I'm as interested as anyone in keeping firearms out of the hands of nutty people. But it seems to me that Red Flag laws have a serious problem at their core.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If an officer shows up at a house to confiscate firearms from the owner, and if the owner is not inclined to cooperate, then a search warrant would have to be issued to allow the officer to enter and search for the firearms. But there has not yet been a crime, and therefore no probable cause, and no warrant could be issued. So the officer is in a position of having no legal basis for a search.
Comment?
denton, as usual an astute observation.
It would be a good thing to stop the nuts ahead of any killings. To do it without losing rights is putting the bell on the cat.
Mr. Denton is right as always, but it doesn't mean thats the way these laws will play out, it doesn't matter a whit what some silly old Constitution says, we're gonna get your guns and not a damn thing you can do about it.
The court order to confiscate doesn't give the officer right to enter?
Could a presidential order obliterate the law or override it to make it unnecessary to get a search warrant?
There's lots of red flags flying alright.
They will vilify ALL gun owners and red flag who ever doesn't get in lockstep.
There's already unabashed "gun shaming" going on now. Look for sharp acceleration of that.
Hunting shamers too.
There's lots of red flags flying alright.
They will vilify ALL gun owners and red flag who ever doesn't get in lockstep.
There's already unabashed "gun shaming" going on now. Look for sharp acceleration of that.
Hunting shamers too.
Watch very closely, also watch the number of folks willing to comply to unconstitutional laws.
I'm no lawyer, but the phrases 'but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation', might be how they are getting around the amendment. If a state law is passed where someone, example pizzed-off ex, swore you was dangerous to yourself and others, tht en this could be taken as 'probable cause' and a warrant issued.
Not saying its right, Just that if a law is worded just right, then it might be possible.
In other words.... if probable cause is just anybodies word, then a warrant can be issued.
They will knock on the wrong door one day.
They will knock on the wrong door one day.
As G. Gordon Liddy said, "Go for a head shot, they're probably wearing body armor".
Or words to that effect.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
... But there has not yet been a crime
The Fourth Amendment doesn't have the word "crime" in it.
There are other reasons not to like red flag laws, but the Fourth Amendment will not offer any comfort.
I'm no lawyer, but the phrases 'but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation', might be how they are getting around the amendment. If a state law is passed where someone, example pizzed-off ex, swore you was dangerous to yourself and others, tht en this could be taken as 'probable cause' and a warrant issued.
Not saying its right, Just that if a law is worded just right, then it might be possible.
In other words.... if probable cause is just anybodies word, then a warrant can be issued.
Suspicion alone is enough for civil forfeiture in most cases, probable cause or an oath of affirmation is not required. Red flag laws and civil forfeiture laws are both clear violations of the 4th amendment.
"The petition must state, under oath, why the petitioner believes the respondent poses a risk of injuring someone." = Supported by oath or affirmation = their version of due process.
"As with other types of restraining orders, violating an extreme risk prevention order, such as by refusing or failing to surrender firearms or licenses, is a criminal offense."
https://www.bostonlawyerblog.com/ma...scate-weapons-based-on-a-risk-of-injury/Once you tell the cops you ain't givin up your gear, you've committed a crime, and they have probable cause to kill the shat outta you.
"The petition must state, under oath, why the petitioner believes the respondent poses a risk of injuring someone." = Supported by oath or affirmation = their version of due process.
"As with other types of restraining orders, violating an extreme risk prevention order, such as by refusing or failing to surrender firearms or licenses, is a criminal offense."
https://www.bostonlawyerblog.com/ma...scate-weapons-based-on-a-risk-of-injury/Once you tell the cops you ain't givin up your gear, you've committed a crime, and they have probable cause to kill the shat outta you.
That prolly works on some..
But imagine two different scenarios.
1) A guy that knows his rights and ain't having none of it.
2) The guy that IS batschidt crazy.
I don't think I'd volunteer for serving those.
Could a presidential order obliterate the law or override it to make it unnecessary to get a search warrant?
Probably not. Most of these are state laws, and the president's authority over them is minimal. Relief would have to come from the courts, up to the Supreme Court.
A constitutional right that can be negated without meaningful due process is no right at all.
They will knock on the wrong door one day.
As G. Gordon Liddy said, "Go for a head shot, they're probably wearing body armor".
Or words to that effect.
He recommended the pelvis shot.
I'm as interested as anyone in keeping firearms out of the hands of nutty people. But it seems to me that Red Flag laws have a serious problem at their core.
The Fourth Amendment provides:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If an officer shows up at a house to confiscate firearms from the owner, and if the owner is not inclined to cooperate, then a search warrant would have to be issued to allow the officer to enter and search for the firearms. But there has not yet been a crime, and therefore no probable cause, and no warrant could be issued. So the officer is in a position of having no legal basis for a search.
Comment?
Agreed. It seems like the law is contingent on the cooperation of the gun owner and the cops ability to bluff their way through.
There's lots of red flags flying alright.
They will vilify ALL gun owners and red flag who ever doesn't get in lockstep.
There's already unabashed "gun shaming" going on now. Look for sharp acceleration of that.
Hunting shamers too.
Watch very closely, also watch the number of folks willing to comply to unconstitutional laws.
THAT is what they're fully counting on....
They better not 'count on me'. Just sayin'........
"The petition must state, under oath, why the petitioner believes the respondent poses a risk of injuring someone." = Supported by oath or affirmation = their version of due process.
"As with other types of restraining orders, violating an extreme risk prevention order, such as by refusing or failing to surrender firearms or licenses, is a criminal offense."
https://www.bostonlawyerblog.com/ma...scate-weapons-based-on-a-risk-of-injury/Once you tell the cops you ain't givin up your gear, you've committed a crime, and they have probable cause to kill the shat outta you.
That prolly works on some..
But imagine two different scenarios.
1) A guy that knows his rights and ain't having none of it.
2) The guy that IS batschidt crazy.
I don't think I'd volunteer for serving those.
The more cops have trouble serving these orders the more they will take steps for officer safety, things will degrade from a knock on the door at dinner time to a no-knock at 3:30 am and if you lucky all you will loose is the family dog and your collection.
The more cops have trouble serving these orders the more they will take steps for officer safety, things will degrade from a knock on the door at dinner time to a no-knock at 3:30 am and if you lucky all you will loose is the family dog and your collection.
LOL.
Yeah.
Kinda sounds like Hitler's Gestapo, huh?
This is really nothing new. Just a furthering of existing unconstitutional BS.
This is really nothing new. Just a furthering of existing unconstitutional BS.
Yes, and like a snowball, it's cumulative.