The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
Red flag laws, as written, don’t come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
When I was living with my parents my dad pushed my brother and told him to “get the fuck out”. My brother called the cops on him and the cops came and took my dad away that day. He got let out but IIRC a couple days later he had to surrender his firearms later until everything was settled.
Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 1 day ago
No. Thats 4chan, a place of lies and deception.
GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Despite being blatantly unconstitutional (deprives a citizen of rights based on an accusation without trial) red flag laws exist in 21 states.
In this particular thread, 4chan is a better source of information than Lemmy.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
If you look at the numbers in your own post these laws are used very rarely, and in every state a fraction of petitions applied for are granted.
There needs to be actual evidence greater than “ex girlfriend said so” for a court to grant the request.
booly@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I wonder if the stat is skewed by the fact that Florida has the largest population of Florida Men.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The government is allowed to suppress your constitutional rights in cases where it’s narrowly tailored to a legitimate government interest (the strict scrutiny standard). This may seem suspect, but it allows the government to do things like prevent people from bringing guns into schools or planes, or spreading private information or harmful lies about others, or being overtly loud when their neighbors are trying to sleep. It does require a high burden of proof from the potential violating body, so it’s not done casually.
For red flag laws, I imagine temporarily seizing the guns of someone who a judge is convinced is a significant danger to themselves or others would meet this standard. From what the other commenter said, it sounds like it isn’t done casually in practice. We are missing parts of the story that may make it seem prudent.
GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Red flag laws, as written, don’t come anywhere near a strict scrutiny standard and rarely involve a judge. Usually police are empowered to make the decision, or worse, instructed to always seize weapons immediately until a judge says give them back, even if the police think it sounds like bullshit (as in the scenario of the greentext).
winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
When I was living with my parents my dad pushed my brother and told him to “get the fuck out”. My brother called the cops on him and the cops came and took my dad away that day. He got let out but IIRC a couple days later he had to surrender his firearms later until everything was settled.