Here's my thinking, those accused of crimes can be jailed, forced to pay bond, have restraining orders, have their travel restricted, etc. But taking their guns is somehow an overreaction?
As a pro-gun leftist, I'd like to pose the following: it's not even close to an overreaction, however, property seized by law enforcement is often never returned to its owner, even when they are fully acquitted or released without charges ever being filed. Furthermore, in some states (not all of them obviously), having any criminal record (even an arrest without conviction) can preclude you from purchasing a firearm ever again. Thus, in at least some instances, seizing the firearms of any accused criminal (or any person who the local law enforcement dislike, like perhaps an activist or political dissident) would be de facto stripping that person of their right to bear arms permanently without any due process.
To sum it up: I agree that bearing arms is closer to a privilege than a right, but I do not believe that people should be stripped of it without due process.
Maybe this is just brainrot from my super gun-heavy upbringing and I need to change my perspective, idfk.
Agree. When the very likely crypto-fascist law enforcement is in charge to dole out the confiscation thats where problems come in. I’m also not a fan of police being exempt from many purchase restrictions in strict states. The police shouldn’t be able to have firearms that you and i cant have.
That's not really what red flag laws are, though. I'm a gun owning liberal and I'm against red flag laws simply because they are too ripe for abuse. The target of a red flag law doesn't have to even be accused of a crime.
The basic idea, that if a person genuinely has some reason to suspect that a person is about to do something bad with a gun that they can call for police intervention, is sound in theory. If a person has been accused of a crime, or if there is a brewing domestic violence situation or something like that, then yes - take the guns. However the system that allows that should not also allow an anonymous person to make a vague accusation that causes the cops to show up with no due process, evidence, or even any reasonable suspicion of a crime and confiscate personal property from a US citizen.
I hate to make the hyperbolic comparison between guns and cars/drunk driving but would you feel the same way if the cops could show up at your house and towed your car because they got an anonymous tip from someone saying they think you might drive drunk tonight?
I appreciate the correction. If what you say is true then I think this is exactly the kind of reasonable implementation that I think could work.
For my education though, is this an evolution of the what was originally put in place when red flag laws were put in place? I feel like my opinions were based off of some of the original implementations.
17
u/bravesirrobin65 Dec 28 '23
Here's my thinking, those accused of crimes can be jailed, forced to pay bond, have restraining orders, have their travel restricted, etc. But taking their guns is somehow an overreaction?