Pelosi and Cuomo Sign Gun Confiscation Bill into New York State Law

Why not just take the person into custody?

SR - I did not at all intend to offend you my post.

It was intended to be supportive. I apologize if I offended you with that post.

Why not just take the person into custody? Originally Posted by grean

Lack of probable cause for arrest for a criminal act having been committed.

There do exist mechanisms for detention for psychiatric evaluation of those suspected, with supportable evidence, of being a threat to themselves or others.

Lack of probable cause for arrest for a criminal act having been committed.

There do exist mechanisms for detention for psychiatric evaluation of those suspected, with supportable evidence, of being a threat to themselves or others. Originally Posted by oeb11

I meant take them into custody with a warrant issued because of an application of emergency detention that is Texas law right now that I posted previously.

Also if you called for a welfare check on me or speed and we exhibited signs of instability and gave the officer reason to believe we were a danger, he or she could take us into custody then and by law take us to a mental health institution immediately.


Maybe I'm explaining this wrong because there is too much confusion that to me is very obvious.


Let's say the requirements of Red Flag laws and the application for emergency detention, that again is already law, are roughly the same. The Devil's in the details but the application process appear to be similar and like Oeb pointed out, both can potentially be ex parte.

That is to say a family member and or physician submitten the proper paperwork and a judge reviewed the documents and authorized some action.

Why not detain the person and actually have then evaluated and prevented from doing harm in anyway, AND also just importantly, give or start to give the care needed to get better.

That in no way precludes the possibility of the person's firearms being removed if deemed appropriate AFTER the individual has been properly evaluated and before they are released.

The Red Flag Law leaves a potentially dangerous person to his own devices.

Also, I would guess that any number of the fellas in this forum would chuckle at the number of firearms missed by police in a red flag seizure.

SR - I did not at all intend to offend you my post.

It was intended to be supportive. I apologize if I offended you with that post. Originally Posted by oeb11

Thanks. I was not offended at all.

Bottom Line - and a repeat.

See Grean's post #86 for text of the Red flag law - common in states that have passed one.
My major objection is the process does not require the subject of the complaint be informed of the complaint and process, may have a judgment against him/her without knowledge or presence with no representation at hearing, and may be victimized by false information with no opportunity to refute.

We have a concept of due process of law, with The Sixth and other amendments:
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties: (1) the right to a Speedy Trial; (2) the right to a public trial; (3) the right to an impartial jury; (4) the right to be informed of pending charges; (5) the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses; (6) the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and (7) the right to legal counsel. Ratified in 1791, the Sixth Amendment originally applied only to criminal actions brought by the federal government.
Over the past century, all of the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment have been made applicable to the state governments through the doctrine of selective incorporation. Under this doctrine, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require each state to recognize certain fundamental liberties that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights because such liberties are deemed essential to the concepts of freedom and equality. Together with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from providing less protection for a right conferred by the Sixth Amendment than is provided under the federal Constitution.


The legal loophole may be that Red flag laws are not a "criminal prosecution" , and that is similar to asset confiscation by police after arrest - but not conviction of a crime - is legal.

Still - I object strenuously to confiscation/commitment actions taken ex parte with no knowledge of the subject of the legal action. It throws all our legal precedents and Constitution in to the trash can arbitrarily.


Thank you Grean, for cogent and constructive, thought provoking posts and debate.



Unlike the DPST loons who live on projection, name-calling, and deflection, and are incapable of a cogent, constructive debate.

Unlike the DPST loons who live on projection, name-calling, and deflection, and are incapable of a cogent, constructive debate. Originally Posted by oeb11

If you were able to post a thread without name calling, perjoratives and projection, maybe the rest of your bullshit would be worth reading.

Then please do not Read it.

My, is SomeOne upset??

Just tiring of your juvenile games! Oeb11.

Then why bother with It, SomeOne.

Obviously SomeOne is very Irritated with my Posts
So put my posts on Ignore, SomeOne, and float on in One's DPST Ideology in Peaceful Non-Awareness of the Real World.

Why go on reading my posts just to Self-Flagellate SomeOne?


SomeOne's comments are the best confirmation that my posts are correct - Better than any other confirmation.
Send me a PM anytime!


Thank You!

See other gun law thread! Libs do not like citizens with guns! They fear them! Because without weapons our society cannot fight a tyrannical govt! Thats what libs want! A govt that runs everything with no repercussions or having to answer to its citizens.