Sheriff won't enforce red flag laws.

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    Red flag laws are just gun confiscation fronts. If it were about saving lives the person accused of being dangerous enough to act out violence should be detained not the gun. That person has many options to inflict harm, cars, knives, gasoline, bats, etc... this is a bunch of BS. Due process is dead in America
     

    ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    I think if someone is a danger to themselves and others they should not have access to guns or anything else they can hurt sim with they should be locked up in the hospital or jail until they are no longer a threat . Problem is who decides who is a threat ?

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I think if someone is a danger to themselves and others they should not have access to guns or anything else they can hurt sim with they should be locked up in the hospital or jail until they are no longer a threat . Problem is who decides who is a threat?

    A court, with substantial input from licensed clinical therapists. And, of course, in a hearing where the defendant and his/her council has the opportunity to mount a defence, etc.

    The "licensed" is very important here, since a therapist has everything to lose by playing fast and loose with a diagnosis. It's no different than a medical doctor putting his/her license on the line when he/she makes a diagnosis. Any kook can make an accusation, but it's the therapist that is putting a professional credential on the line. That means a lot.

    Mike
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I think if someone is a danger to themselves and others they should not have access to guns or anything else they can hurt sim with they should be locked up in the hospital or jail until they are no longer a threat . Problem is who decides who is a threat ?

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

    why on earth would we restrict the rights of people with mintal illnesses when we can use a law the legally steal guns from everyone.
     

    hoggin357

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 23, 2019
    43
    6
    Iowa,La.
    Definitely a ploy. The ad said your neighbor,,friends,,relatives,,roomate can decide.
    I thought that's why we built mental facility's.
     

    ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    I'm not for the law I'm saying if they are actually so mentally ill that they cannot be trusted with a gun they should not be walking around they should be locked away. We have laws and mechanisms in place already to have people checked out if it's apparent they are a threat to themselves . If the Leo or any government agency has enough evidence someone is to unstable to have a gun then they should be hauled in for 72 hours observation . If they are not enough of a threat to be held for evaluation then leave them alone .
    why on earth would we restrict the rights of people with mintal illnesses when we can use a law the legally steal guns from everyone.

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    If a family member or LEO has evidence and believes someone is an immediate threat to themselves or others they can have someone committed to evaluation lock down . If the psychiatrist /coroner, or whoever the local or state law deems appropriate to make the call , decides you are emotionally or mentally unstable and likely to harm yourself or others they can go through the courts and have you held longer . This is already in place and for good reason . My point is we don't need a new law ,if someone is unstable then use the laws already in place to get them off the streets and the help they need . Whether someone has a gun or not should be irrelevant .
    A court, with substantial input from licensed clinical therapists. And, of course, in a hearing where the defendant and his/her council has the opportunity to mount a defence, etc.

    The "licensed" is very important here, since a therapist has everything to lose by playing fast and loose with a diagnosis. It's no different than a medical doctor putting his/her license on the line when he/she makes a diagnosis. Any kook can make an accusation, but it's the therapist that is putting a professional credential on the line. That means a lot.

    Mike

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    Nathan Hale

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2014
    336
    18
    Louisiana
    A court, with substantial input from licensed clinical therapists. And, of course, in a hearing where the defendant and his/her council has the opportunity to mount a defence, etc.

    The "licensed" is very important here, since a therapist has everything to lose by playing fast and loose with a diagnosis. It's no different than a medical doctor putting his/her license on the line when he/she makes a diagnosis. Any kook can make an accusation, but it's the therapist that is putting a professional credential on the line. That means a lot.

    Mike

    Wrong.
    These 'red flag' hearings are ex parte, NOT contradictory. That is the problem. There is no due process for the "defendant" because there is no defendant (present.)
     
    Last edited:

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,177
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Wrong.
    These 'red flag' hearings are ex parte, NOT contradictory. That is the problem. There is no due process for the "defendant" because there is no defendant (present.)

    I was commenting on the current process of having someone adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent, which would almost certainly require the testimony of a licensed clinician.

    The complete circumvention of due process with these "red flag" laws is atrocious, and I agree with you 100%.

    Mike
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Wrong.
    These 'red flag' hearings are ex parte, NOT contradictory. That is the problem. There is no due process for the "defendant" because there is no defendant (present.)
    You’re using his quote out of context. Look back and see how he directed that at another statement. He’s not wrong.
    The bottom line is, of course we don’t need any new laws to address the mentally ill. These laws may have that description placed on them but they aren’t meant to deal with the mentally ill. They’re meant to be a shortcut to dealing with the average armed citizen. It’s Tom foolery smoke and mirrors ******** that’s typical of left wing politicians in this age. Thank goodness there are a few people in power who decide to stick to the constitution first.
     
    Last edited:

    Nathan Hale

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2014
    336
    18
    Louisiana
    This thread is about 'red flag' laws, their ex parte hearings, the consequences thereto and this one sheriff's promised response; not civil commitments, coroner commitments, mental incompetence adjudications, curatorships or any other process which deprives one of liberty.
     

    ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    I'm not sure but I don't think anyone on here is arguing Red Flag Laws are anything but BS . I don't think anyone on here wants really mentally ill people to have guns or drive cars or even be running around with knives . I tried to express my belief that there was already the legal procedures in place to address the issue of people who might be a threat to themselves and others . Whether the procedures all ready in place are fair or not or if they actually alleviate the problem they are designed to is beside the point . The point is people who are backing the Red Flag Laws either don't really care about stopping crime or suicide , they are just looking for another loophole to make legal gun owners illegal .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    "All of the existing laws and mechanisms to intervene and prevent a deranged person from acting on his plans weren't enforced or utilized by those who could have done so, so let's pass a new law and see if anything changes!" - said every spineless politician and bureaucrat who wants to be seen as "doing something" about a problem.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I think the *problem* that these dirtbags bemoan is that taking away someone’s autonomy who has not yet committed a crime has a reasonably strict standard. As said before they are either too dangerous or they are not. If one of these Red Flag states take a crazy person’s guns and he takes his truck an mows down 30 people shouldn’t the state be sued for allowing a dangerous crazy person to walk around in society. We all know what this is about. It’s the same reason they object to making schools hard targets. It’s not the guns they fear, it’s that you and I are allowed to have them.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Something that would be interesting to see, if a person gets their guns taken away could they pass a NICS and just buy more? I really wish there was a way to test that, but since I know how these thing tend to go, I’m wagering he cruises right on through barring any additional background issues.
     

    machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    Also who really thinks the person that signed a sworn affidavit would actually face any repercussions if it were found to be false. This isn’t about saving lives. There was a time crazy people were crazy and treated as such. Locked up. Now they are all special and mainstreamed and whoever questions it is an a$$ hole hate monger. I don’t want a convicted child molestor babysitting my child and I don’t want a truly crazy person going about without major restrictions. I would prefer they all be locked up.
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,218
    Messages
    1,546,023
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom