Survivalist Forum banner
21 - 40 of 120 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
As far as I know, you're correct. Especially in regards to any type of domestic altercations. The spouse (usually wife) can say she fears for her life and you have access to firearms. They are taken and good luck getting them back.
So its your word against hers.

Guilty until proven innocent.
I thought this was the USA not Mexico.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
The existing Red Flag laws are bad enough. What they are trying to get passed are what we're talking about here - a deranged neighbor can actually 'turn you in' for being a danger to society - based on nothing. That is the simplest way for them to take our guns and we must do anything and everything we can to stop this from happening.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Red Flag gets two thoughts.
It's an "idiot neighbor" or a "Karen's" dream law.

Second thought is it's something that needs introducing in the UK.
Only before I start, I am a multiple gun owner so this is not some Brit going on about banning guns!

So you're from the UK I take it? That's fine, I know not all people from the UK are against gun rights in the USA, not that it really matters.

Anyway Im surprised they don't already have such laws in the UK.

There have been a few times when the UK police have failed to act when family or friends have tried to warn them about a mentally unstable, someone with a VERY short fuse, an abuser, an alcoholic, or a drug user, who was a danger to people AND NOTHING WAS DONE.
Why? Because the owner had not broken the law.

Well here in the USA the police are not supposed to get involved in affairs if no laws have been broken.

Until they did and people were hurt, or murdered.
Well if somebody is potentially dangerous it doesn't really matter if they have access to guns or not. Have you heard of the Happy Land Blaze in 1990?

This has been going on for years and the result has always been "a tightening of gun laws" which achieved nothing but made life hell of gun owners until the media, and sheeple, moved on to talk about something else.
From what I know of the UK "small firearms" are banned, by small firearms they mean guns that have under so much barrel length and under so much overall length. The way I see it, what kind of laws they've got in the UK is their business but a ban on small firearms I think would be pointless since if somebody wants a small firearm all they need is a larger firearm and a hacksaw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
It’s back door gun confiscation, with no due process, as I see it. Your crazy ex wife, lazy can’t keep a job brother-in-law, Karen neighbor, the employee you fired, you kid’s nutjob teacher or any host of others, with a vendetta, convince a liberal judge, that you are dangerous. How hard is that, when the judge already hates guns?
So in other words, any acquaintance for any reason could go to their local court of law and tell a story about you threatening them even if you haven't and you will automatically and immediately get your guns seized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I've had 2 friends ambushed by the wife in the course of a divorce.
One psycho threw herself down the stairs 2 minutes after he left for work.
Arrested when he arrived at work and all guns seized.
Wouldn't they have to prove that he pushed her down the stairs, that she didn't just throw herself down the stairs herself? I once saw a video of a woman caught hitting herself on camera, she then told a judge her husband hit her.

#2 Drug addicted wife played every card she could. "he pointed a gun at me"
Yep Arrested - guns seized. Libsuk judge even gave the kids to the addicted witch.
Shouldn't they have to prove that he pointed a gun at her and she didn't just make it up about him doing that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
I remain very skeptical of anything temporary from the government. The last instance was two weeks to flatten the curve which extended to many months to change the Presidency, ruin the economy and usher in stupid gun control laws.
Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. But so are standing armies, ********, the war on drugs and asset seizure and forfeiture. Don't even say anything about Supreme Court Decisions in regards to that. Re- Dredd Scott.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,117 Posts
From what little I know about red flag laws apparently your guns can be seized if somebody deems you a threat, even if you aren't a threat. In other words, with red flag laws its your word against somebody else's, its "he said, she said." Is that correct?
I am in favor of this law IF USED as it is meant to be !.

The POS that shot the Tops up near me in Buffalo NY was and SHOULD have been on the radar of the police !.

Who crapped that bed ??, he was put away after making REAL threats and yet none asked him is he OWNED ANY GUNS ??.

And then had they taken those guns and put him on the NO BUY LIST = no one would died such horrible deaths.

So in this case,that law SHOULD have worked.

It was the investigating agency that crapped that bed BADLY.

I read it was the State Police,but not sure of that .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Washington State, one of the most liberal gun hating state in the US,
Are you sure you meant to say Washington State and not Washington D.C.? I know D.C. is not really a state but it if you want to include districts then D.C. would be the most liberal gun hating state or district in the USA.

If you want to strictly limit gun hating to states than the states that win at that would be New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Here is my understanding of "red flag laws". If someone that you may or may not know deems that your gun is a threat to them or anybody else, they can file a complaint. It is then okay for the government to come into your home unannounced and seize all of your guns. You must, then, go to court, which can take up to two years to get a hearing, and prove that you are not a threat to yourself or others. In the meantime, your second amendment rights are taken away from you.

Here's the first scenario that I thought of. Say that I'm walking through a mall. I have a carry permit and I carry a weapon every day. I keep it as concealed as I can, but sometimes it is visible. If some bleeding heart liberal sees my weapon, she can say that she felt scared and threatened by the appearance of a gun, she can report me and I could lose my guns and my rights for as long as two years and maybe permanently.

Here's the second, and more ominous, scenario. They are now calling for a nation-wide firearm registry. This will allow the government to know where everyone's firearms are. Then, if the government uses the federal "red flag" law that some congressmen are pushing for, they could say that ALL gun owners are now a threat and confiscate everyone's guns.

Some people think that I'm just a "conspiracy nut". But think about the second scenario. That doesn't sound very far-fetched.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Again, I hear lots of opinions, suspicion and fear, and very few facts. Usually, when a person's weapons are removed it's because they have a long criminal history of some kind and / or have been to court / arrested for DV before.
I would think that would depend on what state or location you're in. Based on what some other posters have said apparently you can have your guns seized at the drop of a hat in some states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
I am in favor of this law IF USED as it is meant to be !.

The POS that shot the Tops up near me in Buffalo NY was and SHOULD have been on the radar of the police !.

Who crapped that bed ??, he was put away after making REAL threats and yet none asked him is he OWNED ANY GUNS ??.

And then had they taken those guns and put him on the NO BUY LIST = no one would died such horrible deaths.

So in this case,that law SHOULD have worked.

It was the investigating agency that crapped that bed BADLY.

I read it was the State Police,but not sure of that .
Even if he didn't have guns he could've just as easily done something such as pour gasoline around the Tops store and light it up, like the psychopath who poured gasoline around a dance club in NY in 1990 and lit it up and killed 89 people. Its dangerous to have such people out and about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Here is my understanding of "red flag laws". If someone that you may or may not know deems that your gun is a threat to them or anybody else, they can file a complaint. It is then okay for the government to come into your home unannounced and seize all of your guns. You must, then, go to court, which can take up to two years to get a hearing, and prove that you are not a threat to yourself or others. In the meantime, your second amendment rights are taken away from you.

Here's the first scenario that I thought of. Say that I'm walking through a mall. I have a carry permit and I carry a weapon every day. I keep it as concealed as I can, but sometimes it is visible. If some bleeding heart liberal sees my weapon, she can say that she felt scared and threatened by the appearance of a gun, she can report me and I could lose my guns and my rights for as long as two years and maybe permanently.

Here's the second, and more ominous, scenario. They are now calling for a nation-wide firearm registry. This will allow the government to know where everyone's firearms are. Then, if the government uses the federal "red flag" law that some congressmen are pushing for, they could say that ALL gun owners are now a threat and confiscate everyone's guns.

Some people think that I'm just a "conspiracy nut". But think about the second scenario. That doesn't sound very far-fetched.
With the second scenario you're looking at a second civil war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
If the libs can't defund the cops then they will just try to get as many of them killed with this law.
The good news is the bill is falling apart because the career criminals we call politicians are catching serious heat when they go back home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
My ex wife's lawyer tried to paint me as a dangerous person with her opening statement at my kids custody hearing. She claimed I was a dangerous person for the following 2 "facts".

I'm a martial artist because I enjoy beating people up, and I have lots of guns and hunt because I like killing animals and she hates guns. Well I cut of my attorneys opening statement and asked for permission to speak. My response: My wife is also a martial artist, it's how we met, and she actually has more trophies for fighting than I do. For the gun issue I had a picture of her and I together, me with an AR, Her with an AK. Judge was actually pissed , I won everything, including custody of my kids, which is how I became a single dad.

Again, I hear lots of opinions, suspicion and fear, and very few facts. Usually, when a person's weapons are removed it's because they have a long criminal history of some kind and / or have been to court / arrested for DV before.
Very glad that worked out for you. I have seen the opposite over and over again in WA, so its great to hear it go the right way once in a while. The judges at least on the west side are generally anti 2A for the "law abiding" citizenry, as are their prosecutor/attorney buddies. If you're homeless; drug addict/mentally ill or bipoc you get a pass or $250 dollars a day (yes, I am conflating. That was just a heinous physical assault and a repeated stabbing by a guy who meets all those descriptions). I am bothered by criminals, the unstable, etc having firearms, but
isn't good enough when it comes to a clearly spelled out constitutional right.
Particularly with the current state of jurisprudence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwapo54 and Davehb

·
Registered
EDC, GHB, and loads of chocolate!
Joined
·
394 Posts
So you're from the UK I take it? That's fine, I know not all people from the UK are against gun rights in the USA, not that it really matters.

Anyway Im surprised they don't already have such laws in the UK.


Well here in the USA the police are not supposed to get involved in affairs if no laws have been broken.


Well if somebody is potentially dangerous it doesn't really matter if they have access to guns or not. Have you heard of the Happy Land Blaze in 1990?


From what I know of the UK "small firearms" are banned, by small firearms they mean guns that have under so much barrel length and under so much overall length. The way I see it, what kind of laws they've got in the UK is their business but a ban on small firearms I think would be pointless since if somebody wants a small firearm all they need is a larger firearm and a hacksaw.
Not quite right as I shoot long gun, shotgun (not forgetting that sabot rounds for shotguns are readily available), and sub caliber when pest controlling.
Pistols sub cal with that pathetic bit of welding rod stuck out of it's grip. Why? Go figure. Meanwhile, you can own black powder to any caliber, pistol or not.

Subject to having the right firearms license.

Only that's not the issue.
The issue is who is a risk to others and what happens when the police do nothing when someone warns them.
Then, when they are held accountable, the police hide behind the law as to why they were stupid enough to not act in the Intel they receive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwapo54

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
So in other words, any acquaintance for any reason could go to their local court of law and tell a story about you threatening them even if you haven't and you will automatically and immediately get your guns seized.
That’s pretty much my understanding of it. Kind of like the secret police, in some countries, that tell the government you are saying derogatory things about them and they come get you in the middle of the night.
 
21 - 40 of 120 Posts
Top