How Do Red Flag Laws Work and Are They Fair?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- With gun violence making headlines in Wisconsin, Myles turns to high school students in Black River Falls, Wisconsin to share their investigation of Red Flag Gun Laws - a bipartisan and little-known part of the gun control debate.
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a video!
bit.ly/3tNKzhV
And follow us on Instagram and Twitter!
/ abovethenoisepbs
/ atn_pbs
*What are Red Flag Gun Laws?*
Red Flag Gun Laws, aka Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), are laws that allow family members or police to request that courts temporarily take away a person’s guns if that person is believed to be a danger to themself or others.
*How do Red Flag Gun Laws work?*
Each state with these laws does them differently, but it’s usually something like this: If a family member or the police think someone might be a danger to themselves or others, they can sign an affidavit explaining why they think that person’s guns should be taken away. The court can then grant a temporary removal of guns. This is often done as an ex-parte proceeding and there’s usually a lower standard of evidence to prove if that person is dangerous. The thinking is, you want to remove the threat as quickly as possible to minimize damage. After the guns are removed, there’s another hearing to determine if the guns can be given back or held for longer, usually up to a year. This is when the person whose guns have been taken can defend themselves, and the level of evidence needed to keep the guns away is higher.
*What are the main arguments for red flag gun laws?*
One of the main arguments is that they lead to greater public safety. Research shows these laws have reduced some types of gun violence-- like suicides by gun. The laws have also been used to remove guns from people who have made threatening statements about mass shootings, so it's possible the removal of those guns prevented some mass shootings.
*What are the main arguments against Red Flag Gun Laws?*
One of the main arguments against these laws is that someone could unfairly get their guns taken away-- like if a family member lies about feeling endangered. Critics also say these laws may violate constitutional rights to due process. In the case of ERPOs a person doesn’t usually get a chance to fully defend themselves in front of a judge until AFTER their guns are taken away.
*What are the key considerations of Red Flag Laws?*
The debate becomes a balancing act to figure out how to write the law so that it protects public safety without infringing on civil liberties (like due process). What level of evidence is needed to temporarily remove someone's guns? How long should the guns be removed for? Who can make that recommendation- just family? law enforcement? both? Are there penalties to make sure people don’t lie to get someone’s guns taken away?
Sources:
Extreme risk protection orders in state legislatures (Ballotpedia):
ballotpedia.org/Extreme_risk_...
What Are ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws, and How Do They Work? (NY Times) www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us...
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence):
lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings (Annals of Internal Medicine)
www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.73...
Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981-2015 (Psychiatry Online) ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/1...
The Constitutional Case for “Red Flag” Laws (Jurist)
www.jurist.org/commentary/201...
TEACHERS: Get your students in the discussion on KQED Learn, a safe place for middle and high school students to investigate controversial topics and share their voices. learn.kqed.org/discussions/
About KQED
KQED serves the people of Northern California with a public-supported alternative to commercial media. An NPR and PBS member station based in San Francisco, KQED is home to one of the most listened-to public radio stations in the nation, one of the highest-rated public television services, and an award-winning education program helping students and educators thrive in 21st-century classrooms. A trusted news source, leader, and innovator in interactive technology, KQED takes people of all ages on journeys of exploration - exposing them to new people, places, and ideas.
Funding for KQED’s education services is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Koret Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the Crescent Porter Hale Foundation, the Silver Giving Foundation, Campaign 21 donors, and members of KQED.
.
A red flag law allows for the confiscation of a person's firearms through the use of a warrant, yet the person accused is never charged and never faces their accuser.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed to prosecute an individual. It's not the responsibility of the accused to prove innocence. Charge them or give the property back.
I GUARENTEE, THIS LAW WILL BE ABUSED.
that is definitely the part that is concerning, but couldn't it be tweaked somehow to protect civil liberties while still enabling law enforcement to remove weapons from people who are a danger to themselves and others?
@@thadofalltrades Thad, if you're a law abiding patriot (notice I said patriot not nationalist) you'll be fine
@@thadofalltrades it gives cops the ability to abuse it. Imagine corruption going unchecked. Look up the battle of Athens. Happened 1946
@@thadofalltrades no. One has to commit a crime to have state prosecute them. It’s insane precrime minority report policing otherwise. State claims to see the future.
@@drumpfisidiot5021 NO. Red flags are civil. You have no constitutional rights, and are at the mercy of a indoctrinated Marxist loon for a Judge. They can decree anything they see fit, based off of no proof. They always err on the side of caution” when it’s a white man and flag the F out of him, and never allow one to be issued against a POC. The POC could cry “racial profiling!” which police and courts are more scared of than a GF being slaughtered by a dangerous black boyfriend. They would never dare say “yeah. That black man MAY be dangerous” without evidence, at which point it’s a criminal matter, a regular old crime.
I had an ex who tried to get a restraining order on me because i broke up with her, she specificly said “so i couldn’t buy more guns”. Thank the lord i know the county sheriff and i just told him what was going on so he didn’t let it get anywhere, but this law will 100% be abused
I had a dispute with a neighbor about a fence now he lives in a red flag law I could just as easily go down to the courthouse and tell them that I feared for my life and have him stripped of his second amendment. Who decides who's the danger? What if you get a judge or prosecutor who hates guns? The state psychologist that make you go to and pay to see so that you can pay to get your guns back if he says it's okay what if he doesn't like guns? This is such a slippery slope it's unreal.
I had a dispute with a neighbor about a fence now he lives in a red flag law I could just as easily go down to the courthouse and tell them that I feared for my life and have him stripped of his second amendment. Who decides who's the danger? What if you get a judge or prosecutor who hates guns? The state psychologist that make you go to and pay to see so that you can pay to get your guns back if he says it's okay what if he doesn't like guns? This is such a slippery slope it's unreal.
And you think your ex will feel safe around a potentially violent armed husband,and how long have you personally known the Sheriff,are you longtime close personal friends?
At least he admits that it’s a violation of the 2nd amendment and due process. Case closed, unconstitutional.
morevoer the data shows red flag laws don't work
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)
We forget why we have guns in the first place
@@plederfagella9774 has this ever happened though and if not do you believe it will in your life time?
@@poofinschnitzel it happened in 1776 mane
F Thomas Jefferson. But nice statement
@@plederfagella9774 ya but like once in 250 years and was quiet a different time right what if you kept the second amendment and just modified it to fit the times?
I've lost all my firearms in a boating accident and every time I purchase a new firearm I coincidentally get into another boating accident. Guess I just have very bad luck.
What people who don't have guns don't understand is how much fun boating with guns is and how difficult it is to keep them in the boat.
How does dat even happen
Oh naw dam I’m to high I get what yu doin now 😂🤝 shidddd
You can't take people's property without a fair trial. *cough*civil forfeiture*cough*!
Stop and frisk *cough
Civil forfeiture has been deemed unconstitutional for the same reasons
@@MarkyMark2177 you don't say 😑
People need more guns then.
Oh yes, another law that law enforcement gets to abuse full stop and fck people over.
Guy owned a computer repair shot and because an informant claimed he was receiving stolen computers they seized everything from that shop. So imagine sending your computer in to get repaired only to find out later the police seized it in a sting operation and sold it at an auction before you had a chance to get your property back. Or maybe you did fight to get it back but who covers your legal fees? It's basically stop and frisk but this time it was the lefts idea.
My big issue with RedFlag is use abuse. Whether it's 'family's lies as vendetta or a LEOs misuse as an excuse (much like Disorderly Conduct). In those cases where someone disproved the RedFlag, property was not returned. Until they start returning seized property, must find myself opposed.
Specially if you break up with someone and that person now can freaking ruin your gun rights by lying.
Better to take away an innocent person’s gun than to leave a gun with a dangerous individual
It’s not just property you most likely won’t get back, or the cost to get it returned is prohibitive.. you don’t get back your legal fees, lawyer fees, no one pays restitution for ruining your reputation. You can lose your job if military, police, healthcare, daycare, etc. with no proof you did anything wrong.
@@unwarysage05w32 our constitution was built on exactly the opposite thought.
Why don’t we increase the age of driving to 21, since there’s so many MVA that resulted in millions dead all across the world. Why don’t we have red flag laws against drivers? We take away your property, make you prove you are not something, and then make you pay to get it back.. if we ever do, which is based on subjective opinion of someone that may “err on the side of caution..”. And all this could happen, even if you never had a car accident, ticket in your life.
@@unwarysage05w32 no! No it’s never good to take away an innocent person gun.
Until it’s been utilized as a weapon against the innocent. Innocent until proven guilty will be abused
My understanding these laws have created more violence by police just busting down doors without real reason.
I think its safe to say that the reasoning for unarming people is not for their own benefit.
"after Connecticut started enforcing its 2007 law, there was a 13.7% decrease in gun suicides."
Okay but those people still killed themselves, right?
Is the 'decrease' in anything actually effective if they perform the same task with other means?
My guesses are: 1.) they resorted to other ways to end their own lives 2.) they become criminals (basically started doing hard drugs and resorted to doing heinous crimes) 3.) somehow found a way to get a gun and... well... shit...
If a citizen is not a criminal or mentally ill, then they should be able to have all the guns they want.
2:55 this is a false statement
Australia has gun licensing and a need must be shown in some cases when applying for a license. Part of the licensure process requires demonstration of safe use.
Thanks for fact-checking us. Can you link to a source, please?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_of_Australia
@@DrewLonmyPillow thanks. We'll look into it.
There is evidence that Port Arthur (Australia) was a false flag. In 1987, the Premier of New South Wales said, "We won't have uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania."
How did he know this massacre would lead to uniform gun laws in Australia? And why in Tasmania? Tasmania was where Port Arthur took place.
Tim Fischer, Deputy PM of Australia in 1996, said, "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws), next time there's a massacre they will take ALL our guns."
Who is THEY? Fischer let it slip that it wasn't even Australia's politicians that ordered gun confiscation. It was the elites of this world.
NewYork also has "need" issued carry permits however the court NEVER sees a need. Your statement is empty for this reason. Donald Trump is the only person I know of who miraculously was issued a gun permit. I'm curious how he got it. 🤔
This is not what a red flag law is. The two examples at the beginning are already crimes of threatening violence wtf. A red flag law is when someone accuses someone else of a potential crime that is NOT already a crime (because then you wouldn’t need red flags laws if it’s already on the books as illegal obviously) And then the person, who has never faced their accuser and has never been convicted of a crime by a judge or a jury immediately loses their rights. No due process. Instead, in a system where you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, this situation automatically makes you guilty and then the defendant has the burden of proof to make himself look like a regular citizen, which is not at all consistent with any principles of this country. Of course, it doesn’t always work out that way but if you have any system where someone loses their rights based off of an accusation and the absence of the process is a completely broken system. People will say that civil forfeiture is an example of this already being in the system. Yeah that’s a bad thing too and should also not be constitutional
Red back and forth doll pillow law
Thanks to our viewers who pointed out that the statement made by a student at 2:54 that Australia has a “zero tolerance” and “no more guns” is inaccurate. Australia does have a very strict licensing system that limits gun ownership and requires government approval and proof of safety training. Acceptable reasons to own a gun are severely limited and result in very low gun ownership overall. Here is where you can learn more: www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia.
There is evidence that Port Arthur (Australia) was a false flag. In 1987, the Premier of New South Wales said, "We won't have uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania."
How did he know this massacre would lead to uniform gun laws in Australia? And why in Tasmania? Tasmania was where Port Arthur took place.
Tim Fischer, Deputy PM of Australia in 1996, said, "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws), next time there's a massacre they will take ALL our guns."
Who is THEY? Fischer let it slip that it wasn't even Australia's politicians that ordered gun confiscation. It was the elites of this world.
I would rather have dangerous freedom vs safe slavery
what about safe freedom?
@@rodrigodias4134 it's a misnomer.
@@rodrigodias4134 Not if you are sacrificing freedom for safety. You'll get neither!
@@rodrigodias4134🤡 "wut abowt poppuz pantengz" 🤡
If an ex-wife or neighbor does not like guns, who cares.
Personal Property and Presumption of Innocense have to be upheld.
Again, WHO CARES ABOUT SUICIDE since it's their body and their life and THEY are pulling the trigger.
I've recently found your videos and have been binging them. You deserve more subscribers, glad I found this gem.
I am pro gun, but I would rather them prevent purchase than take gun away. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The problem with my suggestion is that the military industrial complex wants your money.
And the fact that enabling the government to disarm the populus is exactly what the constitution isnt for.
Preventing purchase isn't an effective option because many of these shooters got them off the black market.
Losing a gun for a few days isn't an inconvenience worth denying these laws. As long as you don't show violent tendencies, you'll be fine. It's not permanent unless they have sufficient evidence.
@@emilyfogerty6438 You can easily make a Luty SMG
@@emilyfogerty6438 "losing your right to speak for a few days isn't an inconvenience worth denying these laws"
There aren't even red flag laws on privileges.
The government should never be able to take away your guns.
Note: no one even claims red flags laws reduce violence.
They alway say "gun violence".
Exactly! They always play the semantic games to play at your emotions making it sound as if gun violence is the only type of violence and that it’s somehow infinitely worse than anything else. Personally, I’d rather get shot than be bludgeoned to death with a hammer or cut with a knife
Red pillow laws
Good video like always, that provides a very unbiased and simple to understand explanation of a concept
You are crazy if you think this was unbiased.
@@ReshardsAutomotiveWorkshop how is it biased
This video is very biased
How to say you don't have a brain without saying you don't have a brain.
I work with a cousin, we had a disagreement about work outside of work. He showed his boss one of the messages I sent. At the bottom it said - If it wasn't you we're cool. If it was you Ill accept an apology and we're cool. If it was you and you won't apologize I'm coming soon..... That boss took that out of context message and gave it to HR. It was out of context because 2 messages after that one I apologized and said I should've talked to you sooner about the issue. My work 3 days later asked me to go to the HR office. There I was told about the message and how it was a threat. I said it was kind of a threat but 2 messages after I apologized and we were cool so the person it was directed at never felt threatened. So he said ok and I didn't get in any trouble. 3 days after that my administrator called me to his office. I went into the building he was standing in the hallway I walked over to him and he took me to the state troopers office that's located at my workplace. I looked at him and said why am I going here I already talked to the HR guy he said we were all good. He said you have to go in, so he opened the door and 4 state trooper investigators were in there. I sat down I was told I didn't have a right to a lawyer and I had to answer all of the questions. This is clearly an attempt to entrap me you don't need 4 investigators for anything other than that. I didn't know what I was there for I though this is a bit much for "I'm coming soon". So they all start throwing questions at me and after a few "guns" are thrown out there. I said whoaaa who said anything about guns? Now I know I'm being Red Flagged.
After 2 hours of menially battling 4 state trooper investigators with no lawyer, no time to prepare, nobody on my side all alone in an office. They couldn't find anything to take my guns besides the way out of context message they had. They made me turn over my phone they went through everything. I did sign a paper for them to do that but I was told they were only going to look at the conversation that the message came from. Nope they went through everything. The other reason I signed it was because if they had a reason to take my guns they would go to my house. Kick the door in and shoot my dog because he's a pitbull but not a mean dog and he's my best friend so I did it in fear for the safety of my dog. I wasn't a threat to anyone, I had an argument with a family member that lasted 5 minutes. They used a single message to subvert my rights attempt to entrap me and paint me to look like a mass murderer because of 3 words "I'm Coming Soon". This is why Red Flag Laws are bad. It gives gun grabbing D*** Heads complete control of your life if you ever get angry about anything.
Never!!!! Shall not infringe. 1700 definition of infringement, Oxford University old english dictionary 1600 to 1800 ,infringe to limit,tax,or license ,to break a contract , or obstruction of,encroachment. So there it is we need to pass a Bill that forces law makers to define the constitution and rights ,using only dictionary from the time it was ratified. Anyone can reprint something and change a definition for tyrannical purposes.
5:18 suicide should be tolerated, it should be the most fundamental human right. It also, should not be apart of gun violence statistics.
suicidal people who manage to get their mental health back to a better state are glad they didn't commit suicide. So there are reasons to try and avoid people suiciding
@@OlivierFRscooter Yea, dont think anyone is arguing against helping suicidal people...
It depends on what you mean by tolerated. That's kind of vague. What exactly do you mean?
@@De-ti7jo I mean it should be legal and accessible for people to choose when they die. People should be able to die on their own terms, humanely and comfortably.
@@beachboardfan9544 We're an overmedicated, overprescribed country.
Should Courts Be Able to Take Guns From People?
*confused european noise*
USA: Freedom....
Eu: But why guns tho ?
Owning guns is as American as apple pie. The right to bear arms is written into our Constitution, as you know. But how that shakes out is hotly debated -- as you know -- which is also as American as apple pie.
@@AboveTheNoise Really informative answer, thank you. The points are well taken and known to me, understand it's a difficult political and cultural situation.
@Exculpatory Shōgun how much trust do you place I can't say it's 100% but that's a bit silly no one should really have 100% trust in much unless it is proven on high standards and over lots of years of proof
@Exculpatory Shōgun I certainly don't. But do you trust a guy who threatens to kill people 100%?
The question is not if you trust anyone 100%, the question is who you trust more. The government or someone who threatens to kill other people.
If your point is that we can't trust the government 100%, we could just get rid of any law.
@Exculpatory Shōgun so in your opinion what would it take for you too believe in your government enough that you would willing give up your firearms?
This a clear violation of our right!
Red flag laws would inevitably lead to people being injured unfairly.You cannot regulate based on how someone FEELS, that’s lunacy, someone is bound to FEEL threatened by any sort of stupidity, we’ve already seen some call it violence when a person refuses to use God-denying pronouns, or even when someone posts pictures with their firearms. Peoples feelings should not dictate justice, instead people should be punished if and when they commit crimes, not before.
The 2nd Amendment states that the right for the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Red Flag laws give the government the power to take away guns from people that may or may not be dangerous.
The world has a long history of gun control and how it turned out.
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed."
-snopes.com
Their is a debate that assault weapons like the ar 15 should be banned. The difference between a semiautomatic pistol and an ar 15 is the accuracy, round capacity, and size. Both are semiautomatic.
Politicians who are trying to ban assault weapons are not just trying to ban assault weapons but all guns.
One more thing, 98% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones (where guns are prohibited), and 1 percent of mass shootings happen in non gun free zones.
I laughed when that serious polititian was giving a serious interview in front of a bookshelf full of manga.
Omg how did I not notice this.
Treat the individual first. If there is enough "cause" to take property away then there is enough "cause" to send the individual away for treatment. Taking away a firearm and leaving the person alone is hollow. That person can still harm others by other means. They need a thorough evaluation
How exactly is suicide "gun violence" ? Did the gun exercise telepathic powers and compelled the person's finger to pull its trigger?? Attributing suicide to the actions of a gun is like calling hangings "bed sheet violence". Or calling the people who jump off of bridges the victims of "bridge violence". Absolutely asinine.
Suicide is only 60% that’s barely any
Clearly the mass shootings are the issue, they are 1% of gun deaths and clearly 1>60
Red Flag laws obviously violate the 5th Amendment. I am sure folks that want these Red Flag laws will quibble about
the "Due Process" requirement. If you think about any other property forfeiture laws; they require a hearing before a
judge before anything happens. Law enforcement and mental health specialists must evaluate these situations and
a protocol must be developed to deal with these situations short of immediate confiscation with no rights to the owner.
In Virginia, they have Red Flag laws. Here's the strange part: you will have your weapons seized even if the report isn't substantiated, and without evaluation from a doctor or adjudication from a judge.
The seizure goes from "party A" claims a threat to you being detained in a mental health facility or prison.
It's a direct infringement of established constitutional rights to due process.
I only know from experience dealing with a case in Virginia. The judge in the case was fighting the prosecutor and the sheriff; demanding the return of property. The prosecutor and sheriff resisted for months. The victim who had their guns seized is still fighting to have that "red flag" removed from his record (which prevents him from owning firearms in other states).
More guns, less crime.
God Bless the Second Amendment.
God bless America, our home sweet home
I feel like this law would make more sense if there was substantial evidence to take someone’s firearms away instead of just here-say ( examples like posts, texts, audio/ video recording)
We have laws for that already. That’s a crime. They want to have it where yiy can commit no crime, yet F you up using lawfare. But only whiye people, because if anyone dared to accuse a black or brown man of “seeming like they are dangerous” with no crime committed, they would scream racial profiling. It is profiling, which is unconstitutional.
Recordings and documents are not “hearsay.”
@@davidtrindle6473 saying tommy Thompson is gonna shoot up a hospital without any of examples I have given is hear say
Could you do a video on what would happen if we had a free market healthcare system?
And in the case of a stabbing do we ban knives? We already had red flag laws...it used to be called dropping a dime.
There is no compromise with this law. Only the reported person is hurt no matter what. This also gives the government and people to attack political enemies. They can severely hurt reputations and possibly even take rights from innocent people. And the government can take guns from people deemed a “problem”. With this said it is set up to be abused and will do way more harm than good
I forgot to mention but if someone were to want to attack you or your family they could report you, and have your guns taken to then attack
You guys notice that slight of hand? "Reduced the amount of suicide's by gun." Yeah show me the times you saved someone's life and not just took their gun away only for them to die by OD.
When a clear threat is made like the neighbor example, its outside the realm of red flag laws because it's a crime. In the case of the uncle, you're using red flag laws as a proxy for caring about the uncle, instead of actually caring for the uncle.
Yeah, that's the thing that pisses me off. If you care about someone, you don't take something from them, you put in the time and effort to care for them. It's like the shit on the internet about people saying they care, but then they do some other shit (like, that's before any form of backstabbing or betrayal. i'm talking about just sheer neglect.).
restricting peoples ability to own a gun doesn't make people safe it makes them helpless: Colion noir
The suicide decrease due to causation or was there so e correlation. However if someone is irresponsible enough to make foolish threats then...But giving government to determine who is a risk, is a risk to liberty...Why just guns, other things can be used a a weapon so that means the person is what needs to be removed not things.
Banning guns risks banning knives
Give government the power to take away your rights in an emergency and they'll create and emergency to take away your rights...
Exactly.
Answer: NO!
Lol 300 likes with 10k views. That ratio lol.
2:54 This isn't really accurate and would've been super easy to fact check. In Australia we don't have zero tolerance as we have an extremely strict licensing system that must prove you have a good reason to own a gun (not just for 'self defence' like many Americans claim) and that you can operate and store that gun safely. The list of reasons is extremely short and basically only permits few rural farm owners or security workers to own firearms.
I think the idea of 'zero tolerance' can scare some pro-gun americans, so its helpful to highlight alternatives to stricter gun control like we have in Australia, rather than perpetuate the idea that removing all guns is the only option for better gun control.
Thanks for pointing this out (you are not the only one!) We appreciate our audience weighing in with questions re: accuracy of the information we present - always! We'll look into it and pin a comment with an update if we think that's called for.
ok
@@dogehasdoritos ok
@@kikxpotatos ok
@@dogehasdoritos ok
I think it has to be a close family member and has close contact with them on fairly regular basis. Like your uncle in another city can’t request to take your guns away even if your dealing with drug addiction for example.
This could be a great thing providing everyone reports their local neighbourhood gangsters. We can look forward to the police taking their guns off them but I suspect they’ll be going after people reported by disgruntled ex partners
Well, considering the number of shootings that happen in domestic violence situations, is this a bad thing? injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0
@@AboveTheNoise ok I went very deep into your source and it was clear the only numbers I would get is 1 million unsubstantiated or source claims of being shot or shot at over an unknown amount of time etc.
Bottomline, up to 3 million defensive uses of a firearm vs around 12,000 murders. Obviously 0 murders is the goal but look at cost vs benefit, benefit greatly outweighs cost unfortunately. Also these 12k tend to be gang related. That means the problem is typically illegal firearms and gangs. As for domestic violence the problem is the domestic violence in itself, not the gun.
Having been on the receiving end of a 72 hour hold. Which the doctors discharged me early so I could go to college. The system is seriously broken. I pleded with the social worker to let me stay with a friend or anything other than a 72 hour hold. I even said I do a voluntary commitment. She said no because she wanted my guns taken away... but the reality is the judge thankfully saw differently. My doctors saw different.
All this to say red flag laws are a bad idea and will be abused. As the current laws which allow a person to be detained for 72 hours without due process are already abused.
Above The Noise, could you do video on environment and different ways countries are combating it?
Thanks for another interesting video!
Thanks for watching!
Of course not.
Your rights are not absolute. None of them are. Remember that.
When - if ever - should authorities be able to remove guns from people who are believed to be at risk for committing acts of violence? Let us know what you think in the comments!
Red flag gun laws can at least alert the police to the situation. In many cases shooters, whether mass or school, the person sent up flags that they would do it. These should be able to be flagged or acted on at minimum.
@@Submanca Two words: due process.
@@nunereclipsereborn Due process of what? do you want to wait till the person has killed a bunch of people?
@@Submanca Wow! I can't fucking believe that you would advocate depriving, suspending due process of law! What happened to innocent until proven guilty?!
@@nunereclipsereborn I don't understand the person is already guilty of threats. Owning a gun is a privilege. Killing people is not.
Good vid. Thanks for being fair on the issue.
They are unconstitutional. Point made!
I like to ask a question all things change over time it's a given just how the world is so are we at a point in time where maybe the constitution needs to be updated to fit the times keep the laws and all just have them apply to the people of today not the people of near 300 years ago
did not watch the video, but don't courts do this already when they send someone to jail?
Red flags🚩also leads to a registry
Was just told i have a red flag for telling my supervisor i was severely depressed and was admitted to a psych ward. I was never given a choice to volunteer or not, how is this fair?
I think these laws are two restrictive, anyone should be able to request anyone to be subject to a red flag law. For example I am drinking a beer in a bar and talking to someone to admits to me he is fantasising the unthinkable or hurting himself or herself, I should be able to notify police to have a red flag law initiated.
Your last comment on the four points should be the real debate. There isn’t a “right” answer to any of them, but it isn’t new legal ground.
Good point - it's a much more nuanced debate than our title would suggest. But - we hope everyone sticks around to watch the whole video to get to the real crux of the matter!
Red flag laws will not be constitutional. Anyone can accuse another allowing the government to confiscate arms without due process.The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT NE INFRINGED. That includes 18 to 20 year olds.
Completely unconstitutional and against due process.
Fair reporting, thank you…I think preventing mass shootings vs suicide are different argument.
(I mean you can poor a vile of Visine eye drops in your coffee or drive your car into a body of water deeper than 6ft for yourself… but taking out all your bullies at school is another issue of public safety possibly.)
No. Never. We will not comply!
Good job dude. Very nice job not pushing bias.
Thanks for that feedback!
This will be come just a way for some one that doesn’t like you to mess with your gun rights .
There is very little research into how effective these specific gun laws are. 0 on the effect of mass shootings.
1. There needs to be a redress in case of someone who is a victim of wrongful use of red flag law's. Read this if the judge determines your not a danger to others and deserve your guns back because of false reporting. ie a jealous or spiteful report placed by a angry ex spouse, or feel they should be the one who and fill in the blank of what ever it was an issue between them. If a false report not one where it's decided that they are ok I'm talking about knowingly making up stuff and deprives someone of the their property, money's and time. After all there is a cost of the psychiatric evaluation the retaining of a lawyer the time off of work to do the psychevals time off at to talk with the lawyer the fact you have to go through all of this when you have done absolutely nothing wrong you should have the right to be confronted by your accuser in other words know who they are and have the right to sue them civil court and mandatory jail time of 6 months and a felony record and parole of not less than 3 years. Seem harsh good make you think twice before making a false report to law enforcement. Making a known False report should be severe. Because they could be that the police are getting guns from a proclaimed danger (lie) and instead ends up with a homicide or a death from two kids racing in front of the school. Odds are it won't but that's still a possibility. So if someone lies they get charged for that and go to trial and the one who was deprived of their rights can sue for up to a maximum of 3 times the financial costs including lawyers fees and not less than your expenses hour's missed from work a regular pay payment for travel and ware and tear on the vehicle pay for time spent with doctors or whomever is nessary to show your a victim all fees and costs associated with the having to prove your innocent and should have your guns back in the same amount of time it took to seize them. And the records purged from the system like it's hadn't happened which it shouldn't. 2. Don't believe for an instant that the police will respond and if they do that they will do something besides stare stare at the birds. Because your wrong if you believe the police have to do anything to actually help you and i know your thinking that they have to help their the police it's their job. And if you believe that you are wrong I'll give you three cases that the supreme Court SCOTUS says no they don't have to do anything. The three cases are proof positive that the anti gun groups don't give you the truth. Neither side will they take the statistics that show their side is how it truly is, reality is in-between, and you must do diligence when deciding whether or not the proposed law is worded so it doesn't circumvent the rights of either person and does the proper part in protecting the public at large. These three cases will rip out your heart and make you see anger at what happened to the victims. The first is a felony battery case. The second a protective order violation and the last a failure of the state department of health and human services, police and hospital who any one could have prevented the tragedy if they had done the right thing. All it takes for a tragedy to happen is for good people to do nothing thinking someone else will deal with it. Any one of the three had the proof that could have prevented the tragedy but not one person stepped up. Nobody cowboy cowboyed up or cowgirled up. Resulting in many years way to many years of abuse by a drunk with a long criminal record. Think about that when you come across the statement that the laws on the books dealing with guns. Then look at the laws in your town concerning guns and see how many you have do the same for the two largest cities. Then your state keep count on just the laws on the books for California Oklahoma, New York, Montana, Michigan and South Dakota, three heavily populated states and three that have less any of the three biggest cities. Compare the number of different laws and alike laws and find how many of the laws are used on case's where guns are involved i doubt any of the six used a third of the laws a available for
I love this youtube channel
We love YOU! Well, we don't really know you. But we love that you love us. Let love rule!
If the Red Flag laws are to be fair I would think they should require a mental health expret to testify for their need in each case AND there should be severe penalties for anyone requesting the intervention if it becomes obvious the claim is spurious. Also the Officials and Mental Health person giving testimony should be disqualified from presenting evidence in these kinds of cases if a pattern of always supporting firearm removal becomes apparent.
Shall not be infringed
Indiana saw a drop in gun suicides...but did suicides as a whole go down, or did they just not use a gun.
Against red flag laws here.
I'm against back and forth red pillow doll sneaky scared of cale not let you laws too
Firearms are already taken away with the issuance of a PFA (protection from abuse) order, at least in PA.
How do opponents of EPOS reconcile that situation?
With relatively minor infractions the ability to DRIVE a vehicle on public streets can be removed.
The misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment to allow ANY type of behavior for gun owners should be as obsolete as slavery.
Problem is you are talking away the right of an individual before proper court hearing into that issue.
If you're too dangerous to posses a firearm, then you're too dangerous to vote. Suspend their right to vote or hold public office automatically.
Why do we need a "hearing" to get our guns back? It should be an automatic return after a few days if the gun owner isn't arrested for a real crime.
What criminal penalties exist for false accusations? What civil redress is available?
Taking away firearms works so well to prevent suicide that there is absolutely, 100% NO SUICIDE in Japan!
This was a good video on the topic. It was very fair.
HA someone should get that HS girl to talk to some australians about their gun laws, she's very clearly misinformed.
It's infringement period
I’m a Law Abiding Australian Firearms Owner and Australia most certainly has Guns (tightly Regulated perhaps) but certainly in evidence within our community. Australia is NOT a Firearms free society and hopefully never will be. Firearms Ownership is an important element of our free Australian society and although a Conditional Privilege (rather than a Right) many Australians exercise that Privilege by Owning, Using, Carrying Firearms.
yes
They are not fair every American has a responsibility to their fellow Americans to ensure that they stay armed and if any fails then none of us deserve to call ourselves American might as well call ourselves Britans the land of the oppressed and home of the fearful
This shouldn't even be a topic of debate. God damn, USA; you are messed up.
I'm a democrat but I'm against red flag laws!
I'm in Australia, and support Australia's restrictive gun laws. But the unfair hearing involved in these Red Flag gun laws seem like, uh, a red flag. When a judge is exposed to some evidence without the defendant being able to defend against it, doesn't that instil a bias in the judge to permanently take the guns away later, even if the evidence proves weak, just because they heard it first and spent a while thinking about it without the opposing evidence? Idk, imo restrictive gun laws make sense to me anyway, just raising a consideration about this step in the process
Well with what's happening in Australia right now I guess you kind of feel bad for supporting that law right
Not even close to being fair,Let alone Constitutional
No and no
There is a reason the constitution was not written by teenagers.
If YOU DON'T participate in gun activities, THEN WHY WOULD YOU THINK YOU should have any say in gun stuff???? WHO ARE YOU????? Who are YOU to DECIDE SOMETHING or ANYTHING for ANYONE ELSE??????
Not awful
Why, thank you.
EX PARTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LACK OF DUE PROCESS
If A guy gets a little too drunk at BBQ's and company parties. We need to remove his car because he COULD possibly drive drunk.... so silly. Innocent until proven guilty.
What if someone wanted to rob you so they hadn't heard Facebook and Post something threatening Please come and take your firearms Then you would know there's no guns in the house so you could rob them
Cody please shower
No matter the situation, there is no need for a red flag law. If, in the examples you cite, you have concern over someone's potential "use and abuse" of a firearm by means of harming his or her self or others, then you can certainly go to the Police, who can meet with the District Attorney, who can then issue a summons for your appearance in front of a Judge for a dangerousness hearing. This is due process and unless the State can make it's case that you are a danger to yourself or others, then your guns can't be taken away.
Under the Red Flag Laws around the Country, virtually anyone can make a grudge claim about another, at which point your guns are seized, you have to hire a lawyer, and you have to pay for the storage of your guns in the hands of others. And.............. you may never get your guns back. All without due process.
Bottom Line ---------> Red Flag Laws? No Bueno !!!
No red flag laws . It will be abused .
i like the idea but i am wherry of the possible exactions of this. and it violats the 2nd 4th and 5th amendment. and whate is indecent until proven guilty.
so we lose our rights b/c of your feelings so you have any idea how this can be abused
Only person's I'm aware able to carry firearms unrestricted in the State's are Federal Marshals. Our Law's must have plasticity, the history is not law, law is our history. It's an explicit fabrication to claim that high numbers of citizen's with ccw permits correlate to more gun crime, in fact it's the exact opposite. The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or hunting regulations, with all do respect use more intellectual integrity and emotional intelligence absolutely no law or human right can be redacted from or augmented with out a majority of citizen's compliance by constent. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator. Nationalizing gun law means continuing Federal expansions, the history Federal regulations on lawful gun owners will never find any evidence in a decrease of suicides or violence and gun V by or against private citizen's who legally own guns. Athens Tennessee 1946 elections, important historical precedent.