Desantis refuses to take position on red flag laws

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
Gov DeSantis is very murky and unclear with his position on red flag laws




Per the NYT

"he said in 2018, when he was running for governor, that he would have vetoed the bipartisan gun control law passed in Florida after the Parkland shooting. In 2019, he indicated an openness to Florida’s red-flag law, which allows guns to be confiscated from people deemed to pose a threat, but his campaign did not respond when asked whether he would back a federal version."




SOURCE:


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/17/us/politics/republican-candidates-2024-crime.html
 
DeSantos is definitely a Profile in Courage by waiting for more guidance on this issue from his handlers in Tel Aviv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjm
Whatever happened to Desantis threats agaisnt Disney?

It seems DeSantis had stopped fighting agaisnt Woke issues..:rolleyes:
 
Whatever happened to Desantis threats agaisnt Disney?

It seems DeSantis had stopped fighting agaisnt Woke issues..:rolleyes:

%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C.jpg
 
Whatever happened to Desantis threats agaisnt Disney?

It seems DeSantis had stopped fighting agaisnt Woke issues..:rolleyes:

He tried to call a truce and end that, but Disney refused.

Just saying "red flag law" is murky in itself. You really need to get into specifics. There are some people that legitimately should not own a firearm, but sometimes the laws are abused. I will hold judgement for specifics, DeSantis is usually good with putting out statements to clarify his positions.
 
...There are some people that legitimately should not own a firearm, but sometimes the laws are abused...

If there are people that are too dangerous to own a firearm, they should not be free in society.
 
Just saying "red flag law" is murky in itself. You really need to get into specifics. There are some people that legitimately should not own a firearm, but sometimes the laws are abused.
Red flag gun confiscation laws allows the government to illegally seize anyone's firearms on mere suspicion without due process.

If there are people that are too dangerous to own a firearm, they should not be free in society.
Pretty much. Or at minimum they need a day in court with due process, proper notice, counsel, and all other rights, etc.
 
If there are people that are too dangerous to own a firearm, they should not be free in society.

Typically yes, but there can be extenuating circumstances like mental health issues that can be managed with medication etc. Everything isn't black and white. I'm generally against red flag laws and they are surely abused, but nothing is absolute.
 
Red flag gun confiscation laws allows the government to illegally seize anyone's firearms on mere suspicion without due process.

Pretty much. Or at minimum they need a day in court with due process, proper notice, counsel, and all other rights, etc.

Yes, absolutley due process and a hearing before a judge. But again not everything is black and white, there can be circumstances where it might be appropriate. I have a feeling DeSantis will clarify what his position is if pushed to respond.
 
Last edited:
uh the rights of law abiding citizens who aren't minors and aren't deemed to be mentally unfit do [should] have their full rights, absolutely.


That's my objective.

Sometimes I think a good compromise is that if somebody is red flagged, they must be granted a hearing before a judge in a very short time period. A week or less.
 
Typically yes, but there can be extenuating circumstances like mental health issues that can be managed with medication etc. Everything isn't black and white. I'm generally against red flag laws and they are surely abused, but nothing is absolute.

Plenty of people with mental health problems are not murderers. No doubt the vast majority are not. Murderers are murderers.
 
That's my objective.

That's not very nice to put a nice guy like DeSantos in a jam where he trapped between the gun control that his dupes think that he opposes and his handlers in Tel Aviv who fund and support gun control here in their western colony.
 
Plenty of people with mental health problems are not murderers. No doubt the vast majority are not. Murderers are murderers.

Suicide is also a concern. I'm not saying I am for the red flag laws. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be rethought with strict guidlines about how it can be applied and a very short timeline to an appearance before a judge. I don't think a rigid stance that nobody can have their guns taken for any reason is going to fly with the average american. There has to be a compromise that works. For instance what if somebody thought to have suicidal thoughts by a loved one lost their gun for a few days until evaluated, proven ok and had a hearing in court. Would the world end over that? I think no. I know it is a abused by the government now and that should be fixed. Pick battles you can win.
 
Last edited:
Suicide is also a concern. I'm not saying I am for the red flag laws. Perhaps the whole thing needs to be rethought with strict guidlines about how it can be applied and a very short timeline to an appearance before a judge.

See [2] & [4] below.

I don't think a rigid stance that nobody can have their guns taken for any reason [...]

No one has said, suggested, or implied that "nobody can have their guns taken for any reason" - so you're just going to have to find another strawman.

For just one example, convicted prisoners are not allowed to have guns while they are incarcerated (or even afterwards, in many cases) - but those prisoners will have already been convicted of some particular crime(s). The targets of "red flag" confiscations will not have been. After all, the whole point of so-called "red flag" laws is "take the guns first, due process later".

IOW: "red flag" laws are predicated upon a presumption of guilt. You yourself (see below) characterized the matter as a person being "proven ok" after being (involuntarily) "evaluated" according to some unspecified standard applied by some unspecified person(s).

Is subverting the "presumption of innocence" a precedent you really want to establish? Why? Just so that some maybe-wannabe suicides might end up killing themselves with razors, pills, etc. instead of guns? Really? What is even the point of that?

[...] is going to fly with the average american.

Speaking for myself, I don't really give a damn what "is going to fly with the average American". (Neither do politicians and bureaucrats, by the way - albeit for different motives.) What "is going to fly with the average American" does not matter - nor should it (and only deluded "muh democracy" suckers believe otherwise). The "average American" isn't going to do anything [1] if "red flag" laws are not passed, nor is he going to do anything [1] if such laws are passed - and he sure as hell isn't going to do anything [1] if such laws are passed and then abused (and they absolutely will be abused).

There has to be a compromise that works. For instance what if somebody thought to have suicidal thoughts by a loved one lost their gun for a few days until evaluated, proven ok and had a hearing in court. Would the world end over that? I think no.

What if somebody thought to have objectionable political opinions by a neighbor (or even some random person on the Internet) lost their gun(s) for "a few days" [2] until evaluated, "proven ok" [3] and had a hearing in court? Would the world end over that? I think no. But freedom sure as hell would.

Liberty is gradually destroyed by every drip of the acid of "compromise" that is applied to our freedoms. "Well, this particular drop of acid isn't that bad, and maybe some kind of good thing might come of it, so let's give it a pass ..." - right up until liberty has, little by little, been completely dissolved away and there is just nothing left of it to corrode any further.

I know it is a abused by the government now and that should be fixed. Pick battles you can win.

Fixed how? What are you (or your "average American") going to do [1] when (not "if", but when) the 800-pound gorilla you want to sic on other people starts misbehaving and doing things you don't like? Are you going to give it a stern talking to via SWLODs and Internet forum posts? (Better be careful, though! That kind of thing could get you "red flagged" ...) Are you going to vote harder? What? (And just never mind that, by the time it gets to that point, it will be too late, anyway. That's what happens when you let the camel's nose in the tent.)

The utopian impulse to use government force to try to address every sad, sympathetic problem that arises in life is one of the biggest factors in why we are in the mess we're in. Liberty can and will have tragic consequences (suicide, drug addiction, violence, etc.)- but eroding liberty can and will still have all the same problems, with some more new and even worse ones added in.

As The Civil Rights Lawyer likes to say: "Freedom is scary. Deal with it!"



[1] Other than maybe grouse and grumble (and vote hard ?) about it.

[2] LMAO @ "for a few days" - as if such matters would be minor inconveniences, to be dealt with so simply and efficiently. I don't know what to say to anyone who imagines such proceedings (docketing, hearings, "evaluations", etc.) wouldn't involve weeks or probably months (and possibly even years in some cases) - except "you are not a serious person". And even if we indulge this absurd fantasy about "a very short timeline", how are we to expect any "evaluations" that come out of any such "very short timeline" to be anything but rushed, sloppy, and arbitrary "rubber stamp" jobs?

[3] LMAO @ "proven ok" - what do the concepts of "proven" and "ok" even mean in this context? "Proven" - according to whom, and by what standard [4]? "OK" - according to whom, and by what standard?

[4] The standard of proof can't be "beyond a reasonable doubt" - or even just "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a crime might be committed - because if it were, then you would already have a lawful basis for a custodial arrest or detainment (in which case, you wouldn't need the preemptive "red flag" procedure to begin with). IOW: Your "red flag" "evaluations" will be nothing but "fishing expeditions" - regardless of any of your glib, hand-waving happy-talk about "strict guidelines about how it can be applied". (A fishing expedition with "strict guidelines" is still just a fishing expedition.)
 
Last edited:
Thats my good ol' gop , have to let swami and pence lead the way because the rest stuck their head in own ass way too far. Basically trumps only real positive is foreign policy , the spending out of control , expecting swami to finish second there ( foriegn policy) and pence would be better on domestic issues ( awful on foreign policy), spending, budgets I think than even desantis not to mention 2nd amendment issues. Clown town really , probably cant even beat a biden.
 
Back
Top