Lots of gun rights guys in the US are of the opinion that this is dead wrong because they fear that it will be a law that allows for taking any and all weapons out of the hands of citizens who have committed no crime. It could be a law that allows a fearful authority to take all of any opposition's weapons legally. One friend who is getting a check from the VA for PTSD thinks that puts him in a class that would make him an automatic candidate. He's against this new notion completely.
However, if one considers that mass shooters are really crazy and looking for attention and it's not the fault of the gun but the person, and when others know such a person is nuts and attracted to violence this law seems sensible to a lot of people. It follows the notion that it isn't the gun that kills but the crazy and often evil person behind the gun. The way the law is structured : "Petitions can be based on sworn affidavits filed by relatives, employers or school administrators, and authorities can be held liable for officers who fail to enforce the law".
Here is one story from New Mexico.
This year’s red-flag legislation allows police and sheriffs’ deputies to petition a court for the surrender of household firearms within 48 hours from people who appear to pose a danger to themselves or others.
What this case proves is that removing all legal firearms from a person is no guarantee that they will not get another from somewhere if they really want one to commit their crime.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... state.html
The latest public murder spree in the US involved a guy who worked for a Milwaukee brewery as an electrician. He had been noted by police before having drawn a gun on someone in a traffic incident and also a few years go for punching a woman in the face. Nothing happened to him on either incident and he was known to offer advice on building guns....probably the "assault" style guns in his spare time as well as being paranoid about being spied upon by his company for faking an injury that he was probably drawing some compensation for. What if, after the violence charges he had had his guns confiscated? Would he have gone on a shooting spree or not with some gun he built or got from someone? Who knows? This is a question I can't quite come to a conclusion on as to red flag laws and if they are justified or not. It's a question of does the end justify the means.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... moury.html
- Posts: 2951
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:59 am
- Location: Glen Innes, NSW, Australia