Greentext

6835 readers

685 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

337

Anon breaks up (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 days ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

183 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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).

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

From the Wikipedia page, emphasis mine:

In the United States, a red flag law (named after the idiom red flag meaning “warning sign“; also known as a risk-based gun removal law,[1]) is a gun law that permits a state court to order the temporary seizure of firearms (and other items regarded as dangerous weapons, in some states) from a person who they believe may present a danger. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[2] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[3][4] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[5][6][7]

Intuitively, it makes sense the police would not be able to search someone's home for guns without a judge's permission. It would be hard to say that there was a compelling emergency just from going through things that someone had said or things that had been said about them.

I didn't see a federal supreme court case that ruled on red flag laws specifically, but it sounded like there were some state supreme court rulings that found them unconstitutional. So it is at least contentious whether they meet the strict scrutiny standard or not.