Thoughts and Prayers!!!

Redux said:
Look if that's what you want to take away from it so be it.  Pass everything without actually talking about the pros and cons because you only care about the pros.  That's not how discussion works, I thought you were a stickler about that sort of thing?
Click to expand...
This wasn't directed at just you.

But you've been asked, and I haven't seen a response: why is the Nebraska red flag law (or other states) that was introduced a few days ago "worded poorly"?

 
Decoy73 said:
If you’re talking a broad confiscation from everyone, that ship has sailed my friend. Guns aren’t going anywhere. But, at least we can be smart about them. 
Click to expand...


Not confiscation, voluntary turning in. Just like what happened in Australia.

Except that Australian gun owners had a far healthier relationship with their guns than Americans. Here, like with lots of things, it's a cult. There, guns were considered what they should be - tools.

It would help DRAMATICALLY if people would stop filling the gullible full of propaganda, as is happening in/about West Virginia. The less people are reinforced with this paranoia about "the gubment takin' mah gunzz!!" the more rational they'll be.

 
Redux said:
Here is a take on it I find interesting:

https://jsberrylaw.com/the-problems-with-lb-58-and-other-red-flag-laws-in-nebraska/
Click to expand...
So how do you see "due process" looking in a situation like this.

What would you find reasonable in this example: A family member all of a sudden starts to show signs of aggression/depression and makes comments sympathetic to mass shooters.  This family member also has taken an interest in collecting guns (legally).  This person also has made threats about how he'd like to see his boss "suffer".  How should we treat this, just let it play out?  Or make a point to assess his mental health?  If we want to assess the health, how would you like/expect that to look?

If a person were to make a threat about hurting the president on FB, the SS will most likely pour into their social media within hours to determine if the threat is real or not. They will even detain/interview people in person.  Is that not an infringement on free speech?

 
funhusker said:
So how do you see "due process" looking in a situation like this.

What would you find reasonable in this example: A family member all of a sudden starts to show signs of aggression/depression and makes comments sympathetic to mass shooters.  This family member also has taken an interest in collecting guns (legally).  This person also has made threats about how he'd like to see his boss "suffer".  How should we treat this, just let it play out?  Or make a point to assess his mental health?  If we want to assess the health, how would you like/expect that to look?

If a person were to make a threat about hurting the president on FB, the SS will most likely pour into their social media within hours to determine if the threat is real or not. They will even detain/interview people in person.  Is that not an infringement on free speech?
Click to expand...


In this scenario it's vital that mental health is actually assessed, regardless of the outcome.  Stress changes people.  But how many situations like this are there really?  That doesn't mean I'm ignoring it, but honestly how often is this something a family member or friend is actually going to utilize this?  Again, I'm all for prevention.  But I don't see something like this being used as a preventative tool by a concerned citizen as much as it will be used by law enforcement as a means to disarm someone they decide they want to disarm.  And maybe that needs to happen for the greater good but I think there has to be a better way.

Of course it is.  And it's an infringement when Google, YouTube and Facebook get to decide what political commentary are acceptable and what isn't.

 
Redux said:
In this scenario it's vital that mental health is actually assessed, regardless of the outcome.  Stress changes people.  But how many situations like this are there really?  That doesn't mean I'm ignoring it, but honestly how often is this something a family member or friend is actually going to utilize this?  Again, I'm all for prevention.  But I don't see something like this being used as a preventative tool by a concerned citizen as much as it will be used by law enforcement as a means to disarm someone they decide they want to disarm.  And maybe that needs to happen for the greater good but I think there has to be a better way.

Of course it is.  And it's an infringement when Google, YouTube and Facebook get to decide what political commentary are acceptable and what isn't.
Click to expand...
Most gun violence victims are spouses and have experienced domestic violence in the past.  Many of these perpetrators have violated restraining orders or made previous threats.  That would be the main focus of this bill.

But my example would be the "normal" mass shooting scenario we see on the news.  For example: the kid that shot up Parkland.  Many people put up "red flags", but for whatever reason the proper authorities never followed through.  That is another problem in all of this...

 
funhusker said:
Most gun violence victims are spouses and have experienced domestic violence in the past.  Many of these perpetrators have violated restraining orders or made previous threats.  That would be the main focus of this bill.

But my example would be the "normal" mass shooting scenario we see on the news.  For example: the kid that shot up Parkland.  Many people put up "red flags", but for whatever reason the proper authorities never followed through.  That is another problem in all of this...
Click to expand...


That definitely is a problem.  We already have the ability to report persons of potential danger, many do just that.  And still authorities choose to not act on it.  Maybe a red flag law aides in this, maybe not.  For me it's access to fire arms before they become a threat, not removing them after.

 
Redux said:
That definitely is a problem.  We already have the ability to report persons of potential danger, many do just that.  And still authorities choose to not act on it.  Maybe a red flag law aides in this, maybe not.  For me it's access to fire arms before they become a threat, not removing them after.
Click to expand...


I'd agree.  Expanded background checks wouldn't hurt.

However, many people would easily pass a background check at the age of 23.  Legally buy guns for 10 years.  Then at 33 develop a drinking a problem and start abusing family.  There should be some type of apparatus to help keep families safe...

 
funhusker said:
But my example would be the "normal" mass shooting scenario we see on the news.  For example: the kid that shot up Parkland.  Many people put up "red flags", but for whatever reason the proper authorities never followed through.  That is another problem in all of this...
Click to expand...
I would imagine there is not much they could have done as far as taking weapons, etc.  That is exactly were Red Flag Laws come in.  Something can be done and you don't have to rely soley on the police to take action.  

 
BigRedBuster said:
I have no clue if red flag laws would have prevented this case.

However, right now in Nebraska, if I notice a friend of mine starting to have some major issues and I get very concerned about his well being and the knowledge that he owns guns.  Let's say I've seen a couple situations where he has become more violent than normal for him.  He maybe expressed to me anger at certain people.

What do I do?  What laws in Nebraska help me if I report this to the police?  What can they do to prevent a similar situation?

Just FYI so everyone knows.  If would would fail in this example, I would still give my T&P.
Click to expand...
So, there's nothing in Nebraska right now that could be done in this situation?

I think a Red Flag law would be just fine.  And...discussing proper wording or design of the law is appropriate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux said:
Here is a take on it I find interesting:

https://jsberrylaw.com/the-problems-with-lb-58-and-other-red-flag-laws-in-nebraska/
Click to expand...
This is a biased take from a law firm representing gun owners rights and who is also associated with the NRA.  The article and video offers many opinions and very little facts to support those opinions.  They fail to address the "sense of urgency" that  is necessary when dealing with an individual who is likely to commit imminent harm.  They mention that "due process" is not afforded and that is not true.  They also fail to mention that you actually have to have a good and factual reason to request a ERPO, you can't just do it at will.  Also, they make no mention of the fact that it is a class III misdemeanor to provide false information in requesting an ERPO against someone.  The guy in the video speaks of "countless" news stories of people wrongfully being subjected to an ERPO.  Really?  I've never heard of one.  I call BS on that.  But the main thing that gives this stance little validity is that there are ZERO reasonable alternative solutions or amendments provided.  It's like their entire M.O. when it comes to gun control legislation is to oppose, oppose, oppose.  And that is the problem I have with Gov Ricketts and many of our state representatives of Congress.  They just oppose everything and claim "infringement" on "law-abiding" citizens gun rights instead of also offering any alternative solutions.  I'm sorry, but pursuing mental health commitment is not enough. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
So, there's nothing in Nebraska right now that could be done in this situation?

I think a Red Flag law would be just fine.  And...discussing proper wording or design of the law is appropriate.
Click to expand...
They cannot take your guns and unless you've committed a crime, they cannot detain you either.  So no, basically nothing can be done.

 
Back
Top