A law-enforcement officer who, based upon his observation or the reliable reports of others, has probable cause to believe that a person meets the criteria for emergency custody as stated in this section may take that person into custody and transport that person to an appropriate location to assess the need for hospitalization or treatment without prior authorization
Another section–again, this is existing law–allows judges to commit someone involuntarily:
Any magistrate shall issue, upon the sworn petition of any responsible person, treating physician, or upon his own motion, an emergency custody order when he has probable cause to believe that any person (i) has a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any, or (b) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs, (ii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iii) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment.
In addition, existing Virginia law (§ 18.2-308.1:2.) has made it is a crime for “any person” adjudicated as legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated to “purchase, possess, or transport any firearm.” Another section of existing Virginia law (§ 18.2-308.1:3) makes it a crime for “any person involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment” to “purchase, possess, or transport a firearm.” There are also procedures allowing Virginia residents to request the restoration of their right to keep and bear arms after their treatment is complete (the request is made to court and restoration is not automatic).
This may or may not the best way to handle these situations, but Virginia’s existing law strikes me as not unreasonable. If anything, it’s fairly restrictive in that it gives any law enforcement officer the power to take someone “into custody” based on what someone else says.
Given that Virginia law already disarms gun owners who pose a danger to themselves or someone else, why did Virginia Senate Democrats vote today to approve a “red flag law?” There are two obvious possibilities.
One possibility is that they have not read the legislation and are doing what they’re told by Democrat elders and voting along party lines. In other words, they are lazy. This is the kinder explanation.
The other obvious possibility is that they want to disarm Virginia gun owners who are not dangerous. This suspicion is backed up by use of “red flag” laws in other states, including disarming political opponents, disarming an ex-Marine who said he’d fight back if attacked by Antifa, disarming people with certain views about race, disarming police officers involved in controversial shootings, and disarming 8-year old children who aren’t even old enough to own guns but may have said something about them on the playground.
Of course Virginia’s SB240 “red flag” law would never be used against otherwise law-abiding gun owners. Right?
Virginia law already specifies how to deal with the difficult situation of someone experiencing mental illness.
One section of the existing Code of Virginia § 37.2-808 says:
Another section–again, this is existing law–allows judges to commit someone involuntarily:
In addition, existing Virginia law (§ 18.2-308.1:2.) has made it is a crime for “any person” adjudicated as legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated to “purchase, possess, or transport any firearm.” Another section of existing Virginia law (§ 18.2-308.1:3) makes it a crime for “any person involuntarily admitted to a facility or ordered to mandatory outpatient treatment” to “purchase, possess, or transport a firearm.” There are also procedures allowing Virginia residents to request the restoration of their right to keep and bear arms after their treatment is complete (the request is made to court and restoration is not automatic).
This may or may not the best way to handle these situations, but Virginia’s existing law strikes me as not unreasonable. If anything, it’s fairly restrictive in that it gives any law enforcement officer the power to take someone “into custody” based on what someone else says.
Given that Virginia law already disarms gun owners who pose a danger to themselves or someone else, why did Virginia Senate Democrats vote today to approve a “red flag law?” There are two obvious possibilities.
One possibility is that they have not read the legislation and are doing what they’re told by Democrat elders and voting along party lines. In other words, they are lazy. This is the kinder explanation.
The other obvious possibility is that they want to disarm Virginia gun owners who are not dangerous. This suspicion is backed up by use of “red flag” laws in other states, including disarming political opponents, disarming an ex-Marine who said he’d fight back if attacked by Antifa, disarming people with certain views about race, disarming police officers involved in controversial shootings, and disarming 8-year old children who aren’t even old enough to own guns but may have said something about them on the playground.
Of course Virginia’s SB240 “red flag” law would never be used against otherwise law-abiding gun owners. Right?