Milsurp After Hours

There is an idea as a way to prevent some gun violence that is the latest thing on the "keep America safe" tangent. What is happening in some states, like New Mexico, is a law that allows law enforcement agencies the option of going before a judge and getting an order that would allow temporary confiscation of an individual's weapon or weapons if there is reason to believe he will likely perpetuate some violent act.

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.

https://apnews.com/4a27fd99bf56955c124285d1211fb60e

There was a shooting recently here where the husband shot his estranged wife and then shot himself. He took a day or two to die. The police had removed all licenced guns from them not long before the shooting after he crashed his car whilst drunk. It is sometimes done here to remove your guns after a drink driving incident as you have demonstrated in-temperament habits and a contempt for the law. He managed to obtain another shotgun from somewhere or someone to commit his crime. He possibly had an illegally held one that was not on his licence so the police were not aware of it or he borrowed one. If he borrowed one from another licence holder they will be in a bad place to try to keep their licence. The couple had connections to Boris Johnson's family and royalty.
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.
Regards
Peter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... state.html

What Peter's case also shows is that if someone is drunk in public they can have their firearms confiscated in the UK. That happened in a place where a doctor has to sign off on a certificate saying a firearm potential licensed owner is not a threat to society before getting a license that would allow him to own a firearm. The guy had one of those kind of firearm licenses up to a point it would seem. Obviously, if a doctor were to write the applicant up as a drunk the applicant wouldn't have gotten the license. That's not to say, in the case mentioned, that it wasn't a good idea for the police to confiscate his weapons....although a failed one. But, if in America everyone who anyone has ever seen drunk in public had his house searched for weapons and any found confiscated there would be a major revolt......at least below the Mason Dixon line.

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.

More details coming out about the source of the gun used in the shooting. It seems the victim had a number of illegal guns inherited from her father who was a gun dealer. I wonder how many more illegal armouries there are out there.
Regards
Peter.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... moury.html

Qhat to do about access to petrol and matches?