Posted on Aug 31, 2023
Oregon gun law could do more to reduce suicide, audit finds
1.71K
18
8
6
6
0
Always Room for Improvement.
Oregon gun law could do more to reduce suicide, audit finds
Posted from opb.org
Firearms and Guns
Suicide
Law
Depression
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Hmmm, so I get served with the order, and I have 24 HOURS to hand over my firearm(s) and the order is issued because I'm an, "EXTREME RISK?"
How's that going to prevent anyone who's an "EXTREME RISK," from doing something... Extreme?
Just shows how red flag laws are bull, not to mention how complaints can file because of some grudge?
How's that going to prevent anyone who's an "EXTREME RISK," from doing something... Extreme?
Just shows how red flag laws are bull, not to mention how complaints can file because of some grudge?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
It sure seems that the persons right are being violated. They have no chance prior to enforcement to challenge the order. The next logical step then would be to take and place them in "protected" care. This is a very slippery slope. So will they take away your car , knives, gas cans, matches and prohibit you from going to high places?
(3)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
No one pushing so-called Red Flag laws wants to admit three critical facts:
1. Red Flag laws don't work
2. Red Flag laws are abused
3. Red Flag laws are unnecessary because a better alternative is already in place in every state!
#1 -- is a person is a serious "threat to self or others" simply taking away known firearms doesn't make that person safe -- maybe it makes the person less dangerous, IF the authorities got all the firearms, and if the person has no other access to any other weapons, and if the person has no access to a car, and no access to starting a fire or any other sort of dangerous acts.
#2 -- we have already seen that risk protection orders have become a routine tactic in most hostile divorce cases. We have also seen the rash of "swatting" incidents across the country (several of which have had fatal consequences). None of the existing Red Flag laws provide any consequences for false or malicious reports.
#3 -- Every state already has some form of 'Mental Inquest' law authorizing authorities to take the PERSON into custody for a mental health evaluation if the person is likely to be a danger to self or others. These laws solve problem 1 by dealing with the person rather than just whatever firearms authorities know about.
So why do proponents want so-called Red Flag laws instead of using the existing mental inquest laws? Because mental inquest laws provide a closer semblance of due process! Mental Inquest laws acknowledge that depriving someone of their right to liberty is a serious step, so such laws generally require some sort of evidence rather than just an unsupported claim. Mental Inquest laws also generally provide for a quick resolution of the issue through a follow-up judicial hearing, typically within 72 hours.
Neither the so-called Red Flag laws nor the existing Mental Inquest laws are perfect. Both are ex parte processes where the individual has no opportunity to speak on his own behalf. Neither law will absolutely prevent every senseless act of violence. And, quite simply, the existing mental inquest laws are harder to abuse, which makes these laws less attractive to the people who demand Red Flag laws.
Every time there is a senseless act of violence we hear the same voices demanding Red Flag laws as the supposed magic solution. It is easy to look through the entire life history of any mass shooter to claim "we should have seen that coming" -- as the adage says hindsight is always 20/20. It is easy to pick out something in a person's history to say it was obvious they would become dangerous, but do we really want to become a country where people are already considered guilty of crimes that someone thinks they might commit at some future date?
1. Red Flag laws don't work
2. Red Flag laws are abused
3. Red Flag laws are unnecessary because a better alternative is already in place in every state!
#1 -- is a person is a serious "threat to self or others" simply taking away known firearms doesn't make that person safe -- maybe it makes the person less dangerous, IF the authorities got all the firearms, and if the person has no other access to any other weapons, and if the person has no access to a car, and no access to starting a fire or any other sort of dangerous acts.
#2 -- we have already seen that risk protection orders have become a routine tactic in most hostile divorce cases. We have also seen the rash of "swatting" incidents across the country (several of which have had fatal consequences). None of the existing Red Flag laws provide any consequences for false or malicious reports.
#3 -- Every state already has some form of 'Mental Inquest' law authorizing authorities to take the PERSON into custody for a mental health evaluation if the person is likely to be a danger to self or others. These laws solve problem 1 by dealing with the person rather than just whatever firearms authorities know about.
So why do proponents want so-called Red Flag laws instead of using the existing mental inquest laws? Because mental inquest laws provide a closer semblance of due process! Mental Inquest laws acknowledge that depriving someone of their right to liberty is a serious step, so such laws generally require some sort of evidence rather than just an unsupported claim. Mental Inquest laws also generally provide for a quick resolution of the issue through a follow-up judicial hearing, typically within 72 hours.
Neither the so-called Red Flag laws nor the existing Mental Inquest laws are perfect. Both are ex parte processes where the individual has no opportunity to speak on his own behalf. Neither law will absolutely prevent every senseless act of violence. And, quite simply, the existing mental inquest laws are harder to abuse, which makes these laws less attractive to the people who demand Red Flag laws.
Every time there is a senseless act of violence we hear the same voices demanding Red Flag laws as the supposed magic solution. It is easy to look through the entire life history of any mass shooter to claim "we should have seen that coming" -- as the adage says hindsight is always 20/20. It is easy to pick out something in a person's history to say it was obvious they would become dangerous, but do we really want to become a country where people are already considered guilty of crimes that someone thinks they might commit at some future date?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google