Failure of our Government Agencies

[akley88]

I disagree 100%.

In the case of the Maine shooter, he purchased the rifle PRIOR TO his committment. If the state of Maine visited this guy's house to confiscate his firearms, a large number here would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of liberty. If they didn't have such a law allowing for confiscation following committment, then if a bill was proposed to enact a Red Flag Law, the consensus would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of Liberty. If the state neither has laws to confiscate following committment nor proposes to enact one, then all we here is jabbering about how much the state isn't doing and how inept/complacent they are.

The state is somehow capable of doing too little and too much, simultaneously.

he tried purchasing a suppressor after the commitment but was denied by the store because he checked on the 4473 that he had been committed. guessing NICS was never run. dont know if the store was required to submit anything to the state though about the denial.

[Walleye Hunter]

Main has a "Yellow" flag law that gave authorities the right to seize his guns. I don't care who thinks what about the laws on here. Jabber away. Laws are laws no matter what anyone's opinion of them is.

Fact of the matter is LE had every chance to thwart this shooter and they didn't. Just like most of the other shootings.

I'm not up on Maine's laws but if they have all that, you make a good argument there.

[Carson]

Main has a "Yellow" flag law that gave authorities the right to seize his guns. I don't care who thinks what about the laws on here. Jabber away. Laws are laws no matter what anyone's opinion of them is.

Fact of the matter is LE had every chance to thwart this shooter and they didn't. Just like most of the other shootings.

Your hindsight is 20/20. Their foresight is not.

[Carson]

I disagree 100%.

In the case of the Maine shooter, he purchased the rifle PRIOR TO his committment. If the state of Maine visited this guy's house to confiscate his firearms, a large number here would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of liberty. If they didn't have such a law allowing for confiscation following committment, then if a bill was proposed to enact a Red Flag Law, the consensus would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of Liberty. If the state neither has laws to confiscate following committment nor proposes to enact one, then all we here is jabbering about how much the state isn't doing and how inept/complacent they are.

The state is somehow capable of doing too little and too much, simultaneously.

Spot on. Addressing situations with people suffering from mental issues is not black and white, it is extremely gray.

[Bang]

That why it is called gray matter?

[Carson]

That why it is called gray matter?

LOL. Brain matter is actually gray.

[Mosinshooter762]

Even without the benefit of hindsight, the government clearly dropped the ball on this guy. There will be those who will defend the handling of this case. But when you have the military warning civilian law enforcement about their guy being dangerous and he has made threats to do harm, we can call that a clue. Even Ray Charles could see this one.

Maine, as well as all 50 states, has a well established legal process to civilly commit those who are dangerously mentally ill. There is also the criminal justice system with a well established legal process to prosecute those in which criminal threats have been made. It appears none of these processes were fully utilized to the extent and limit of the law here.

See: Police Were Told Maine Gunman Had Threatened to Carry Out Shooting Spree

[John_Wick]

I'm not sure I'm for the death penalty. Do you really trust the government to get something right? You're putting your life in the government's hands. Open and shut cases, sure where there is clear video evidence. But with the amount of people's cases getting overturned years later, I'm not so sure.

I'm totally behind the DP. I don't want my tax dollars going to support these dirtbags for decades nor do I want the chance of the serial rapists, pedophiles, etc. getting out. I think we need to put the DP on the table for a lot more crimes. And if I ever end up being wrongly convicted for a DP-eligible offense, well I'm good with the DP then too as I would rather be executed than spend even a year in prison.

[JenniferG]

I disagree 100%.

In the case of the Maine shooter, he purchased the rifle PRIOR TO his committment. If the state of Maine visited this guy's house to confiscate his firearms, a large number here would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of liberty. If they didn't have such a law allowing for confiscation following committment, then if a bill was proposed to enact a Red Flag Law, the consensus would be drawing comparisons to the Gestapo and jabbering about the loss of Liberty. If the state neither has laws to confiscate following committment nor proposes to enact one, then all we here is jabbering about how much the state isn't doing and how inept/complacent they are.

The state is somehow capable of doing too little and too much, simultaneously.

I have no problem with authorities confiscating the firearms of an individual that has been deemed a danger to themselves or others. The key here is due process as a civil and constitutional society we should defend that to our last breath. The Red Flag laws that many object to including myself are extraconstitutional and provide no due process which is to be scorned and fought to a dying breath. Apparently the US Army had declared this man a threat to himself and others by a professional Army Psychiatrist and proceeding should have been begun and executed to remove firearms from his control. None of that happened. 18 people are dead because the government failed in it's Constitutional duty to protect the citizens.

You are right though and this situation is a clear example of why you shouldn't rely on the government for your safety. The government fails at it's Constitutional duty time and time again and they really have no motivation to follow through and will do as little as necessary because doing as little as possible and being criticized later and keeping your job is easier and preferable to most government employees than sticking their necks to do the right thing and risk being fired for being overzealous or being killed by a known danger. I'm not going say all government employees are that way but given today's atmosphere of defunding the police and Soros bought DA's police are much more cautious about sticking their necks out and it's certainly more preferable at this stage for them to step back from a situation and be very cautious about taking action.

I just watched a video where the police were criticized for subduing a armed robber in a very harsh manner. The lawyer for the perp was outraged, the police administration is outraged, many in the comment section are outraged he was tazed and treated roughly. All I can do is think, these people are the problem. Armed robbers that fled and crashed into a couple of police cars deserve no respect and if they are treated badly they should have thought of that before they stuck a gun in the face of a store owner and took all his money and then crash into police cars while escaping. We do live in unusual times.

[Mosinshooter762]

Red Flag Laws (or Yellow Flag Laws or insert other similar name here) probably will not actually do much to stop a dangerous person from hurting other people. Does anyone really believe that a firearm instructor, as this guy apparently was, would not know where to access firearms?

Anti-gun advocates like to point out how this country is awash in guns but yet somehow a cop or a judge just telling or handing over a piece of paper to a person directing them not to possess guns and not to hurt people somehow will automatically work. They apparently believe it will keep such people away from all guns and somehow render them no longer dangerous. These types of things do not have a great track record against dangerous people in the domestic violence context and would seem no different in this context.

Whatever the case for red flag or similar laws maybe, the suggestion that they are the main solution is ridiculous in these types of cases with people known to be dangerous based on criminality or severe mental illness. If someone is known to be a dangerous criminal or dangerously mentally ill they either need help and to be locked up in a mental hospital or need to be kept in jail if there is a substantiated accusation of a crime. A cop or a judge just telling a dangerous person you are free to go but not to possess firearms and not to do nasty things to others is not going to work. Of course, any deprivation of liberty should be accompanied with the appropriate levels of due process both before and after the deprivation. This should include providing a lawyer to represent the person in any proceedings.