• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem was, when he made the threats, he was in New York. He was committed for 2 weeks in New York. Maine's yellow flag law had no jurisdiction.

    New York has a red flag law, but his home and guns were in Maine.

    We solve this problem with a FEDERAL Red Flag law.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey dude I hope you're doing good! I'm just popping in to add in here:

      It is actually already a federal law that people who were IVC'd in any state have that reported into NICs and have their guns confiscated. It isn't "red flag laws" specifically which seek to broaden the law we already have (depending on state, with a burden of proof as low as "he said she said" in some cases, always at a secret hearing you aren't allowed to even know about much less defend yourself, and then they may return them 1yr later when you finally do get your day in court if you can prove the negative.)

      So, we don't have a red flag law nationally, but we do have 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), [which states:] it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

      Seems a lot of people (on and off lemmy) aren't aware of this law (which, in this case, would have prevented this had the beaurocrats done their jobs), just figured I'd let y'all know.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That's the problem… the word "adjudicated". Unless it goes through a judge, the guns are NOT confiscated and it does not show up on a background check.

        So the Maine shooter was held, it didn't go through a judge, was not "adjudicated".

        Same for Jacksonville:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Jacksonville_shooting

        "In 2017, he was the subject of a Baker Act call, used to place persons under involuntary detainment for mental health examination for up to 72 hours.[6]"

        Same for Allen, Texas:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Allen,_Texas_mall_shooting

        "Garcia was then enlisted in the U.S. Army in June 2008, but he never completed basic training: he was terminated after three months due to mental health concerns.[39][40] Because this was an administrative separation, rather than a punitive discharge, Garcia's termination by the Army would not show up on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[41]"

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, I see. To me that isn't necessarily a bad thing though, to require some proof before removal of one's rights. If anyone can just say "my ex said X" then what is stopping people from abusing that? Right wingers calling it in on trans people who are trying to protect themselves from right wing violence for instance, or an abusive ex having his ex-wife's guns taken so he can go hurt her, something like that. I personally believe it should require at least some proof that would hold up in court. I'm also not a huge fan of the whole "Take the guns first, due process second" approach that Trump supported with the red flag law secret hearings business, I think that if someone is making verifiable threats, you should be able to charge them with that in a normal, non-secret hearing, leading to the adjucated IVC, removal of rights, flagged in NICs, etc.

          I think there is a way that we could all agree on, gun rights supporters and realistic gun control supporters alike (the no-guns crowd aside). Something like actually sending these people through a judge in a timely manner oughta at least be a step in the right direction.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, it's not that rights should be taken away without going through a judge, it's that more things NEED to go through judges to create the appropriate disqualifying paper trail.

            I'd argue too that we need to expand what is a disqualifying event. If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he had been arrested on a felony gun charge, allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, then when his background check was clear, he bought another gun, and here we are.

            Should we allow people to plead down from felony to misdemeanor when the charge involves guns? A felony charge would have blocked him from buying a gun.

            Maybe, when it comes to gun charges, a misdemeanor should also be a disqualifier? Right now it's only felony charges, but if someone has already proven they can't be trusted around a gun…

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My only concern there comes from another opinion I have "A lot of shit that is a felony should be a misdemeanor, and a lot of shit that is a misdemeanor shouldn't even be a crime."

              I'll need to look to see his specific charge, but off the top of my head I can think of two "gun charges" that should at least be misdemeanors if crimes at all.

              1. CCW without a permit. IMO this should be a misdemeanor at best. Hell, about half of the states no longer require one, they certianly aren't necessary even if they're a good idea. I also posit that if voter ID laws are racist because black people can't get state IDs easily, CCW permits are the same (and also sometimes subject to sherriff approval and can be abused outright by a racist sherriff easily if you're in a shit county.) These laws typically do impact marginalized neighborhoods rather than gated communities, as the poor are more likely to work saturdays (when they have the classes), not be able to afford the 100+ dollar fee, etc.

              2. Having guns and illegal drugs. Frankly, I don't think this should be a crime at all. "I believe gay married couples should be free to defend their marijuana farms with AR15s." Now, if they're using the guns to steal for drugs, well now they're committing real crimes (robbery) and we absolutely lock them up, but simply "yes I smoke weed and yes I will protect myself shall you try to kill me" should not even be a crime.

              Brandishing or something with an actual victim I 100% agree though. Like I said idk what his specific gun crime was I have to look it up when I get a sec.

      • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I'm just going to piggyback on your comment here to add this:

        The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because in New York he was reported from a military base and they removed him from the base. They had no knowledge of what he may or may not have had in Maine.

            • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for the info. I think you've made some really good points about this, and trying to explain things to people.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I'm trying, but it's an emotional subject that people don't want to look at too closely. They want easy answers and there really aren't any. :(

                The best bet is to assume stuff like "ban guns" or "ban semi-automatic rifles" can't happen, and start looking at what CAN happen if we want real change.