A response to a friend's post regarding Red Flag Laws for firearm confiscation

Please realize what you described is an ex parte event that leads to confiscation. I'd say this is exactly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Further, it is only after confiscation that there is a hearing with the accused. Anyone who would support this hopefully realizes the type of precedent it represents. But, for furtherance of discussion...

"Danger to self or others" What does this mean, exactly? Does the type of danger make a difference or is it all the same? Who gets to decide this? A judge? They know the law but what do they know about the assessment and prediction of violence? This is part of what I do professionally, and I can tell you that it is far from perfect. This isn't like a mental health arrest where there is a petition to hold an individual involuntarily and then the individual is assessed by a professional able to provide a well reasoned & supported argument for depriving someone of their freedom for 72 or more hours.

"Based on statements and actions" Still seems too vague to hang civil liberties on. To what levels do these need rise? As I said earlier, if someone threatens violence with a firearm, I'm all for removing the threat. But how do we jump to a conclusion to violate civil rights if a threat is made that either doesn't include the means or the means is something other than a firearm? What if the reporting party is lying or otherwise misrepresenting the situation? What if the person has no other history of violence?

"After a set time, the guns are returned..." How much time? Are they just returned (someone delivers them back to me)? Do I go somewhere and sign a release? Or as I suspect (based on the bureaucracy of gov't & anecdotal reports), there is a long a convoluted process for retrieving my personal property. And what is my recourse if the process is so onerous that I obtain legal counsel to secure my personal property.

The Devil, I'm told, is in the details. I'm not sure of that, but I'm always very wary of anyone who legislates to manage my life with this level of wiggle room.

I don't have an absolute problem with separating a "dangerous" person from firearms. I'll even go so far as to say there could be some circumstances that rise to the level of "greater good." These are very far and few between because at my core I will always choose a little more discomfort & danger over the loss of liberty.

 

Adventures in Grocery Shopping! 

While scavenging the emptying isles at my local food procurement establishment today, a fellow scavenger commented toward me, “You should really be more considerate and wear a mask.” After simultaneously and nonverbally clarifying I was the intended target of his unrequested editorial comment and that he was judging my lack of KPQRSTU95, < 0.0000003 micron, face mask rather than my level of attractiveness, I responded, “Does my lack of mask make you stay away from me?” Looking a little confused he said, “Well, yes.” “Thank you,” I said. “Now I know my lack of facial virus prophylaxis helps me attain both of my intended goals.” Not waiting for his noise box to annoy me again I added, “It keeps you away from me and it identifies people who don’t know how to mind their own fucking business.” He cocked his head like a confused dog. Seriously. I hate to compare him to a dog because the dog is far superior to that taint stain of a human but there you have it. California is nothing if not a daily adventure in crazy.