Red Flag Laws. Should the smart people be in charge??
- Thread starter Bender
- Start date
I'm a sub 100.
Could you repeat the question?
Could you repeat the question?
Red flags should never be imposed, but since they are the only fair approach is to be judged by peers. And I'm not talking about some random jury pool picked from the homeless encampment under the bridge.
These laws are another way to "swat" people. There needs to be "steep" penalties for deterents if facts used to initiate are not proven. Can't be a he said / she said circumstances
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,321
- 22,438
The good old days. Good luck getting us back to that
There are other remedies to the problem.
First COA should be actually being truthful about what the problem actually is.
Secondly, there should be some teeth in some type of deterrence.
Red Flag laws are too easily abused, misused and weaponized. Everybody from a pissy neighbor to a political messiah can ruin a life or get somebody killed.
Trying to target people for what they might do in the future is one step away from a real life Minority Report.
same with media. if what you report is determined to be false, there will be penalties, at the min fines and at the max prison.
I believe Red Flag laws should be abolished.... period. IANAL, but AFAIC, they violate 4 different amendments to the US Constitution (2nd, 4th 5fh and 14th). The violations against the 2nd are obvious. The violation of the 4th is against illegal "Search and Seizure." The 5th & 14th are all about the same "due process" clause that's in both. Any "Ex Parte" court proceeding where the defense isn't even allowed to be there or know what's happening and defend their client is a violation of those two "due process" clauses. I know some lawyers and mental health officials would disagree, I feel it is unconstitutional. But none of this is the most serious concern.
Red Flag laws (ERPO)s, as they are constructed today, offer corrupt LEAs an opportunity to effect an underlying objective - "Confiscate weapons now and get them off the streets" (i.e. disarm the public)! In my former state (PRNJ), various LEAs used this all the time to confiscate weapons when they determined an owner had a huge collection. They'd just get a judge to sign an ERPO (without the owner's counsel ever knowing about it). They show up at the house. unannounced, confiscate all the weapons ammo, and papers of ownership and leave nothing (no receipt, no nothing). Even if, at some point, the owner is eventually cleared of the charges (i.e. declared *not* to be a danger to anyone or themselves), it's too late. The LEA has their weapons, and they ain't givin' them back. They'll do things like say, "What weapons???? Where are they? etc. etc.???" Or , "Prove you own them..." knowing full well they confiscated all the ownership papers when they raided the house. And, if they were to give them back, they'd impose the "OGAM - One gun a month" restrictions just for you to get your own weapons back. In effect, that owner can kiss their collection good-bye. They'll never see it again.
I understand that things are a little different here in Florida (although I'd think not for some of the Southern Counties like Broward, Metro-Dade, Monroe, etc. etc.). We'll have to see. The fact that I'm subject to the hearing is only a nuisance, an inconvenience. And, hopefully,, I can seek a counter action against my accuser. But the above confiscation thing is the much greater concern. If only they would permit the owner to store the "inventory" temporarily with a 3rd party or a service like this (gunsitters.com) that would truly be helpful.
If Red Flag laws were eliminated, there could still be options like the "Baker Act" if the person is really a threat to themselves or others. A perfect way to get the "at risk" person out of the house while leaving the weapons untouched. But you know that won't happen. It's too risky for LE (the owner could sue for false arrest), and it deprives them of that "underlying objective" opportunity.
It's the same thing with "Civil Asset Forfeiture." Against the 5th & 14th due process clauses. Only a court judge can deprive an owner of property as part of a judgement/sentence, etc. It's a perfect opportunity for corroupt LEAs to add a little "revenue enhancement" to their lives.
Both of these have got to go!
Red Flag laws (ERPO)s, as they are constructed today, offer corrupt LEAs an opportunity to effect an underlying objective - "Confiscate weapons now and get them off the streets" (i.e. disarm the public)! In my former state (PRNJ), various LEAs used this all the time to confiscate weapons when they determined an owner had a huge collection. They'd just get a judge to sign an ERPO (without the owner's counsel ever knowing about it). They show up at the house. unannounced, confiscate all the weapons ammo, and papers of ownership and leave nothing (no receipt, no nothing). Even if, at some point, the owner is eventually cleared of the charges (i.e. declared *not* to be a danger to anyone or themselves), it's too late. The LEA has their weapons, and they ain't givin' them back. They'll do things like say, "What weapons???? Where are they? etc. etc.???" Or , "Prove you own them..." knowing full well they confiscated all the ownership papers when they raided the house. And, if they were to give them back, they'd impose the "OGAM - One gun a month" restrictions just for you to get your own weapons back. In effect, that owner can kiss their collection good-bye. They'll never see it again.
I understand that things are a little different here in Florida (although I'd think not for some of the Southern Counties like Broward, Metro-Dade, Monroe, etc. etc.). We'll have to see. The fact that I'm subject to the hearing is only a nuisance, an inconvenience. And, hopefully,, I can seek a counter action against my accuser. But the above confiscation thing is the much greater concern. If only they would permit the owner to store the "inventory" temporarily with a 3rd party or a service like this (gunsitters.com) that would truly be helpful.
If Red Flag laws were eliminated, there could still be options like the "Baker Act" if the person is really a threat to themselves or others. A perfect way to get the "at risk" person out of the house while leaving the weapons untouched. But you know that won't happen. It's too risky for LE (the owner could sue for false arrest), and it deprives them of that "underlying objective" opportunity.
It's the same thing with "Civil Asset Forfeiture." Against the 5th & 14th due process clauses. Only a court judge can deprive an owner of property as part of a judgement/sentence, etc. It's a perfect opportunity for corroupt LEAs to add a little "revenue enhancement" to their lives.
Both of these have got to go!
Last edited:
I think a common sense test would be more relevant.
You and I both know that is no longer common
Some combination of these two. But absolutely no blood soaked politicians should have any influence on the decision
Red Flag?
Negros disproportionately commit crimes with firearms more than other races.
Negros should not be allowed to have guns.
Red Flagged.
Negros disproportionately commit crimes with firearms more than other races.
Negros should not be allowed to have guns.
Red Flagged.
How they hold up under scrutiny of the Bill of Rights is beyond me. I'm no lawyer but...
I wonder what a lawyer would say
It's really sad and infuriating at the same time to see supposed Patriots so willing to waive their freedoms away for just the illusion of safety. Bad people exist EVERYWHERE and it's up to good people to combat them. Yeah, it would be great if we all lived in a giant safe space where all we needed a gun for was fun and hunting, but that's a pipe dream that will not and can not happen. Our Founding Fathers knew this back in the day and we should continue knowing that today.
They don't care about the Bill of Rights. It doesn't comport with their "narrative." Remember, the whole US Constitution is a "fluid document" now. It's not "cast in stone," and you don't need that "pesky" amendment process to change things.
And we're just letting them get away with it! We have to start putting our collective feet down! We have to fight fire with fire.
You idiots, it has nothing to do with legal shit.
It is a blanket way that they can take guns and ammo from anyone they want to take guns and ammo from.
The cops say someone called in with your info on a red flag.
No one had to call, the cops can just say that shit and it's a done deal.
Who exactly can PROVE that anyone did, or did not, call the cops to red flag YOUR ass ?
See where this is going yet ?
It is a blanket way that they can take guns and ammo from anyone they want to take guns and ammo from.
The cops say someone called in with your info on a red flag.
No one had to call, the cops can just say that shit and it's a done deal.
Who exactly can PROVE that anyone did, or did not, call the cops to red flag YOUR ass ?
See where this is going yet ?
The term I know is barrack lawyer lol
They don't care about the Bill of Rights. It doesn't comport with their "narrative." Remember, the whole US Constitution is a "fluid document" now. It's not "cast in stone," and you don't need that "pesky" amendment process to change things.
And we're just letting them get away with it! We have to start putting our collective feet down! We have to fight fire with fire.
Calm down. As soon as ball season is over we are gonna do something to fix this.
Total horse shit infringement of COTUS.
Started as a "see something(terrorist actions)say something" foot in the door.
Now loss of due process.
They can get fucked.
Wonder who is knocking on the door again?...
R
Started as a "see something(terrorist actions)say something" foot in the door.
Now loss of due process.
They can get fucked.
Wonder who is knocking on the door again?...
R
Soo, if I buy dinner...don't we technically have an agreement?
Judges never sign bullshit made up warrants. Never ever!!
All courts, judges, DAs, jurors, etc. are totally fair and unbiased.
SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments in US v Rahimi after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated TX ‘s DV restraining order gun prohibition. If that case goes our way then most red flag laws will be thrown out.
The most galling thing about these laws is the "Take the guns first, we'll sort it out in court later" approach. That is so completely the antithesis of how our justice system is SUPPOSED to work that it makes you wonder what's left of freedom.
No the smart people should not be in charge. Smart folks are in most cases just better educated and even more immoral and dangerous bastards than Joe Sixpack.
Any law needs to be set up to allow for it to be properly enforced by room temperature IQ's and there needs to be feedback mechanisms in place to punish the abuse of the legal process and/or laziness and incompetence on the part of the folks tasked with enforcing or implementing the law.
So in reality we shouldn't have red flag laws because the entire justice system currently has no incentive to get it right...
Any law needs to be set up to allow for it to be properly enforced by room temperature IQ's and there needs to be feedback mechanisms in place to punish the abuse of the legal process and/or laziness and incompetence on the part of the folks tasked with enforcing or implementing the law.
So in reality we shouldn't have red flag laws because the entire justice system currently has no incentive to get it right...
No.
Dumb fucks are not the answer.
How many people realize (honestly) that there is a huge difference between smart, wise, and educated ?
We need the "wise" ones to man up for this job.
I see what you did there.
You forgot the most annoying group. Those that are Educated beyond their intelligence.
That was the original idea behind the 1968 deal. LBJ said as much.
Before I get started let me ask you a question.
Do you, yourself, or know of someone with an aging person in their life where you go......that person should not be driving anymore.
I see this as a little of the same thing. None of us are getting out of this alive, and the road out is likely to be rougher on some then others.
Personally I would love to see family step in and say FP' you just been making too many mistakes here lately......time to turn in your keys.
But that is not the reality.
With this (red flag) it is the healthy 30yr old that someone does not like how they drive. They drive the speed limit around the turn that has a suggested speed of 45mph. Some don't like that and want to take his lic. to drive.
Some my see Oh he is looking at street racing videos on the internet, he is going to.................. lets take his lic to drive.
See where I am going here.
We all know there are people and a time that they can't do it, or should not do it. I don't know what to do, I ain't that smart, but one thing I do know past any shadow of a doubt. It sure as fuck is not the roll of the .gov to be doing it.
Do you, yourself, or know of someone with an aging person in their life where you go......that person should not be driving anymore.
I see this as a little of the same thing. None of us are getting out of this alive, and the road out is likely to be rougher on some then others.
Personally I would love to see family step in and say FP' you just been making too many mistakes here lately......time to turn in your keys.
But that is not the reality.
With this (red flag) it is the healthy 30yr old that someone does not like how they drive. They drive the speed limit around the turn that has a suggested speed of 45mph. Some don't like that and want to take his lic. to drive.
Some my see Oh he is looking at street racing videos on the internet, he is going to.................. lets take his lic to drive.
See where I am going here.
We all know there are people and a time that they can't do it, or should not do it. I don't know what to do, I ain't that smart, but one thing I do know past any shadow of a doubt. It sure as fuck is not the roll of the .gov to be doing it.
These laws like all anti gun laws are passed to harass and intimidate the lawful citizen! Just more lawfare to be used at the political classes whim.
Three felonies a day has been and continues to be the goal of the political class criminals.
We are well into show me the man and I will find the crime!
Three felonies a day has been and continues to be the goal of the political class criminals.
We are well into show me the man and I will find the crime!
The difference is possession of firearms is a constitutional right. Driving is a privilege.
Dont we have one here now that likes to chime in and “talk law”??
Last edited:
I get that, but there comes a time when you just can't do it anymore.
Lets take Joe Biden, or at least put his mental ability into someone that is a 2a person to the bone. He is clearly mentally unfit.
Do you think someone with the mental decline of a biden type person should still have those rights? We know he is getting nasty, we saw his wife show up with a big bruise on the side of her face. Would someone "stealing" a parking spot from this man send him off the deep end. We don't know.
That is what I am trying to get at. Someone that is no longer mentally fit. What do we do, personally I don't know. I think you would lean to nothing, but I don't think that is the right decision.
I agree with the first not the second.
Why should , proven less than intelligent and worthy, government have control of my mobility?
"We" paid the taxes for the following:
Our income to purchase whatever form of mobility we choose.
The taxes on said vehicle purchase.
The road building and repair.
The folks that "patrol" these roads for "enforcement" of the rules.
The costs of insurance, mandatory in some states, for said vehicle.
Also the fucking mountain of taxes when purchasing fuel.
Some could drive safely at 100 on major highways.
Some can't at the speed limit.
Does this axiom seem familiar?
R
It’s a privilege because it is not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights. The only way to get it to the status of a right is to treat it like abortion was (up until recently) and scotus just shot that down.
Their response to your right to mobility is to say that you can have someone drive you. Or soon to have a self driving car. Or to get on a bike.
The US is not free like people assume. Look how they diluted all of the amendments.
I am going to sound heartless but we can’t base decisions on feelings. If Jill wants to disarm Joe then she needs to grow a pair and file DV charges and get him committed. Because if she doesn’t then he will hurt her using other deadly implements. Take the gun away, take the knives, he’ll use a broken beer bottle.
If Joe is all alone and threatening the neighbors, arrest him and have him committed. But you can’t walk into his house, take his guns, and leave. He won’t be OK.
Most don't know that license were rare in the 1920's and there were an estimated 7.5 million cars.
Another "right" stolen under the guise of safety.
R
The constitution doesn’t(well, in theory at least) limit the citizens of the country. It’s supposed to limit how much damage the federal gov can do
Not heartless, but I don't think I am getting across what I am trying to say.
Not everyone is going to "grow a pair" and do something about it. A great many families know about dad and his driving but don't want to do anything about it. Personally I don't think there is a solution, you are always going to have someone go Charles Whitman somewhere or another. In a gun free place like Oz, or China, we see they get there being all stabby. You can't control crazy. Crazy will always happen.
I was working to see if you had any idea past do nothing. You don't, that is not intended to be a dig, I don't as well. But I do want to look at everything on the table.
I discount this so called "red flag" thing as it is so easy to abuse. We all know where it will be directed at.
IMHO if we lived in a country where there was rule of law, and a working mental health care system this would be a non issue.
The guy I talked about above is generally thought of to be the "first mass shooter". And it has only gotten worse as time has gone on. Look at the date he did his thing, and tell me this was not a turning point in time for the USA.
I disagree. Or I guess I should say if things worked correctly I would disagree.
People with 10 DUI's, pages of bad driving summons and they are still out there.
Driving is more of a "right" it seems then the 2A is.
As to the question of "who should have standing to initiate a proceeding?"
I would answer, "anybody who is willing to suffer the consequences and pay the costs associated with initiating a bad faith proceeding or abusing legal process."
In short, a red flag gun law statute should have a provision that any individual who is found to have initiated a proceeding in bad faith or for an ulterior purpose, shall be liable to pay statutory damages of $25,000.00 dollars to the respondent in the proceeding as well as all attorney fees incurred by the respondent and the court costs associated with the proceedings that were initiated. A conclusion of bad faith shall not rest solely upon the respondent defeating the petition, but must require a showing that the petitioner lacked any reasonable basis to believe that the respondent was a danger to himself or others, or that no reasonable individual would have concluded the respondent was a threat to himself or others, or a combination of such factors."
An ex-girlfriend initiating a proceeding to compromise the firearms rights of her gunsmith ex-bf, while she knows he is not a threat to himself or others, would be a classic example of bad faith and an ulterior motive.
That would likely provide sufficient basis to prevent a neighborhood Karen from initiating a proceeding on the basis that she doesn't like her Marine vet neighbor who flies the Don't Tread on Me flag alongside the USMC flag while sporting a MAGA bumper stick on his truck, but people would likely feel empowered and safe enough to initiate a proceeding to head-off the next Bath School disaster.
A rather interesting question, particularly in light of the fact that my main term paper in law school was on the exact topic of mental illness and the implications for firearms rights that a mental illness diagnosis has, and covered firearms rights for the mentally ill, formerly mentally ill, different standards of review used, and this was back when only one or two states had "red flag gun laws." It is about 4,000 words and I would be glad to share it, but unless you have an intellectual appreciation for the law and legal analysis, a law degree, or a particular interest in a discussion on mental health and firearms rights/laws, it will probably be dry and boring. Some of the focus is on the [then existing] circuit split with the 6th Circuit using intermediate scrutiny and the 4th circuit using strict scrutiny. However, as my paper was pre-Bruen, and we now live in a Bruen world, a lot of the legal arguments/analysis in my paper are sort of obsolete or focused on standards of review that are likely no longer current.
My conclusion was that nothing much will happen in regards to progress due to lack of interest in pursuing serious solutions, lack of understanding by judges of mental illness (almost all judges lack medical/psychological backgrounds), lack of safeguards for individual rights, and ultimately deadlock and gridlock preventing any workable or viable solutions.
The approach of, "let's pretend mental health is great in the USA and continue doing nothing other than drugging teenagers and young adults with Big Pharma dope and then wondering how and why they are melting down and gunning down people in public" obviously hasn't been working.
I suspect the Second Amendment in the USA is going to die the death of a thousand cuts because of the refusal of society to do anything about the dangerously violent mentally ill people in our midst, while burying our heads in the sand and insisting, "I don't want any law passed that might be useful for curtailing the mentally ill from going postal, because in some scenario I can conceive of, it could or would be used against me or abused against me." Eventually, the average American is going to throw their hands up and shout, "enough is enough, I'll accept any offered solution" and some slick smooth talking politician is going to come along and pitch them on a total gun ban or a total semi-auto ban. We're at a point where the Second Amendment can plausibly go either way of "total restoration of all major rights, end of most federal regulations" or "a near complete civilian ownership ban." Either one could happen in the next 5 years.
Approximately 20% of American adults have an active mental health diagnosis, post-Plandemic it is probably hovering closer to 30-35% of Americans. Hell, about 35% of middle-aged women are on SSRIs. If the best we can come up with is, "under no circumstances can any guns ever be taken from anybody for any purpose no matter how compelling the justification or the reason, because, muh rights won't be infringed" then we're going to have a whole hell of a lot of Charles Whitmans climbing towers and it is ultimately only going to be a matter of time before the bulk of people, looking for a one-size fits all, easy fix, "no brainer" solution, decide, "well let's just ban all semi-automatic guns and be done with this."
The NFA was closed to post-86 machine guns for civilians in 1986. If a lawful NFA holder snapped and used an M2 Browning to kill 500+ people at some public event, that might be all it takes to spur a nationwide NFA round-up/confiscation. If NFA guy began to hear voices, telling him he was the angel of death and his mission is to "usher in the end for the wicked" and he was telling his friends that he has a "sacred mission" and the details of this supposed mission, somebody should be able to utilize a legal mechanism to intervene before there is a triple digit body count.
82% of Americans are vaccinated, and I have never found any stories of any Americans using force to oppose police/Guardsmen who were doing door-to-door gun confiscation in the New Orleans area in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As a practical matter, if there is a nationwide gun ban in the USA, particularly if it is "only" applicable to semi-autos, I predict the vast majority of Americans who are covered by the ban, will at best peacefully disobey, many will affirmatively comply, virtually none will engage in violence over such a thing.
A friend of mine once described the situation as, "hopeless but not serious" meaning the situation is dire and nobody takes it seriously.
There is a blatantly colossal problem with mental health in the USA, we are effectively offering no solutions, so we shouldn't be shocked that those who despise are stepping up to fill the void. Approximately 60,000,000 Americans as of 2021 had an active mental illness diagnosis, with the most common being depression and anxiety, followed by bipolar disorder. If these problems are going to be addressed it would be nice if they are addressed by people who are not ideologically against us and who are publicly committed to mass disarmament.
I would answer, "anybody who is willing to suffer the consequences and pay the costs associated with initiating a bad faith proceeding or abusing legal process."
In short, a red flag gun law statute should have a provision that any individual who is found to have initiated a proceeding in bad faith or for an ulterior purpose, shall be liable to pay statutory damages of $25,000.00 dollars to the respondent in the proceeding as well as all attorney fees incurred by the respondent and the court costs associated with the proceedings that were initiated. A conclusion of bad faith shall not rest solely upon the respondent defeating the petition, but must require a showing that the petitioner lacked any reasonable basis to believe that the respondent was a danger to himself or others, or that no reasonable individual would have concluded the respondent was a threat to himself or others, or a combination of such factors."
An ex-girlfriend initiating a proceeding to compromise the firearms rights of her gunsmith ex-bf, while she knows he is not a threat to himself or others, would be a classic example of bad faith and an ulterior motive.
That would likely provide sufficient basis to prevent a neighborhood Karen from initiating a proceeding on the basis that she doesn't like her Marine vet neighbor who flies the Don't Tread on Me flag alongside the USMC flag while sporting a MAGA bumper stick on his truck, but people would likely feel empowered and safe enough to initiate a proceeding to head-off the next Bath School disaster.
A rather interesting question, particularly in light of the fact that my main term paper in law school was on the exact topic of mental illness and the implications for firearms rights that a mental illness diagnosis has, and covered firearms rights for the mentally ill, formerly mentally ill, different standards of review used, and this was back when only one or two states had "red flag gun laws." It is about 4,000 words and I would be glad to share it, but unless you have an intellectual appreciation for the law and legal analysis, a law degree, or a particular interest in a discussion on mental health and firearms rights/laws, it will probably be dry and boring. Some of the focus is on the [then existing] circuit split with the 6th Circuit using intermediate scrutiny and the 4th circuit using strict scrutiny. However, as my paper was pre-Bruen, and we now live in a Bruen world, a lot of the legal arguments/analysis in my paper are sort of obsolete or focused on standards of review that are likely no longer current.
My conclusion was that nothing much will happen in regards to progress due to lack of interest in pursuing serious solutions, lack of understanding by judges of mental illness (almost all judges lack medical/psychological backgrounds), lack of safeguards for individual rights, and ultimately deadlock and gridlock preventing any workable or viable solutions.
The approach of, "let's pretend mental health is great in the USA and continue doing nothing other than drugging teenagers and young adults with Big Pharma dope and then wondering how and why they are melting down and gunning down people in public" obviously hasn't been working.
I suspect the Second Amendment in the USA is going to die the death of a thousand cuts because of the refusal of society to do anything about the dangerously violent mentally ill people in our midst, while burying our heads in the sand and insisting, "I don't want any law passed that might be useful for curtailing the mentally ill from going postal, because in some scenario I can conceive of, it could or would be used against me or abused against me." Eventually, the average American is going to throw their hands up and shout, "enough is enough, I'll accept any offered solution" and some slick smooth talking politician is going to come along and pitch them on a total gun ban or a total semi-auto ban. We're at a point where the Second Amendment can plausibly go either way of "total restoration of all major rights, end of most federal regulations" or "a near complete civilian ownership ban." Either one could happen in the next 5 years.
Approximately 20% of American adults have an active mental health diagnosis, post-Plandemic it is probably hovering closer to 30-35% of Americans. Hell, about 35% of middle-aged women are on SSRIs. If the best we can come up with is, "under no circumstances can any guns ever be taken from anybody for any purpose no matter how compelling the justification or the reason, because, muh rights won't be infringed" then we're going to have a whole hell of a lot of Charles Whitmans climbing towers and it is ultimately only going to be a matter of time before the bulk of people, looking for a one-size fits all, easy fix, "no brainer" solution, decide, "well let's just ban all semi-automatic guns and be done with this."
The NFA was closed to post-86 machine guns for civilians in 1986. If a lawful NFA holder snapped and used an M2 Browning to kill 500+ people at some public event, that might be all it takes to spur a nationwide NFA round-up/confiscation. If NFA guy began to hear voices, telling him he was the angel of death and his mission is to "usher in the end for the wicked" and he was telling his friends that he has a "sacred mission" and the details of this supposed mission, somebody should be able to utilize a legal mechanism to intervene before there is a triple digit body count.
82% of Americans are vaccinated, and I have never found any stories of any Americans using force to oppose police/Guardsmen who were doing door-to-door gun confiscation in the New Orleans area in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As a practical matter, if there is a nationwide gun ban in the USA, particularly if it is "only" applicable to semi-autos, I predict the vast majority of Americans who are covered by the ban, will at best peacefully disobey, many will affirmatively comply, virtually none will engage in violence over such a thing.
A friend of mine once described the situation as, "hopeless but not serious" meaning the situation is dire and nobody takes it seriously.
There is a blatantly colossal problem with mental health in the USA, we are effectively offering no solutions, so we shouldn't be shocked that those who despise are stepping up to fill the void. Approximately 60,000,000 Americans as of 2021 had an active mental illness diagnosis, with the most common being depression and anxiety, followed by bipolar disorder. If these problems are going to be addressed it would be nice if they are addressed by people who are not ideologically against us and who are publicly committed to mass disarmament.
Like I said, it's what the "Baker Act" is for.....( in Florida) or "Section 5150" in California.
Similar threads
