This came up in my health care forum.
Right now, you can legally detain someone medically when they are a danger to themselves or others for up to 72hrs. The details vary by state, but this is how we lock down individuals trying to suicide or someone mentally off the rails making threats of violence.
This variation on that law would also make opposition to Trump qualify.
Civil commitment can follow as with individuals who have profound mental illness and are not safe to be out in the world.
This is the loudest scream that democracy is dead short of hauling people out into the street and shooting them.
It’s important to note the police are currently the people who bring individuals in for the 72hr mental health holds.
Like red flag laws, but for the other side.
Red Flag laws are used to remove guns from Trans, Latino, and Black people in red states too. It’s not the solution to gun violence that people think it is. It was a good idea, but it ends up falling to paradox of the false positive and even being weaponized against minorities more often than not. It violates due process as well.
More comprehensive care for people with severe mental health issues and arresting and jailing domestic violence offenders their first time is more effective. Unfortunately, we just defunded public mental health, so…
I agree.
So, the only possible sane position is to support everything Trump does?
No. You don’t have to agree with everything Trump. This bill won’t pass anyway.
Assuming it passed, that’s what the bill said. Any disagreement with Trump is a clear sign of a mental disorder.
No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump. That alone would not qualify.
Don’t worry though, with walz as gov, it won’t pass.
It literally does. That’s how it defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
But yes, Walz will veto it, thankfully.
Its only part of what defines it. Disagreeing alone would not qualify.
Yes, I’m glad you’re beginning to see reason!
Ok, now I know you are a meconium baby, who didn’t have the resolved quickly enough.
It was a joke, but that’s on me for not putting a giant disclaimer for everyone to see.
Edit : also what are you trying to say in your comment? Cuz I know it’s English, but idk what you’re on about.
The other side?
Red flag laws were geared more towards conservatives, this TDS bill would be geared more towards liberals.
How are laws stating “If you’ve beaten your spouse, you cannot own guns” geared towards conservatives? Or, is that a slip of some sort?
I don’t remember that part of it.
How are red flag laws geared towards conservatives? Are they more likely to have someone report them as suicidal?
Also how would removing a gun from a suicidal person be comparable to taking a person against their will and more than likely getting them fired from work and thrown in poverty?
I was speaking of guns, not suicide. And liberals are generally more against guns than conservatives. When talking about the red flag laws concerning guns got big, it was conservatives that were talking about getting locked just for having guns. Make sense now, why I said this?