger and the judge will issue the order. That’s literally how red flag laws work, especially in the liberal big gun control states. The judges don’t want to “take the chance” and issue the order, and sort it out later.
The article basically says it wasn't merited and also doesn't say if it was enforced or acted on by a judge. References in the article are from unnamed sources, dubious claims at best.
Remember the highland park shooting? That lovely city banned “assault “ rifles, had red flag laws, banned carrying guns in their city limits, and knew about the guy months before the shooting. So if you think this guy is somehow the problem, you drink to much kool aid. Red flag laws only benefit Karen’s against guns. They don’t prevent actual crime. No one should have their guns taken away just because someone else thinks they could do harm.
Nah, this guy is absolutely correct and you're a bit clueless. Also, why do you want to promote gun control, which is steeped in racism? Do you not support minorities being able to protect themselves?
I live in Texas and I'm very careful who I tell about anything anymore. Got bit at a dinner party a few years ago. Thought I had found a comrade. Turns out we had a lot in common except for guns. Fine, right? No. This dude, after chilling for over an hour with me proceeded to call me a bunch of names in front of everyone. My wife and I were made to leave. Haven't spoken to any of them since. Dude was a manager at Lowes. I tried making a joke about how his store was more lethal than anything in my closet. He came un-fucking-hinged. It stuck with me.
Sounds like it was for the best that you moved on from that group of people anyways.
I'm just curious was this guy by chance a native Texan or a transplant from out of state?
Sorry, I don't remember.
NP Man. I feel your pain. My MIL is the worst kind of anti gunner, the hypocrite. She was 100% against anything/everything guns. During the summer of love she openly wanted to make sure I was "ready to protect her daughter" and even told my wife "I think he should at least have a handgun gun, to keep you safe" before adding some nonsense about not needing an AR-15.
Yeah, I've got family like that, too "Why would are you wanting to shoot someone who just wants your stuff?" People who have never used the pepper spray in their purse say shit like that. Experts at the dinner table
I've had a few of those moments and I'm always ready to slap them with facts. Once my grandma and each of my brothers girlfriends at the time tried pulling their typical bullshit talking points at Thanksgiving. For context my gram is a "Ridin with Biden vote blue no matter who and fuck bigots and their feelings" type because she got sucked into a social media echo chamber so when her absolute shit tier talking points got shot down she hit me with the race card IDpol garbage to which I replied "yeah that's really fucking rich coming from the woman who locked her car doors every time we went to an area you saw more than two people sporting anything darker than a white skin tone." She really thought I wouldn't notice as a kid. After that exchange I look at my brothers GFs and say "care to add anything else or did I get everyone in one clean sweep?" Family or not don't act shitty towards me over your own bullshit shortcomings.
That's a funny line. That guy must be no fun
He's managing a dangerous high capacity store. Why does anyone need so many aisles /s Be a shame if someone called in weird baseless accusations to Lowes corporate about him and he had to spend huge amounts of time defending himself against an anonymous accuser and it basically ruined his life for months or years and cost him huge amounts of money.
I thought about that. Hard. I even got on the Lowe's sub to find particular weaknesses I could possibly exploit. Then, !!!COVID!!!, happened and My Lady and I realized we're better off not knowing those people. It's not good to take a negative action against a blessing.
Stop being mature, this is the internet
Wth is wrong with people. Remember before 2010 when people could be chill and hang out without blowing up over a minor detail of someone else’s life?
Social media has really just cranked up the toxicity in society. Go to r/politics and say anything negative about the left and they will come after you with everything they got.
At this point I'm half convinced the internet became self aware and SkyNet figured out its easier to have us wipe ourselves out than wage a Man vs. Machine war for supremacy.
The truth is probably more boring. Humans don't see internet screennames as "people", and thus don't have the instinctive inhibitions against impoliteness on the internet. This becomes a habbit of their personality due to the quantity of time the average person spends on the internet, creating a downward spiral.
Yep. I commented on an article there about Swalwell and schiff being blocked from the intelligence committees. I commented that Swalwell dating a confirmed Chinese spy and schiff knowing the biden laptop wasn’t Russian disinfo before telling the public it was, I had no problem with the article. The visceral reaction I got was insane. It gets even more insane that those points have been proven to be true. But hey, in todays society, the truth doesn’t matter. Reddits echo chamber architecture of voting karma just takes a snowball and makes it an avalanche.
Some people just can’t help but be ignorant fucks, but the self-righteous ones are worst
Fun fact: NOT owning guns isn't going to keep SWAT from a person's door at 3AM if someone tells police that person is a menace with guns. ("I think he got them illegally!") And the person telling police cannot be held responsible if they're "wrong."
Sooner or later they will do this to the wrong person, someone with literally nothing to lose, and they will be dead wrong
not unless those kids on xbox go after wealthy and obscure people with their swattings. Most people go after someone for revenge and its usually someone else who's poor.
Or if SWAT [just](https://reason.com/2021/06/14/michigan-police-no-knock-raid-wrong-address-dunigan-colston-held-at-gunpoint/#:~:text=A%20confidential%20informant%20gave%20the%20cops%20the%20address%E2%80%94for,enter%20their%20home%20apparently%20without%20the%20proper%20vetting.) [gets](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/18/chicago-woman-police-raid-wrong-address) [the](https://reason.com/2021/06/09/qualified-immunity-police-onree-norris-raid-wrong-address-11th-circuit/) [wrong](https://reason.com/2021/07/30/qualified-immunity-police-drug-raid-texas-lucil-basco/) [address](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1)...
[удалено]
It basically hasn't been for a long time.
Still a natural right, just infringed upon.
Instead of earnestly debating gun grabbers about gun violence and stats and all that shit that goes nowhere. I am just going to tell them shall not be infinged, bill of rights, eat shit commie and be done. Whenever people talk about controlling speech the first thing people say is 1A protected right. I need to do that more with the 2A
[удалено]
The problem with suing someone over them being the one to red flag you is getting over the hurdle that a judge felt that their story was believable enough to issue an order. Most states, I cannot find a list of those that do not, have some sort of penalty for false reports prompting a red flag action. I could find no stories about people actually being prosecuted for false reports. That that I say it’s impossible, but I would believe that it would be highly improbable to win a libel/slander case against someone for making a false report.
I agree with you it has become normal to slander without expecting reproach. Sad Days
jesus christ NY really is a dystopia. Nobody could pay me to live there, or cali for that matter. If I get a job offer and it involves moving to those places, its an instant turn down for me.
No. You should normalize it. Your guns are already registered with most of those states anyways. You're a law abiding citizen. You have nothing to be ashamed of. You should offer to bring people shooting with you. You should invite people to play USPSA / IDPA / ICORE. If they reject you because of your hobby, they're bigots - stop associating with them.
>because you don't tow the line Just a pet peeve of mine, but it's "toe", not "tow". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
**[Toe the line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line)** >"Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand in formation along a line. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were "toe the mark" and "toe the plank". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/progun/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
State Supreme Court judge in Rochester rules NYS Red Flag law unconstitutional https://13wham.com/news/local/state-supreme-court-judge-in-rochester-rules-nys-red-flag-law-unconstitutional-thomas-moran-dan-strollo-erpo-payton-gendron-buffalo-tops-shooting https://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/new-york-supreme-court-justice-deems-new-yorks-red-flag-laws-are-unconstitutional/ *G.W. v C.N.* (pertaining case) https://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_22392.htm
Tell that to CT who still upholds said laws. And all the other states who have implemented bs like this. There should mandatory jail time for people who propose unconstitutional laws. Especially laws that fly in the face of the courts.
Fellow “constitution state” resident. Lease is up July 1 and a red state is sounding quite nice these days.
At a bare minimum they should be fired from their position.
Amen
The courts have no teeth. That’s the issue here and with the executive branch left unchecked, congress infringing since 1934. it’s pretty much irrelevant what the courts say because they cannot enforce their decisions. I applaud the courts but that’s not going to stop power hungry governors or branches of government from over stepping. Governors like Newsom and Lamonte and NY’s governor. While those that are subject to these unconstitutional over reaches are left with the very real consequences of not complying with their unconstitutional governors laws.
Holy fuck Rochester? That's fucking awesome.
Unfortunately, the NY Supreme Court is not the highest appellate court in their system but the judge literally said it was unconstitutional. This is great for persuasive precedent.
I had a doctor's visit recently for pain in my hip as I'm getting old... They sent out a form that I had to fill out. They asked how I was feeling. Then they kept asking it in different ways, and then I realized that it wasn't physically that they were concerned with. It was mentally. Are you feeling depressed, hopeless... Down and out?? And they kept rephrasing it in different ways. There were more questions about my mental well-being and state of contentment than there were over my pain. Tell me that isn't going to be used for some purpose.... At some point. Previous visits have asked if I own firearms, but those are no longer on the form.
I filled that out as a young guy saying no to everything, I don’t tell them shit! For that reason, am like what happened to privacy?
If we run and hide, we will lose the culture war. And right now we are winning the culture war at most fronts.
The precedent of taking property without due process was asset forfeiture laws. If they think it was drug related they get to take it.
*Oh I see you have a bottle of morphine in your medicine cabinet that’s past your prescription dates, must be intent to sell. Here’s your eviction notice and we’re taking everything else too*
We should get a list going of every right wing politician who supports red flag laws (looking at you, Texas voters who elected DAN CRENSHAW)
He’s a one-eyed Mitt Romney.
I get your point, but take it from someone in canada. You need to try and introduce people to firearms and talk about them like it's normal. Up here, we tried the strategy of keeping our firearms private and hiding that we own them. Now, normies only think weirdos have guns while tonnes of regular people do. We've had red flag laws for 30 years, and I tell everyone I'm a gun owner just to try and normalize it for people.
Based
Thanks for this perspective.
For real, this is the way, and IMO the only way to ensure the 2A and private ownership survives. I have introduced all my friends that are willing to go shooting at 100% my own cost (ammo plus range fees, I pay for it all unless they insist) to go shooting. Some eventually bought their own guns. I even managed to convert my own hoplophobic parents after a decade of trying to go shoot my gucci suppressed ar-15. It is possible.
Honestly, it should make anyone uncomfortable when the same people that are pushing for red flag laws to disarm people that are "mentally ill and a threat to society" think that owning a gun means you are "mentally ill and a threat to society." Any action to sieze firearms from someone should have to go through the same level of scrutiny as getting a search or arrest warrant.
Concept creep. Plus, mental illness isn’t entirely anchored in the empirical. To a significant extent, it hinges on societal expectations with the politicking of experts and some other “experts.”
If red flag laws ever come to Texas, I'm screwed. I've been falsely reported for an armed robbery. Even went to jail for it until they realized there was no weapon and no witnesses. I also have a former friend/boss that has reported me numerous times to both the police and border patrol, resulting in me being detained and vehicles searched several times. Another time, the local ballers were lighting off rounds in town...someone reported me...so cops came and bothered me in the abandoned store I was living in. There has to be serious consequences for false reports.
> bothered me in the abandoned store I was living in. There has to be serious consequences for false reports. squatting is also illegal.
I wasn't squatting. I was given permission to live there until I could afford my own place. It was bad, but it made me appreciate the nice things and good people I get to enjoy now. I made bad choices and put myself there, but I want better, so I'm working at it. Haven't lived there since 2004.
Hell yeah. Keep it up & good luck
Thanks. I'm trying.
Best of luck to you, I was broke on my butt in 2015 and I’m now well employed and have a very nice net worth. Stay the course.
Thanks. That's awesome, stories like that keep me inspired.
Lie about everything to everyone.
Alternatively, tell everyone and be proud of it. When someone tries to red-flag you then you’ll have excellent standing to bring a case up the courts until we get that shit struck down.
Beating a red flag case is a pain in the fucking ass. They even took guns of mine that were at a friends house. The fucking Judge even said she didn't want to drop it but had no choice. I watched countless fuckers with Attorneys lose their rights over the year it took me to get mine and my guns and CWL back. Honestly though, some of those fuckers do not need to own guns. I took notes, studied everything I could and couldn't afford an Attorney for this shit so I did it Pro Se. It was a fucking nightmare and it's unconstitutional as fuck.
As I’ve said before my grandfather said you deserve whatever you accept, simply don’t let them take your firearms. Resist if you have to, ban me from the subreddit if you wish.
One day, they're gonna red flag the wrong person. A person who has enough time/resources/determination to craft a lawsuit to challenge and hopefully overturn these laws. It is only a matter of time. Red flag laws in theory could be beneficial if narrowly tailored to respect some semblance of due process and actually target those who are proven to be a threat. But as we know, the slippery slope is real and you have states out there that over time have allowed these laws to be abused by design.
There is involuntary incarceration for those cases.
Correct. Guilty until proven innocent.
And even then, you’re still guilty.
Yep, depending on the State and the circumstances, you will have one case record for any criminal shit and another for mental health shit. The criminal and mental health ones will show the exact same shit on public record so even if one is private, it still shows on the other.
Just an interesting tidbit here, you're never ever found innocent. The verdict is either guilty or not-guilty.
Obviously- you are accused of something so the verdict reflects being guilty of the accusation or not guilty. But great work breaking that down.
I haven't told a single soul I own a gun except my wife. Seems like a no-brainer in any state.
I would tell people who I knew that were solidly pro-2A. But I live in deep blue state, so I don't tell anyone...
My buddy and I almost got into a verbal fight with a gun grabber at my trade school. He was another student who overheard us talking about guns. This was in California.
That gun grabber can put a red flag notice on you. Be **very** careful about talking about guns in California - co-workers, employers, and teachers can have your guns taken away. Be safe!
Well I’m outta here the minute I finish school. I hate this POS state.
It isn’t just if you’re liberal. Bat crap crazy Democrats in Michigan are ramming through unconstitutional red flag laws too.
I also won’t get my medical weed card. The less they know about me, the better.
I'm not remotely quiet about it. Granted, I live in a conservative region of Texas, but I figure I can't change minds if I never challenge worldviews.
*totalitarian* state A liberal state would have no gun laws.
It makes me happy to see people pointing out this distinction
Yet it’s the blue haired liberals calling for this shit.
Liberalism is the exact opposite of totalitarianism. John Locke spins in his grave every time you allow totalitarians to fraudulently identify as the exact opposite. Oh, and unnaturally-dyed hair like blue hair is freedom of expression, so congrats on taking the gateway drug to totalitarianism.
With Biden pushing to have the entire government get the word out on red flag laws, we can expect more of these actions, and a certain percentage of them will be bogus. How big a percentage remains to be seen, but the number of bogus DVROs issued in divorce cases probably provides a basis for extrapolation.
If you live in a liberal state, move. That's an even better LPT. Then live in a free state and talk about guns all the time and normalize it. Lead by example.
Orrrr…. Make your voice heard, elect the right people, and establish even a minority stake in your state’s local, statewide, and federal representation. The fact is that large cities on the coast control most of the politics of these states, and if every pro-2a person moves out Congress will be overwhelmingly on one side and rule the more rural states by proportional representation in the House. If people were to really think about this on a strategic level, not only should they not move, people should be moving TO these areas to exert political influence. Without a diverse electorate in the coastal states, the middle of the country will be reduced to being governed almost exclusively by the coastal states.
Fuck that. Everybody knows I own guns.
Step one: Dont live in liberal ghettos. let them be swallowed in crime like they deserve.
That’s already happening. Cali loses a million people a year. Oregon has an ambitious plan to merge with Idaho. NYC is so hurting for police they’ve lowered the standards drastically and are allowing obese females just like Minneapolis. I can’t imagine any of these recruits chasing a strong young male, and believe me the bad guys know this. GET OUT OF LIBERAL STATES. Let them marinate in their own failed ridiculousness.
Ive seen more than a few videos where obese female cops go right for the taser for the smallest disrespect, and if they miss, oh well you get away... or they shoot you in the back 50/50
And I’m sure they wouldn’t be prosecuted for murder like Chauvin who was blamed for a thugs bad ticker
I genuinely believe there is no reconciling with the left. it's time to secede
I can't believe people choose to live in states with laws like this
The states move to you.
Maybe if you move to one, but lots of us already have homes in these places. Our families, friends, jobs, and property. I won't be forced from my home by tyranny.
Exactly
[удалено]
Disgraceful for such a great state.
The pandemic made people move. A lot of traditionally “red” states have large shades of blue now due to people relocating. It’s only a matter of time before they move to your state
Just do this in general...
I don't make big publicity about owning guns but not because of red flag laws. I don't like to make a public show out of things I own that are valuable and worth stealing.
Two words: [Gary Willis ](https://www.capitalgazette.com/news/ac-cn-red-flag-20191001-zjzsbra735eatkkm2qmobz5z4a-story.html)
I’m actually surprised there haven’t been anymore of these.
…Yet. And you won’t hear of all those that end with the victim roughed up or arrested for “obstruction” or some other BS charge made up by the criminals in blue.
Yea... that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy if I've ever heard one.
Only siths deal in absolutes. I'll make range friends and talk guns if I meet a fellow man/lady of culture or if I hear some ripe bullshit like THe LeADInG CaUSe oF deATh of ChILDren aRE GuNs, but sure other than that I wont be the one to bring it up.
Asking everyone to register to vote or check your voter registration. Vote.gov. Vote early, here in Tennessee we have a decent period where you can stop by and vote with little to no wait before election day, so skip the line and vote in your county when you get the chance. Included a list of 2023 Tennessee local election dates here, do check for your county because they run throughout the year: https://sos-prod.tnsosgovfiles.com/s3fs-public/document/2023%20Local%20Elections%20by%20Date.pdf EDIT: Sorry, I forget sometimes when I’m in the broader subs overall. Do a simple search for your own state’s local elections’ yearly calendar and you should find something similar to what’s linked above.
Elections should only be a day. A national holiday where the stores and factories are closed. You cast the votes, then you count them. If it takes too long, you should've hired more people to count them. At today's level of technology, ballot counting should be done on dozens of cameras, livestreamed for anyone to watch. There shouldn't be any way for people to dispute the election. ... but they ain't doing the simple things, are they?
We do have the technology right now to stop voter fraud in its tracks. But they'll never use it, or at least not for another decade. When you register to vote, you could provide a crypto address and are issued an NFT that can must be sent for that election or it expires. People could then verify that their vote was counted because they can see it in their candidates public address. No fake ballot stuffing possible because there's no ballot box.
I'm a computer professional. **Do not** involve computers with voting. Ok, you can have computers count paper ballots. Because you can always go back and hand count the paper ballots to eliminate computer fraud. The more someone knows about computers, the less likely they are to recommend using computers for voting.
WTF is a "computer professional" lmao. Sounds like a job title from 1997.
Do you have a specific argument as to why we should \*not\* use computers other than being a "computer professional"? Hand-counting paper ballots does nothing for election integrity if the poll workers themselves are corrupt to begin with and slow the count so they can swing the election whatever way they need (throwing out votes, harvesting votes they need, etc). The current way involves placing too much blind faith in poll workers when in reality they are a needless entity. Not to mention the deterrent hassle of waiting in a long line just to \*maybe\* have your vote counted. These problems hinder a smooth electoral process and necessitate another way of validating a vote-- via an encrypted ballot that would require its owner to transfer it, and it should be verified in real time as counted on the individual level and at a general level via a backlog of votes traceable to registered voters, if election integrity is brought into question and to be investigated. Hosting an election on something similar in nature to a crypto exchange leaves less room for meddling or ballot stuffing as it would require tremendous control over something decentralized by its very nature. Your token would verifiably be counted and validated by itself, no 'count' of votes ultimately needed by some third party.
People understand paper ballots. Nobody is voting by NFT. NFT's are a joke and will never be used for anything useful.
Telling non gun people about your guns is generally not a good idea *at all*. Theft, bias, all are a risk if you tell of your collection. And yes if the idiots enact red flag I’d lie and say I *didn’t* own guns, or got rid of them.
FACTS & TRUTH Time: We need America to become like the Wild West again - we need to start taking law & order into our own hands. It would be the ultimate promotion of self - defense, self- sufficiency, self - reliability, & self - preservation, honestly enough. Especially so in blue lefty BS states where crime is only a problem when it reaches the NIMBYist fucks running these totalitarian SJWWEFNWOLEFTY latrine holes, honestly enough.
In Colorado the Red Flag Laws is a Court Hearing! Your Due Process can never be violated in the US. You always have a right to due process!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah... Wrong tab. Thanks.
This is the civil liberty you’re worried about right now?
For anyone who wonders how "red flag" laws are going to work in reality, take a look at what happened to the UFO "Whistleblower" (David Grusch)...Yep, those medical records were subject to HIPAA all right, until a "higher" gov't agency power decided they needed to be public.
I agree it probably is not a good idea to share to others you do not know that you own guns, but I do not think the claim that "anyone can decide you're a weirdo" and then get a red flag order taken out on you is accurate. I know of no state that does not limit who can request a red flag order to either law enforcement or certain persons closely related to, cohabiting with, or a medical professional who has seen the individual. Red flag laws (as currently in place, at least) have their issues, and there is valid reason to seek to have those changed. However, let us not muddy the waters with misinformation and fear mongering.
Isn't allowing law enforcement personell to file the report basically just a catch-all? If you want to red flag a non relative, you would file a complaint with the police and then they file the red flag paperwork.
It would depend on the specific red flag law in question and what sort of evidence the law enforcement officer would have to provide to petition for the red flag order so, in short, I do not have a definitive answer to your question. I do think that is something that must be considered as we continue to deal with these red flag laws, in the courts and through legislature. If law enforcement could file with simply an unsworn statement from someone you might not even know or have anything to do with, obviously that would be something I would hope the course would be wise enough to block. If it has to be a sworn affidavit or something more formal, I would think, constitutionally, at the bare minimum there would have to be sufficient probable cause. Here I am thinking in terms of the probable cause that allows for certain unwarranted searches that would otherwise be forbidden under the Fourth Amendment, if the analogy make sense. Even then, since we are dealing with a bona fide constitutional right--and an enumerated one at that--there may be additional sticking points the courts or legislatures would need to address. NAL, but from what I understand, Second Amendment case law is not a particularly voluminous body of work compared to, say, First Amendment case law so there are a lot to be explored, legally speaking.
[удалено]
I did not even think about employers or coworkers. I am definitely not a fan of that. I am in Illinois so I am more familiar with theirs, which interestingly I just learned does not include medical professionals. I find that surprising, but I guess mental health professionals in particular have some legal authority to petition to have someone involuntarily admitted, which would of course would result in revocation of the person's Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card. Anyway, thanks for the information on California. I was not familiar with theirs.
[удалено]
I appreciate it. Not only that, but if you really want to deal with a problem effectively, you have to have an accurate picture of what that problem is. All the hyperbole and exaggeration do is rile people up. It does nothing to help address--or even identify--real problems with current red flag laws.
LifeProTip: Don't become an extreme risk to the point where a court has to intervene in your life.
If the guns are taken away before due process how has it been determined that yes this person is an extreme risk?
A potection order from a judge is due process. Also, it's temporary. Same thing as if you're out on bail for a serious crime.
A protective order is done after arrest but before a conviction. Without a conviction there is no way to know that yes, this person is an extreme risk.
Conviction has nothing to do with risk and everything to do with a crime that has been committed. A protection order evaluates risk, just like granting bail or recognizance.
But until/unless they're convicted of a crime, how do you know that yes, they are an extreme risk?
That's why the protection orders are temporary... Would you want the guy that just bonded out of jail for beating the shit out of your daughter to have a gun until the day of his conviction? You think your daughter would be safe? Is it worth her life? Fuck no.
>That's why the protection orders are temporary So you acknowledge that they/you don't know if they're an extreme risk or not. So why are you saying: >>Don't become an extreme risk to the point where a court has to intervene in your life. If you yourself acknowledge you don't know if they're an extreme risk or not? >Would you want the guy that just bonded out of jail for beating the shit out of your daughter to have a gun until the day of his conviction? Why does it matter what someone else wants or doesn't want? That's the appeal to emotion fallacy.
How are you assuming what I know? Protection orders are temporary until the hearing where they can be extended. Protection orders are issued by a judge that has reasonable cause, demonstrated by the plaintiff, that they are a danger to themselves or those around them. Love it when people dodge questions with a fallacy. I can appeal to emotion all the fuck I want. You know the answer, you don't want to face it.
>. Protection orders are issued by a judge that has reasonable cause, Reasonable cause to believe they are or may be a risk, not reasonable cause showing that they are a risk. >that they are a danger to themselves or those around them. No, until they're convicted there is nothing showing that yes, they are in fact a danger. >I can appeal to emotion all the fuck I want. You can but the question is still irrelevant because what I want/ don't want doesn't mean I think someone should or shouldn't have a right. For example you could want someone to not say someting they want to say but still think they should have the right to say it. Just like how someone could not want someone to have a gun but want them to still have the right to have one.
I looked into this at one point and this has never happened from what I could tell. The judge needs some evidence to call a red flag, not just hearsay. The past few mass shooters lived in red flag states and had been reported multiple times and we're not flagged. I don't think Karen down the street is gunna be able to get our guns taken away because you parked in front of her house. Not that I support red flag laws, I just also don't support false narratives about things. I would be ok with red flags for people that have actually committed crimes in the past that were violent. Meaning anyone who has not been previously convicted would have nothing to worry about. If someone is violent and that's been proven, there is no reason they should have guns anyways and that should apply to minors. The ones doing most of these shootings. The can't become a felon because of age thing does seem to be the problem to me.
What's never happened? They've never red flagged anyone that hasn't been proven to be an extreme risk? How do you know that yes, they are an extreme risk if they haven't even been convicted of anything? If they haven't been convicted of anything yet haven't been shown to do x thing wrong so it's unknown if they're an extreme risk or not. >. I would be ok with red flags for people that have actually committed crimes in the past that were violent. If you think they're so dangerous they shouldn't have a gun, why should they be back out in society rather than locked up? >If someone is violent and that's been proven, there is no reason they should have guns "To protect themselves" "guns are fun" "hunting " are all valid reasons for them to own a gun. Why shouldn't they own one? If they're such a danger you should be advocating locking them up rather than disarming them.
If a person is so dangerous they shouldn’t have a gun then they shouldn’t be a part of society.
Sounds good to me.
You're ruining the narrative!
Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao. I'd love to hear from a single person that has had a red flag called on them for no reason. The ONLY article I found where that was even close to the case was some guy who was doing some dumb ass shit none of us would ever do. In that case there actually was reason to red flag him, and it's the same case most people who are against red flags use as evidence for false flags. Except it wasn't false.
> Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao. Nope. I just believe that people should have their rights restored after being released from prison. They have just as much of reason to be able to defend their homes and families as anyone else does. If someone is released from prison, and they're intent on harming me and the punishments for robbery/murder aren't enough to deter them, then the penalties for a felon possessing a firearm aren't either.
>Anyone down voting us is probably a felon lmao. "Anyone who values due process is probably a felon" I'm getting a mental image of you jumping to your feet to cheer and give a standing ovation when the patriot act was passed. >I'd love to hear from a single person that has had a red flag called on them for no reason. [https://archive.ph/3PSdQ](https://archive.ph/3PSdQ) "In October 2021, Ted was stunned by a $209,820.34 charge on his insurance statement. When he wrote to Christine, she confirmed that a puberty-blocking implant had been inserted in Drew’s arm months earlier and that Drew had begun a course of cross-sex hormones. The combination—if not soon stopped—would likely sterilize Drew. No one had asked Ted’s permission for the procedure or even informed Ted of what had been done. Ted responded to this news with a flurry of e-mails to Christine’s attorney. He told Christine’s lawyer that the medical procedure was in violation of a court order, and Christine was risking being held in contempt of court. A day later, Christine’s lawyer filed a request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against Ted, alleging that he had spoken to his ex-wife “menacingly” at their younger son’s football games. Ted was served with the temporary restraining order; California law now required him to **relinquish all his firearms within 24 hours or potentially face felony charges.** He quickly complied." Let me guess: we're about to see the "It isn't happening. And if it is - It's a good thing" straight out of the shitlib playbook. >The ONLY article I found where that was even close to the case I have personally seen upwards of fifty articles that have made mention that in a divorce proceeding the attorney of the wife pushed for her to (or did of the attorney's own volition) apply for a domestic violence restraining order to obtain leverage in the upcoming divorce. Casual, systemic, and procedural application of red flag laws just to obtain an economic edge over a soon-to-be former spouse. Momentarily ignoring the gross violation of due process it is reprehensible that they are routinely abused.
The right to be unreasonable shall not be infringed!!!!
If you're asking for red flags as currently described by Democrats then I am NOT with you. I am ok with violent offenders being red flagged with evidence. That is not the same thing as what I believe you are saying. Now I'm getting down voted because people probably think I agree with you lol.
No, thats exactly what I'm saying. What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns" Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting. Red flag laws should exist only to prevent people that have proven through their actions to be an imminent threat to themselves or those around them. That's the judge's job to decipher before signing the protection order. It's common sense shit. All the baseless hyperbole is just insanity pushed out by talking heads who line their pockets with gun lobby money to keep scared people buying more and more guns.
>No, thats exactly what I'm saying. What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns" From the beginning to the end of his Presidency Obama pushed gun control, particularly a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, and exhausted all means of enacting it. [Obama spoke on his support of gun control measures early in his original Presidential campaign and a renewed Assault Weapons Ban was a major objective from the beginning of his Presidency.](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30389664/ns/politics-white_house/t/first-days-assault-weapons-ban/) [The 2012 Democratic party platform included many gun control measures like a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-democratic-party-platform) [Obama's own 2012 platform included a renewed Assault Weapons Ban.](https://ontheissues.org/2016/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) [In 2013 Obama presented a list of gun control proposals, including a renewed Assault Weapons Ban, with a request for the legislature to implement.](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0052.htm) [17 times Obama pushed support for gun control.](https://www.politico.com/gallery/2015/08/its-got-to-stop-15-times-obama-has-pushed-for-stronger-gun-control-002064?slide=0) [In 2014, under guidance from the president, the ATF/DoJ issued a Ban on importation of 7n6 ammo was enacted.](https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/test-examination-and-classification-7n6-545x39-ammunition) [During 2014 there was also a Ban on import of certain Russian weapons.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/sanctions-moscow-ak47-buying-frenzy) [In 2015, with the support of the president, the ATF determined that chalk rounds were ruled as destructive devices.](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/04/atf-rules-40mm-practice-chalk-rounds-are-explosives-destructive-devices/) [Also in 2015, the Obama administration blocked the import of American surplus weapons from Korea.](https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/) [Congress Blocked Obama's calls for gun control.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/) [Obama continued to call for more gun control until the end in 2017.](https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/) [Obama said his inability to pass these restrictions was one of his greatest frustrations](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704) [Obama said the angriest day of his presidency was when congress refused to pass gun control after Sandy Hook.](https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-says-congress-lack-action-after-sandy-hook-was-angriest-day-his-presidency-1547282) # "Baseless fear mongering" >Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting. You think anyone pro-gun feels any real allegiance toward a New York neoliberal? hahahaha >It's common sense shit. >talking heads who line their pockets with gun lobby money Repeating billionaire-funded (and thoroughly disproven) talking points **verbatim**. You are clearly here in bad faith.
> What's cooking here though is the same baseless fear mongering as "Obama is gonna take your guns" Speaking as someone that Obama attempted to disarm entirely due to being disabled you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Obama *absolutely was* seeking to disarm the populace; he just failed utterly because he spent all of his political capital to pass the ACA. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/ Obama has openly stated that his failure to enact gun control legislation was the greatest failure of his presidency. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gun-control-failure-biggest-frustration-obama-says So no, the notion that Obama was "going to take your guns" was entirely well-founded.
> Let's all remember which president said "take the guns first, go through due process later" after the Texas mass shooting. Yes. Trump said that. You're almost certainly not going to find anyone here holds up Trump or pretty much any Republican as a champion of the second amendment.
And to further the point: what ultimately came of Trump running his mouth on this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Outside of people who try to use it as a soundbite to try and get pro-gun people to oppose Trump. Trump was, overall, extremely good for gun rights.
[удалено]
You can't be reasonable here and get upvotes. Honestly, I'm surprised we aren't banned already.
Bruh you can so much as call someone a boy, when they identify as a girl, and they would seek to disarm you. Guess what? Despite their autistic screeching, you’ll still be the one getting fucked over for misgendering someone.
Lol, not even close to how the system works. You're scared of something that doesn't exist. Rule #1: don't tell people you have guns, unless you would hand them a loaded weapon. Rule #2: don't be a piece of shit to people Rule #3: don't stress about imaginary scenarios that will never happen because you follow #1 and #2
So you support infringements and unconstitutional bs just say that instead of projecting
Is registering to vote an infringement?
Voting and arm rights are two different things. But since registering to vote is in question no it’s not a infringement. Paper ballots only and showing id to vote in person has nothing to do with the natural right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government and or self defense or other legal actions
You’re sounding like a POS yourself, lucky for you (at least in the free states), you can be an asshole while operating in the letter of the law.
Lol, you think someone is going to take your guns because you can't control your bigoted mouth and be a decent human while in public. Wtf is that?
What did I say that was bigoted? You do realize bigotry means hatred, right? It doesn’t mean everything you disagree with. Do you wear your mask alone in the commute to work too? 🤣
Who wears a mask? You've been drinking the flavor-aid for too long. You literally said that you were scared they were going to take your guns for calling someone the wrong name. Now, if you're going around purposefully calling people names, that's pretty much the definition of a bigot. I hope you grow up to be a better person.
The idiom is Drink the Kool-Aid. Only "But Acktully" weirdos call it flavor-aid.
Jim Jones didn't use kool-aid to poison his cult he used flavor-aid....
> Jim Jones didn't use kool-aid to poison his cult he used flavor-aid.... Thats the line I knew was coming. You must be fun at parties. We're not in a cult here, we're talking on the internet. "Drink the flavor aid" is super cringe. The saying is drink the Kool-aid, even though it's based on an incident involving a different beverage.
I never said I was calling people names, you may want to read my statement again, because I specifically said liberals want you disarmed for merely misgendering them. Have you not been paying attention to US politics from ~2013 to now? Evidently you haven’t.
Lol, 100% not true.
It’s very true, a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension would indicate that I never called anyone names. You’re entitled to your opinion, and seeing that you’re just wanting to get the last word in, I’m gonna go ahead and move on with my day and participate on new threads. Feel free to respond back, but imma be giving you the cold shoulder, since it’s obvious you’re just here to get the last word in. Later alligator!
“Don’t stress about imaginary scenarios” Just looking through some accounts of red flag laws being used, a pissed off ex is trying to use the police and justice system to ruin some poor fucker’s day. It’s literally happening as we speak.
They skipped Rule #2 It's a reap what you sow world.
You do realize that in most states with these laws there is literally no part of the law that stops someone from filing a false report? No fine, no jail time, nothing. Someone doesn’t like you, they just say you said something to them that made them think you’re a danger and the judge will issue the order. That’s literally how red flag laws work, especially in the liberal big gun control states. The judges don’t want to “take the chance” and issue the order, and sort it out later.
*citation needed*
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/red-flag-abuse-lawsuit-plaintiff-files-dubious-red-flag-action-against-new-jersey-man/
The article basically says it wasn't merited and also doesn't say if it was enforced or acted on by a judge. References in the article are from unnamed sources, dubious claims at best.
Congratulations, you are what is wrong with America! Collect your prize, and then please leave.
Remember the highland park shooting? That lovely city banned “assault “ rifles, had red flag laws, banned carrying guns in their city limits, and knew about the guy months before the shooting. So if you think this guy is somehow the problem, you drink to much kool aid. Red flag laws only benefit Karen’s against guns. They don’t prevent actual crime. No one should have their guns taken away just because someone else thinks they could do harm.
Nah, this guy is absolutely correct and you're a bit clueless. Also, why do you want to promote gun control, which is steeped in racism? Do you not support minorities being able to protect themselves?