4 ms·

Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who sup

Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who support the current red flag laws would support any loosening of other firearm restrictions. Your statement also implicitly assumes that red flag laws would be significantly effective to allow looser restrictions overall. However, groups like RAND have found no conclusive evidence that red flags work. The best evidence they have is potentially reducing suicides. What would the protections you mention look like? The whole point of moving things like red flag laws or civil asset forfeiture to the civil side is because it lacks the protections on the criminal side - lower burden of proof, no right to representation, ex parte proceedings, etc. It's no wonder we see constant abuses of the process in traditional PFAs during divorces in many states. Surely we could fix the existing processes to ameliorate the problems and concerns thus providing a solid basis for the argument to expand them. Currently, the ACLU opposes most of the red flag laws due to civil liberties issues. I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game. "Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes." So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?

ethbr1 2y ago
No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have access to due process. The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions. > So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome? In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices. Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them. As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc). Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}. Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?
- giantg2 2y ago
  Yeah, that's going to be a tough sell considering the problems with the driving test being a joke and the history of requirements in some areas just being a pretext to deny rights to specific groups or individuals (still to this day). The main problem I see is that a safety course isn't going to prevent violent crime. It could prevent use of force issues or accidents, but those tend to occur at an extremely low rate already (for civilians). The background check part is already implemented depending on jurisdiction. The way the current system is set up, it's supposed to weed people out before they get access to the more dangerous stuff. As juveniles, if they get convicted of certain offenses, they will be prohibited, at least until 35. We have eroded various aspects of this with selective enforcement, plea deals, and the promoting the continuation of childhood with delays in freedoms and responsibilities. Then for the of-age group we have stuff like conspiracy, voluntary/involuntary commitment, terroristic threats, and all manner of prohibiting offenses. There's certainly some room for improvement, but it hard to say what an effective improvement would be.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ethbr1 2y ago

No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have access to due process. The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions. > So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome? In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices. Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them. As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc). Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}. Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?

giantg2 2y ago
Yeah, that's going to be a tough sell considering the problems with the driving test being a joke and the history of requirements in some areas just being a pretext to deny rights to specific groups or individuals (still to this day). The main problem I see is that a safety course isn't going to prevent violent crime. It could prevent use of force issues or accidents, but those tend to occur at an extremely low rate already (for civilians). The background check part is already implemented depending on jurisdiction. The way the current system is set up, it's supposed to weed people out before they get access to the more dangerous stuff. As juveniles, if they get convicted of certain offenses, they will be prohibited, at least until 35. We have eroded various aspects of this with selective enforcement, plea deals, and the promoting the continuation of childhood with delays in freedoms and responsibilities. Then for the of-age group we have stuff like conspiracy, voluntary/involuntary commitment, terroristic threats, and all manner of prohibiting offenses. There's certainly some room for improvement, but it hard to say what an effective improvement would be.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]