Red flag laws are unlikely to ever survive a constitutional challenge. It's not a second ammendment issue, it's a fifth ammendment issue.
Yeah, baring people from exercising rights who have been convicted of no crime is not only going to fail constitutional challenges, but is a very poor path to go down.
Not to mention that even backing it in the first place is just going to give republican media more talking points to galvanize people against Biden/Harris in the 2024 election. Poorly thought out and poor timing. I'm personally in favor of stricter gun laws, but I don't think this one has much chance of taking effect, so I'd rather they hold off until 2025 at least before trying to push it.
If there's one thing that makes me put on the tinfoil hat for US politics, it's how many self defeating takes that the Democrats trot out in election season.
"Hey we need to win over at least some of the rural and suburban votes"
"Hmmm.... How about some gun control laws that the Supreme Court won't even have to be bribed to overturn? Maybe with a little taste of police state?"
Democrats struggle between standing up for the right thing even though it's unpopular, and doing the politically-great thing albeit with watered-down words and policy. Deciding between which depends on the zeitgeist.
Truth is, something does need done about guns. We're the laughing-stock of the industrialized world in this respect and for good reason. On the other hand, now probably isn't the best time, considering how stacked the Supreme Court is. Better to pivot to universal healthcare and alleviating societal stress at every opportunity. Bernie's 32 hour work week with no loss in pay is another good example.
And if they somehow do, rest assured that red states will use it as an opportunity to disarm LGBT folk for being 'violently mentally ill' before the ink is dry on the decision.
No, it's worse than that. Constitutional sheriffs will simply refuse to enforce the laws with which they disagree. We have elected peace officers openly violating state and federal laws and they're very outspoken about it.
Red flag laws have already been on the books in various places throughout the country. Do you think the gun nuts just didn't feel like challenging them with an auto-win case?
The fact is, they've tried and been rejected.
They haven't been tried at a federal level yet, which is all that really matters. It's going to take time before a case makes it through the whole process.
Operated through the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and paid for by a justice department grant, Erpo is designed to help state and local governments, law enforcement, and others – including behavioral health and social service providers – “optimize” the use of red flag laws, Harris said.
It will provide training and technical assistance, including educational opportunities and workshops “for a wide variety of stakeholders”. But the vice-president also acknowledged that red flag laws, which facilitate the temporary removal of firearms from a person a court believes capable of harming themselves or others, are not universally popular.
We need actual gun controll on a federal level. Even just a register and requirement for private sales to go thru an FFL for a background check would be huge.
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
There's a reason "new in box" guns get sold at a markup on the private market.
Hint: people that can't but at a store will pay a premium.
I like guns, but I have too many buddies who buy guns, then sell them less than a year later and brag about how good of businessmen they are for making profit. All theyre doing is likely funneling guns to people who can't pass background checks. There's just the plausible deniability on their end that if it's not legit, it's not their fault.
What I don't get is why not open up the 4473 form to people doing private sales? You could have it on a phone app even. It's not like an FFL isn't doing anything special, just calling in and reading your answers off the damn form.
Because lots of personal information ends up on there--often a social security number--and the seller/transferor is required to retain copies of the form in perpetuity. (I believe that when a gun store closes they are obligated to turn over their paper copies to the BATF.) It's paper intentionally, because they wanted to prevent the system from becoming a back-door registry; doing it electronically would mean that, either records wouldn't be retained, or you would be creating a de facto registry. Personally, I don't want some guy I met off Gun Broker to have a paper copy of all my PII floating around in his home forever.
There have been proposals that address this. The way it was handled is that the buyer puts their own info in the system on their end and it returns a token/code that is given to the seller. The seller enters the token and name then system gives a red light or green light. It doesn’t include the serial number of the gun or the identity of the seller, there is no retained record to be entered in a database. Just a go/no go response for the seller.
The proposal was rejected by democrats for not going far enough so instead we have nothing.
Ha. Yeah, rejected by Dems sounds about right. In my general experience, establishment Dems aren't going to be seriously on-board with anything that doesn't involve bans on models, features, or entire types of firearms. Kinda like Republicans aren't willing to accept any compromise on "border security" that doesn't completely ban non-white/non-christian people.
TBH, I'm deeply frustrated that Dems appear unwilling to seriously work for the kinds of changes in material circumstances that would affect rates of violent crime without enacting bans and registries. Even "liberal" cities like San Francisco are backsliding sharply.
Probably because that would actually be effective.
There is no reason to add extra expense through an FFL. Just open the system up for all.
Until we close the private sale loophole, gun laws do t mean shit.
This really isn't the loophole that people think it is. If you buy new firearms with the intent to sell it, you're committing a felony. There was an airport executive killed in a gunfight with the BATF just this past week over just this (the BATF was serving a warrant because he was alleged to have been buying firearms with the intent of reselling them, despite not being an FFL holder and doing background checks; he opened fire on them, and predictably did not survive). This is the essence of what a straw purchase is.
Yes, but straw purchase laws are almost impossible to enforce. Buying with the intent to sell to a prohibited buyer is illegal, but good luck proving it.
Requiring all transfers to go through a background check makes it much more difficult. And it doesn't even have to involve an FFL - just either open NICS up to the public. Allow someone wanting to buy a gun to generate a code that's good for X days that they can give to a seller that can be verified along with their name in place of a background check.
It protects privacy by not allowing checks on random people, but does allow for background checks for private sales.
I used to work in gun sales, and the reality is that I was probably involved in a few straws. I actively tried to stop them, and even caught a few people trying it, but if someone just came in, passed a background check, and bought a gun I wouldn't have known any better. It was the people with the sketchy friend nodding and shaking their heads as I went from product to product or people exchanging cash on camera in front of the store that we caught. People who weren't idiots about it had no trouble.
Red flag laws do help a bit and they are the only real tool we have. Even if you’re saving a tiny fraction of the lives you could with real enforcement, you gotta do something. There’s just no path to federal gun control now
Exactly. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Today's congress would be needed for more sweeping reforms (not going to happen right now) and the judiciary on that side too (not going to happen for a long time). They're doing what they can. It isn't much, but it's what they can do.
Explain like I'm a European -- what are red flag laws, and how do they hold up against 2A?
what are red flag laws
The short version is one is banned from owning or possessing guns based on accusations from others. The accusation does not necessarily need to be of a crime nor does evidence need to be provided. The accusation simply needs to be a 'red flag' (a term which means many different things in different areas). A common one is accusing one of being likely to commit a crime in the future.
how do they hold up against 2A
They are not likely to fail a 2A challenge as the 5A challenge will be much easier to argue for a defendant. Barring one from exercising a right who has not been convicted of a crime is basically guaranteed to fail a 5A challenge.
Robert Card should have been red flagged multiple times. It didn't happen. Implementing this nationwide just means it's going to fail just as bad nationally.
Theres actually good data showing that red flag laws do stop some violence. The reality is, it’s this crappy half measure or nothing, that’s just how our political system is. Yes, it’s a band aid on a gushing wound, but at least it saves somebody’s life
Agreed, something is 100x better than nothing.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.