# It has started!



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

FOX reports Seattle has started confiscating guns under their new mental health law. Cops going door to door. This isn’t good!


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

LINK? and what criteria is being used?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

If that is what they are doing, . . . let me predict the death of any number of people until the knuckle dragging neanderthals that thought this up are removed.

I hate to see it happen, . . . but someone there will resist, . . . and the fight will be on.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## maine_rm (Jun 24, 2017)

I can’t find anything on my newsfeed about it. Did an evil Google searches well not yielding any results. I was under the impression by the headlines this it started today. There are reports that it has been used prior to today of course but not a large scale.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

No written link. I saw it on FOX TV this morning. They are using the new mental health laws as an excuse to confiscate from persons deemed to be a threat blah, blah, blah. FOX interviewed congresswoman Dingle. I’m surprised that FOX’s slant in the interview came off as sympathetic to the democrats position. They (deliberately ?) muddied the waters by showing excerpts from the laws of the 6 states that allow some form of confiscation. FOX seemed to support the idea ???


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

The impression I got watching this morning was that this was a brand new thing. But I’ve been watching for over an hour and didn’t see a repeat of the story. Could be this isn’t ‘new’ news and was just some ‘filler’ story. Don’t know. I didn’t mean to mislead but I became a little alarmed at the story. They did say “cops going door to door”. Why would they pose this as “new” news?


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

I’m looking all over the internet for info on this and I’m coming to the conclusion this is a bull shit story. Seattle DOES have a dedicated 12 man unit in their police department specifically for doing gun confiscation. Apparently the only such unit in the country. But I have only found one story on line where any guns were actually confiscated. The FOX story I referenced ran on air just prior to my original post. Sorry guys. I guess FOX is not above a little fake news of their own.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Depending on what is being used as deaming One unfit will prevent people from getting Counciling/treatment for minor issues to avoid confiscation. I can see these idiots more worried about someone dealing with the death of a child that some one that has seven personalities.


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

*"Plenty of due process built into the law" says announcer*

Seattle police legally seizing guns under 'red flag' law | On Air Videos | Fox News
5 states reportedly have passed Red Flag Laws (California, Connecticut, Indiana, Washington, Oregon) according to NYT. Source https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/red-flag-laws-guns.html

Some of these laws have been in effect for 10 years according to above article. News to me says I. WTF?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Florida enacted a so called Red Flag law as part of the school security bill passed after the recent high school shooting.
Guns can be removed from a person for up to 72 hours. Any longer than that requires a sign off from a judge.
Florida has had for many years what is called the Baker Act where a person deemed to be a threat to himself or others can be held 72 hours for evaluation. The new law simply adds removal of weapons from anyone Baker Acted.

So far this has been used one time, and judging by the reasons the police and relatives gave the person was clearly Looney Tunes to a layman like me.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Hawaii and some other states have told medical marijuana users they have to turn in any weapons they own.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Link and they are playing up as if everyone who had weapon taken were happy abiut it.
Seattle police legally seizing guns under 'red flag' law | On Air Videos | Fox News


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

That is not the same video played on air this morning. Similar but not the same. Thismorning’s video stated cops seize the guns first, without a warrant, then you have 14 days to petition the court to get them back. Big difference.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Just wondering, exactly what is FOX’s agenda?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Florida enacted a so called Red Flag law as part of the school security bill passed after the recent high school shooting.
> Guns can be removed from a person for up to 72 hours. Any longer than that requires a sign off from a judge.
> Florida has had for many years what is called the Baker Act where a person deemed to be a threat to himself or others can be held 72 hours for evaluation. The new law simply adds removal of weapons from anyone Baker Acted.
> 
> So far this has been used one time, and judging by the reasons the police and relatives gave the person was clearly Looney Tunes to a layman like me.


On the one hand, . . . I am a bit, . . . and we are talking a small bit, . . . sympathetic to the idea of having such a law.

OTOH, . . . I see great big mountainous opportunity for devious, mischievous, and / or blatantly dishonest legal beagles using and abusing this kind of law all the way from one end to the other.

I just have to come down on the side of "innocent until proven guilty", . . . or re-worded, . . . "sane until proven to be a fruitcake", . . . in a court of law, . . . with the defendant present, . . . able to confront his accusers, . . . with legal counsel at his side, . . . in front of a judge, not some pansy butt-headed magistrate.

I can say without reservation whatsoever, . . . "from my cold dead hands" is my opinion on how I would probably react.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Most likely waiting to see the reaction, if any. Nothing will happen so what's the next baby step??


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

They are violating due process. It’s a slippery slope and sliding faster.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

If someone really has mental health issues, would you guys have a problem if their guns were confiscated?
It does get a little dicy in the fact that who makes the decision that what type of mental health deserves getting your guns taking off you. Imagine if they take every bodys guns away who have depression, on the spectrum a lot of people would be classed as depressed. This is a very subjective thing. What you think is crazy, I might not, and vise versa.
Surely though, if someone is crazy there is no way they should have guns, that is obvious.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

DA's dop the same thing. A person get charged with some phony domestic charge they take the guns. Once the charges are dropped . They play heck ever getting their guns back. Milwaukee DA steal guns all the time uses tax payer money to stop people from getting them back .
Never forget this is all it takes to lose your guns.
Dianne Feinstein:
"All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jackangus said:


> If someone really has mental health issues, would you guys have a problem if their guns were confiscated?
> It does get a little dicy in the fact that who makes the decision that what type of mental health deserves getting your guns taking off you. Imagine if they take every bodys guns away who have depression, on the spectrum a lot of people would be classed as depressed. This is a very subjective thing. What you think is crazy, I might not, and vise versa.
> Surely though, if someone is crazy there is no way they should have guns, that is obvious.


 So some whacked out school teacher makes a claim that is totally false. DA takes you weapons . Goo dluck ever getting the back you go broke in court. Teacher claim a victory. Can't happen? Look around stuff like this happens all of the time.
Maybe they can't prove you are but you can never prove you are not. Some one with an agenda can always make the claim.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Yes, it’s not only the mental issues in some states. Some places anybody can tell the cops they feel threatened by you and bye-bye guns. If any of you have ever gone thru a bad divorce, you understand how this can be misused against you. Hell, a cop can say you threatened him during a traffic stop. Your word against his. This whole deal is ripe for misuse, especially by the gun-grabbers.

I know an individual that had his guns removed by the police. Later when trying to retrieve them, the locals said they didn’t have the guns. They went into the county sheriffs’ possession. Called the sheriff and he claimed he didn’t have the guns. Bottom line, the guns were never returned.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Chiefster23 said:


> Yes, it's not only the mental issues in some states. Some places anybody can tell the cops they feel threatened by you and bye-bye guns. If any of you have ever gone thru a bad divorce, you understand how this can be misused against you. Hell, a cop can say you threatened him during a traffic stop. Your word against his. This whole deal is ripe for misuse, especially by the gun-grabbers.
> 
> I know an individual that had his guns removed by the police. Later when trying to retrieve them, the locals said they didn't have the guns. They went into the county sheriffs' possession. Called the sheriff and he claimed he didn't have the guns. Bottom line, the guns were never returned.


If he had a receipt, my advise would be a good attorney to sue in civil court and file a criminal complaint with the state AG.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Jackangus said:


> If someone really has mental health issues, would you guys have a problem if their guns were confiscated?
> It does get a little dicy in the fact that who makes the decision that what type of mental health deserves getting your guns taking off you. Imagine if they take every bodys guns away who have depression, on the spectrum a lot of people would be classed as depressed. This is a very subjective thing. What you think is crazy, I might not, and vise versa.
> Surely though, if someone is crazy there is no way they should have guns, that is obvious.


The devil with such laws is in the details and what gets slipped in during the dead of night. If someone can make an accusation and poof they are gone, no way I am going along with that. There needs to be some sort of due process with evidence for and against. Also a way that if cured, recovery of rights. Mental illness is tough to evaluate correctly, and mistakes will occur.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

Smitty901 said:


> So some whacked out school teacher makes a claim that is totally false. DA takes you weapons . Goo dluck ever getting the back you go broke in court. Teacher claim a victory. Can't happen? Look around stuff like this happens all of the time.
> Maybe they can't prove you are but you can never prove you are not. Some one with an agenda can always make the claim.


That is exactly what I am saying. Who has the right to say if you are mentally stable or not. It is a very subjective thing. Of course, if you are crazy and you have been diagnosed as crazy, then you should not be allowed to own a firearm. 
It certainly should not be a case of someone accusing you, and thats that, guns gone.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

Camel923 said:


> The devil with such laws is in the details and what gets slipped in during the dead of night. If someone can make an accusation and poof they are gone, no way I am going along with that. There needs to be some sort of due process with evidence for and against. Also a way that if cured, recovery of rights. Mental illness is tough to evaluate correctly, and mistakes will occur.


I agree. There is all sorts of mentall illness, there has to be some sort of investigation or like you say, due process.
There were a lot of innocent people burned at the stake and tortured because someone accusing them of being a witch.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The only iteration of a "red flag" law that I've seen, and would support, was one that only allowed close relatives to report a person. This would eliminate the teacher/neighbor/scorned ex/etc... from falsely accusing and putting you through the ordeal.
Short of an immediate relative, who else could really ascertain your mental state through simple interaction?

To go further, I'd like to see punishment built in that would charge false accusers.


----------



## preppermyA (Aug 19, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> DA's dop the same thing. A person get charged with some phony domestic charge they take the guns. Once the charges are dropped . They play heck ever getting their guns back. Milwaukee DA steal guns all the time uses tax payer money to stop people from getting them back .
> Never forget this is all it takes to lose your guns.
> Dianne Feinstein:
> "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."


Not only Di Fi.
CNN's Brooke Baldwin said; " Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority."


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jackangus said:


> I agree. There is all sorts of mentall illness, there has to be some sort of investigation or like you say, due process.
> There were a lot of innocent people burned at the stake and tortured because someone accusing them of being a witch.


 Were do you get Due process? Remember a very large number of Judges in this country think just like. Dianne Feinstein:
"All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."
And in their mind the ends justify the means . so they do care one bit about right or wrong. They see their agenda as a higher calling.


----------



## Jackangus (Sep 1, 2016)

Smitty901 said:


> Were do you get Due process? Remember a very large number of Judges in this country think just like. Dianne Feinstein:
> "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."
> And in their mind the ends justify the means . so they do care one bit about right or wrong. They see their agenda as a higher calling.


Apoligies, got due process mixed up with Camels post.

At the end of the day, if you have been diagnosed CRAZY, then you don't get a firearm. Do you want someone who has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic to have firearms? Hoping he or she keeps taking their meds so they don't lose it.
Some people cannot have firearms, that's a fact. 
There has to be a fair way of proving you are responsible enough to own a firearm. I don't know how to go about doing that, it's a can of worms.
Obviously some vets should not be allowed to own a firearm. Remember what happened to Chris Kyle.
I'm on your side Smitty. It's very subjective and who has the right to say he is allowed a firearm and he is not allowed one. Someone has to though.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

jim-henscheli said:


> LINK? and what criteria is being used?


Police legally seizing guns under 'red flag' laws | Fox News


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> To go further, I'd like to see punishment built in that would charge false accusers.


THAT is a great idea KB!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Who determines if a person is mentally ill or a potential danger to himself and/or others? 

From the amount of people who are swooning over (the idiot socialists) emma gonzalez and david hogg and claiming they are so smart and insightful...what happens when they deem you to be a danger? Will that be enough to justify the confiscation of your firearms? 

Hmmmm?


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

It's been some years, but I seem to remember answering a question on a federal form long ago which went something like "have you ever been adjudicated by a judge as mentally incompetent?"
THIS is a minimum proper due process, in which all interested parties get to testify. It is also a lot of hassle... as well as carrying penalties for wasting the court's time or lying/ obfuscating. Not something one would bring lightly.
An actual insane person should not have a gun... but it has to be much more than an ex girlfriend or boyfriend asserting it.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Bring back the mental hospitals and stop the mainstreaming as if they are normal And make rational Decisions. If your too whacked out to to be in society no gun for you. In my opinion too many people with severe problems are left to their own devices. The ability to drink or take street drugs mixed with psych meds is very dangerous as is the ability to just not take your meds or too many of them. Once again the problem is legal hearings and unbiased judges to make rational decisions and not allowing mere accusations or personal politics to be the basis for forfeiting basic God given constitutional rights.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> On the one hand, . . . I am a bit, . . . and we are talking a small bit, . . . sympathetic to the idea of having such a law.
> 
> OTOH, . . . I see great big mountainous opportunity for devious, mischievous, and / or blatantly dishonest legal beagles using and abusing this kind of law all the way from one end to the other.
> 
> ...


As I said, the authorities in Florida already have the ability to take you and hold you for 72 hours for observation. Have for many, many years. This is not done lightly, and not often. The new law removes the guns along with the person. 
Any hold longer than 72 hours for person or guns requires a judge to order it.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

California requires nearly all firearm transactions to go thru a dealer and pay a fee and as I recall two years ago as I was bailing out they increased that fee to pay for a police group just to do this very thing and they’ve been demanding local cops do it when they find prohibited cases.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

preppermyA said:


> Not only Di Fi.
> CNN's Brooke Baldwin said; " Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority."


WTH? And no outrage from ACLU, NRA?


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

We the people should get burner cell phones and start calling LEO and stating someone is attempting/thinking of suicide. Call it in on several liberals throughout the country...
I am just kidding. 
People that call in these red flags are going to get to the point the LEO is going to get complacent. And i bet some are going to call in fake ones too.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> The only iteration of a "red flag" law that I've seen, and would support, was one that only allowed close relatives to report a person. This would eliminate the teacher/neighbor/scorned ex/etc... from falsely accusing and putting you through the ordeal.
> Short of an immediate relative, who else could really ascertain your mental state through simple interaction?
> 
> To go further, I'd like to see punishment built in that would charge false accusers.


Its a good idea but it would never go through because people would be "scared" of getting into trouble and would be too afraid to turn people in.



Slippy said:


> Who determines if a person is mentally ill or a potential danger to himself and/or others?
> 
> From the amount of people who are swooning over (the idiot socialists) emma gonzalez and david hogg and claiming they are so smart and insightful...what happens when they deem you to be a danger? Will that be enough to justify the confiscation of your firearms?
> 
> Hmmmm?


I get taking guns away from legitimately crazy people, but I believe there needs to be adjudication and an avenue of appeal. I think there are a couple ways to do this.

The first would be an additional order to temporarily seize firearms on top of what's called an involuntary hospitalization or emergency medical warrant here. Here these are petitioned by family members or treating physicians and have to be reviewed and signed off on by a judge. I would say there has to be a specific condition or specific threat made demonstrating immediate threat to others in order for this to happen. As I said the order would be temporary and there would be a court date in which its assumed the respondent rights are being fully restored and if they are not it must be specifically demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt of why he/she possessing firearms makes them a threat towards others. There needs to be a route of appeal available in order to prevent judicial activism.

The second would be similar to the first but would be done by law enforcement officers responding for a specific reason and determining based on their investigation that the defendant posses an immediate threat to others if left armed. A citation would be completed stating on why this is necessary and it would require a judges signature. Again, the defendant gets a court date where its assumed his/her rights are restored and if they are not there must be specific reasons for why they are not. Again, route of appeal to prevent judicial activism.

I believe there are ways to keep guns out of the hands of those that threaten us without trampling on the rights of others.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Its a good idea but it would never go through because people would be "scared" of getting into trouble and would be too afraid to turn people in.


That's exactly the point. Legitimate cases will be called in, but "my brother-in-law owns 12 guns so I think he's mentally unstable" won't be.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

I usually rankle the tail feathers of the local Chicken-Little folks when I mention this, . . . 

But 60 years or so ago we did not have this problem.

The nuts, crazies, loonies, wierdos, and whackos were all under lock and key (or at least a whole bunch of them were).

In Columbus, Ohio, . . . there was the "hilltop" where the state "nut house" was.

I know there were undoubtedly folks in there who could have been out, . . . in the community, . . . matter of fact the rumor is that one of my aunts was in there and her dad was dead set against her ever getting out, . . . and the family does not have a clue as to why, . . . one of them secrets that went to the grave.

But at the same time, . . . if a person seemed to be a threat to themselves or others, . . . they were "escorted" to the facility, . . . and literally had to prove their sanity before they would be released.

I'm thinking that these would be good places to re-open, . . . rebuild, . . . put back into operation.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

This is pretty funny.

President Obama was right when he was interviewed by David Letterman-- if you listen to FOX "news", you're on a different planet than the rest of us.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> This is pretty funny.
> 
> President Obama was right when he was interviewed by David Letterman-- if you listen to FOX "news", you're on a different planet than the rest of us.


What size planet is that where you, Obama, the first orangutan, butt head billy, the hildabeast, and Nancy Pelosi hang out???

Probably stinks to the devil, . . . is not legitimate, . . . and nobody lays anything down for fear of someone stealing it.

But then again, . . . you fit right in with them.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

That red flag laws will be abused... PA is an open carry state, however open carry is suspended right now due to declaration of state of emergency. Anyone want to guess the so called state of emergency in PA?

Opiod epidemic... Now what does this opiod problem have to do with my right to self defense?

Simple answer is gun grabbing governor abused his Authority, just like how gun grabbers will abuse red flag laws.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

6811 said:


> That red flag laws will be abused... PA is an open carry state, however open carry is suspended right now due to declaration of state of emergency. Anyone want to guess the so called state of emergency in PA?
> 
> Opiod epidemic... Now what does this opiod problem have to do with my right to self defense?
> 
> Simple answer is gun grabbing governor abused his Authority, just like how gun grabbers will abuse red flag laws.


Does this declaration of emergency in PA affect concealed carry?


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Chiefster23 said:


> Does this declaration of emergency in PA affect concealed carry?


From what I was told only open carry...


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

6811 said:


> That red flag laws will be abused... PA is an open carry state, however open carry is suspended right now due to declaration of state of emergency. Anyone want to guess the so called state of emergency in PA?
> 
> Opiod epidemic... Now what does this opiod problem have to do with my right to self defense?
> 
> Simple answer is gun grabbing governor abused his Authority, just like how gun grabbers will abuse red flag laws.


A 5 second google search just confirmed what you said. From what I read the deceleration was designed to get faster treatment programs available for people but had the unintended consequence of limiting 2nd amendment rights. The guy challenging the governor stated that the order was hastily and sloppily done.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> A 5 second google search just confirmed what you said. From what I read the deceleration was designed to get faster treatment programs available for people but had the unintended consequence of limiting 2nd amendment rights. The guy challenging the governor stated that the order was hastily and sloppily done.


It's all BS. The governor could care less if heroin addicts died or got faster treatment. The fact that law abiding Pennsylvanians carried firearms in the open is unimaginable to him. He thinks weapons should be exclusive to government agents and police only.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

6811 said:


> From what I was told only open carry...


This is called a "rumor".


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Jammer Six said:


> This is called a "rumor".


Jammer. Please don't be a dick. 6811 is a detective in a large city in a state adjacent to PA. I'm quite sure you can take his "rumor" to the bank. Why do you always have to be such a shit? Did your mommy not give you enough attention as a child? Obviously you have issues since you pick a fight with everyone on this board. Please put on your big boy pants and grow up.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

He needs to jam his own six.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

KUSA said:


> He needs to jam his own six.


I think something is already jammed in his six...


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Chiefster23 said:


> Jammer. Please don't be a dick. 6811 is a detective in a large city in a state adjacent to PA. I'm quite sure you can take his "rumor" to the bank. Why do you always have to be such a shit? Did your mommy not give you enough attention as a child? Obviously you have issues since you pick a fight with everyone on this board. Please put on your big boy pants and grow up.


Chief, I heard jammer six wears a dress and he sits on the toilet when he pees...


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Jammer Six said:


> This is called a "rumor".


It takes 30 seconds or less to confirm what he said. All you need is google


----------

