Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Red Flag Provisions of New Law

SEC. 12003. USE OF BYRNE GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
6 OF STATE CRISIS INTERVENTION PROGRAMS.


7 (a) BYRNE JAG PROGRAM.—Section 501(a)(1) of
8 title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
9 of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)) is amended—
10 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
11 by inserting ‘‘or civil proceedings’’ after ‘‘criminal
12 justice’’; and
13 (2) by adding at the end the following:
14 ‘‘(I) Implementation of State crisis inter15 vention court proceedings and related programs
16 or initiatives, including but not limited to—
17 ‘‘(i) mental health courts;
18 ‘‘(ii) drug courts;
19 ‘‘(iii) veterans courts; and
20 ‘‘(iv) extreme risk protection order
21 programs, which must include, at a min
22 imum—
23 ‘‘(I) pre-deprivation and post24 deprivation due process rights that
25 prevent any violation or infringement
34
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 of the Constitution of the United
2 States, including but not limited to
3 the Bill of Rights, and the substantive
4 or procedural due process rights guar5 anteed under the Fifth and Four6 teenth Amendments to the Constitu7 tion of the United States, as applied
8 to the States, and as interpreted by
9 State courts and United States courts
10 (including the Supreme Court of the
11 United States). Such programs must
12 include, at the appropriate phase to
13 prevent any violation of constitutional
14 rights, at minimum, notice, the right
15 to an in-person hearing, an unbiased
16 adjudicator, the right to know oppos
17 ing evidence, the right to present evi
18 dence, and the right to confront ad
19 verse witnesses;
20 ‘‘(II) the right to be represented
21 by counsel at no expense to the gov
22 ernment;
23 ‘‘(III) pre-deprivation and post
24 deprivation heightened evidentiary
25 standards and proof which mean not
35
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 less than the protections afforded to a
2 similarly situated litigant in Federal
3 court or promulgated by the State’s
4 evidentiary body, and sufficient to en
5 sure the full protections of the Con
6 stitution of the United States, includ
7 ing but not limited to the Bill of
8 Rights, and the substantive and pro
9 cedural due process rights guaranteed
10 under the Fifth and Fourteenth
11 Amendments to the Constitution of
12 the United States, as applied to the
13 States, and as interpreted by State
14 courts and United States courts (in15 cluding the Supreme Court of the
16 United States). The heightened evi17 dentiary standards and proof under
18 such programs must, at all appro
19 priate phases to prevent any violation
20 of any constitutional right, at min
21 imum, prevent reliance upon evidence
22 that is unsworn or unaffirmed, irrele
23 vant, based on inadmissible hearsay,
24 unreliable, vague, speculative, and
25 lacking a foundation; and
36
OLL22583 HSF Discussion Draft S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(IV) penalties for abuse of the
2 program.’’.

Their unconstitutional.

Red Flag laws are bullsheit.

The worst part of this new law is the way they think they've gotten around the due process issue.
It looks like they do provide for some due process. They even allow you to have an attorney represent you--at NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.
How considerate of them. Drag your ass into court for a hearing based on someone else's anger, dislikes, fear, etc. in an effort to disarm you and if you choose to fight for your rights you have to spend thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to defend yourself in an attempt to prove your innocence.
The burden of proof now rests on the accused.

You may not see an issue with it but I sure do. The fact of the matter is that Red Flag Laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the fed govt should not be funding anything that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nobody can be deprived of a constitutional right based on someone saying they "may do" something at a latter time. If this is the case then someone can also deprive you of a right under the 1st amendment because of something you may say or print etc... Can't have it both ways.

You may not see an issue with it but I sure do. The fact of the matter is that Red Flag Laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the fed govt should not be funding anything that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nobody can be deprived of a constitutional right based on someone saying they "may do" something at a latter time. If this is the case then someone can also deprive you of a right under the 1st amendment because of something you may say or print etc... Can't have it both ways.

Which is why the current Supreme Court will likely find them unconstitutional as soon as a case reaches them.

Nah... "THEY'RE" unconstitutional...