Red flag laws allow the courts to confiscate guns from anyone deemed mentally ill by a judge.
What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”
So a man who was briefly and INVOLUNTARILY treated at a mental health clinic in 2003 for less than 72 hours was denied by the background check system when he tried to purchase a firearm 15 years later.
He sued, alleging his due process rights were violated. And the courts just agreed that his brief hospitalization did not meet the standard to take his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Simultaneously, however, the courts still said that had the man been involuntarily committed with a judge’s order, he could have been stripped of his rights.
So if, back in 2003, the judge had ruled he should be committed for even a single day, the man would have lost his rights to own a firearm forever.
This is starting to set a very clear legal precedent for how Red Flag laws can be applied.
What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”
What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”
this what the NRA supports.
So does the 4473. You two never read one of those?
What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”
this what the NRA supports.
So does the 4473. You two never read one of those?
As far as I can find that has been on form 4473 since gun control act of 86. So jeeze just find that little pearl after 33 years.
This link goes to an article in a very liberal weekly in the heart of Bernie Sanders country. Read it, because this legislation may well become the model for a federal law. It’s not about “mentally ill”. The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
There is no due process on a red flag law. They are trying to take a god given right away from you. HELL NO!
^^^^^ This. All they are trying to do is expand who can turn you in. 1993 Brady Background check law. Then throw in the Laughtenberg Act. Each were enacted for stopping Domestic Abusers and people who shouldn’t purchase a gun. Problem was/is that under the mental health question it took a professional mental health worker to go before a judge to have you committed, but you were allowed to defend yourself or have an attorney present at the hearing. Due Process. Red flags are just a legal confiscation tactic denying you that and allowing even a co- worker, teacher or joe fugging blow to turn you in and short circuit the due process requirement.
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
And if you want to make a difference, instead of screaming and jumping up and down about no red flag laws, lobby your state representatives. Maybe change the standard on the 14 day hearing from one of “more likely than not” to a clear adjudication of mental incompetence. Make them eligible for jury trials.
It would seem to me, that the real goal should be to remove the weapons from someone who is about to blow AND to get them under scrutiny and get them help if they need it. If you merely take the guns away from someone who “might” be a danger, you haven’t done much. Maybe he just goes on a stabbing spree or gets another gun from his hunting cabin and does his work. But if you actually hold the state to a higher standard of proof at subsequent hearings, you get a much better idea if the person is someone who really needs some mental health attention.
There is no due process on a red flag law. They are trying to take a god given right away from you. HELL NO!
^^^^^ This. All they are trying to do is expand who can turn you in. 1993 Brady Background check law. Then throw in the Laughtenberg Act. Each were enacted for stopping Domestic Abusers and people who shouldn’t purchase a gun. Problem was/is that under the mental health question it took a professional mental health worker to go before a judge to have you committed, but you were allowed to defend yourself or have an attorney present at the hearing. Due Process. Red flags are just a legal confiscation tactic denying you that and allowing even a co- worker, teacher or joe fugging blow to turn you in and short circuit the due process requirement.
Right. We already have laws in every state for involuntary civil commitment, which keeps dangerous people away from guns. If people are too dangerous to have access to their guns, they're too dangerous to be walking around loose amongst us. But all that requires real due process, and those that implemented it better be damned sure they got things right, because taking someone's freedom to walk around is a major thing, so all your due process rights are in effect. But all that takes time, so the Red Flag laws were invented so as to circumvent due process (what trump calls rapid due process, or some such nonsense), and allow cops to just come to your house to take your guns before you've even had notice that anyone had accused you of anything. That's a formula for disaster, and one man is already dead because of it. An innocent man, by the way, for which there was zero legitimate basis for any action against him. His daughter, or somebody, didn't like his politics, so reported that he had guns and was unstable. That was all it took, and he's dead.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
There is no due process on a red flag law. They are trying to take a god given right away from you. HELL NO!
^^^^^ This. All they are trying to do is expand who can turn you in. 1993 Brady Background check law. Then throw in the Laughtenberg Act. Each were enacted for stopping Domestic Abusers and people who shouldn’t purchase a gun. Problem was/is that under the mental health question it took a professional mental health worker to go before a judge to have you committed, but you were allowed to defend yourself or have an attorney present at the hearing. Due Process. Red flags are just a legal confiscation tactic denying you that and allowing even a co- worker, teacher or joe fugging blow to turn you in and short circuit the due process requirement.
Right. We already have laws in every state for involuntary civil commitment, which keeps dangerous people away from guns. If people are too dangerous to have access to their guns, they're too dangerous to be walking around loose amongst us. But all that requires real due process, and those that implemented it better be damned sure they got things right, because taking someone's freedom to walk around is a major thing, so all your due process rights are in effect. But all that takes time, so the Red Flag laws were invented so as to circumvent due process (what trump calls rapid due process, or some such nonsense), and allow cops to just come to your house to take your guns before you've even had notice that anyone had accused you of anything. That's a formula for disaster, and one man is already dead because of it. An innocent man, by the way, for which there was zero legitimate basis for any action against him. His daughter, or somebody, didn't like his politics, so reported that he had guns and was unstable. That was all it took, and he's dead.
Here is a formula for disaster that you will surely hear about. The state has no red flag law and decides to involuntarily commit a guy based on some statements he may have made. They start the process. Once he is served, he goes and gets his AR-15 and a couple dozen magazines. He then goes down to the mall and kills fifty people.
The DA and every liberal in the world will be on TV talking about how they knew that he was a danger and had begun the process to have him declared so, but because of the state of the laws, he was able to go kill fifty people.
This link goes to an article in a very liberal weekly in the heart of Bernie Sanders country. Read it, because this legislation may well become the model for a federal law. It’s not about “mentally ill”. The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
What's the heart of Bernie Sanders country? Hell??
If you really want to fix the problem and not just scream and jump up and down like an idiot. Tie Red Flag laws to federal funding for mental health facilities and state hospitals where people involuntarily committed can be placed.
It is next to impossible to involuntarily commit someone these days primarily because states have nowhere to send them. So provide federal money for that and make any red flag procedure part of an actual process to involuntarily commit someone.
If you do that, you get guns away from someone who might actually use them to hurt someone in the very short term, while also providing due process and making sure that red flag laws don’t follow the protective order process and become mere rubber stamps used to disarm people for the hell of it.
Red flag laws allow the courts to confiscate guns from anyone deemed mentally ill by a judge.
What you may not know is the federal government already claims the power to deny gun ownership to anyone “adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution.”
So a man who was briefly and INVOLUNTARILY treated at a mental health clinic in 2003 for less than 72 hours was denied by the background check system when he tried to purchase a firearm 15 years later.
He sued, alleging his due process rights were violated. And the courts just agreed that his brief hospitalization did not meet the standard to take his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Simultaneously, however, the courts still said that had the man been involuntarily committed with a judge’s order, he could have been stripped of his rights.
So if, back in 2003, the judge had ruled he should be committed for even a single day, the man would have lost his rights to own a firearm forever.
This is starting to set a very clear legal precedent for how Red Flag laws can be applied.
"Red Flag Laws" have nothing to do with being declared "mentally incompetent". A 72 hour observation committal has never been a reason for denial under Federal law.
If you want to accomplish the goals while protecting rights as much as possible, make it part of the mental health process instead of like an order of protection process.
If you really want to fix the problem and not just scream and jump up and down like an idiot. Tie Red Flag laws to federal funding for mental health facilities and state hospitals where people involuntarily committed can be placed.
It is next to impossible to involuntarily commit someone these days primarily because states have nowhere to send them. So provide federal money for that and make any red flag procedure part of an actual process to involuntarily commit someone.
If you do that, you get guns away from someone who might actually use them to hurt someone in the very short term, while also providing due process and making sure that red flag laws don’t follow the protective order process and become mere rubber stamps used to disarm people for the hell of it.
Holy sheep dip, you are a kool-aide drinking fool. They stigmatized mental health treatment in 86 as soon as they put that question on the 4473. Then Yo Bama and others weaponized the medical fields even further.
If you really want to fix the problem and not just scream and jump up and down like an idiot. Tie Red Flag laws to federal funding for mental health facilities and state hospitals where people involuntarily committed can be placed.
It is next to impossible to involuntarily commit someone these days primarily because states have nowhere to send them. So provide federal money for that and make any red flag procedure part of an actual process to involuntarily commit someone.
If you do that, you get guns away from someone who might actually use them to hurt someone in the very short term, while also providing due process and making sure that red flag laws don’t follow the protective order process and become mere rubber stamps used to disarm people for the hell of it.
Holy sheep dip, you are a kool-aide drinking fool. They stigmatized mental health treatment in 86 as soon as they put that question on the 4473. Then Yo Bama and others weaponized the medical fields even further.
You don’t get involuntarily committed unless you get a court order for such and you can have a jury trial on that.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Another traitor.
Or maybe he is saying that if red flag laws must exist that’s the least bad way possible?
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Another traitor.
Or maybe he is saying that if red flag laws must exist that’s the least bad way possible?
That’s how I read it anyway...
No, I’ve been pronounced a traitor by the guy with his fingers in his ears shouting LA LA LA LA LA as loud as he can.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
They'll take your guns in a heart beat for a PFA filed against you on a woman's word with no proof what so ever, I see this as pretty much the same thing (minus the penalties for false reporting)... and they've been doing it for YEARS!
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
They'll take your guns in a heart beat for a PFA filed against you on a woman's word with no proof what so ever, I see this as pretty much the same thing (minus the penalties for false reporting)... and they've been doing it for YEARS!
That’s kind of what I’m saying. The model that lots of places will use has already been in use forever. So, the cat is out of the bag. Seventeen states have Red Flag laws already, including Florida, where the most vociferous person on this board resides. What has all caterwauling gotten us. It might be more beneficial to be more proactive, part of the process, in order to channel it into a way that provides as much protection and due process as possible.
All sorts of violations of presumption of innocence have been going on for a long time, e.g., cops who catch you with cash can take it, under the assumption that it's dirty money (without any evidence), then if you want it back, you have to demand a trial so you can prove it's actually legally yours. The Supremes said this was okay, which is why I have no faith in the Supreme Court overturning Red Flag laws.
TRH, the asset forfeitures law was ripe for abuse. Which it was. Red flag laws are the same deal. I love the part about expanding beds in mental health institutions with government money for those involuntarily committed. Sounds like re-education camps to me.
TRH, the asset forfeitures law was ripe for abuse. Which it was. Red flag laws are the same deal. I love the part about expanding beds in mental health institutions with government money for those involuntarily committed. Sounds like re-education camps to me.
The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
Every living breathing human being on this earth presents a danger to themselves or others. Always have, always will.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
They'll take your guns in a heart beat for a PFA filed against you on a woman's word with no proof what so ever, I see this as pretty much the same thing (minus the penalties for false reporting)... and they've been doing it for YEARS!
That’s kind of what I’m saying. The model that lots of places will use has already been in use forever. So, the cat is out of the bag. Seventeen states have Red Flag laws already, including Florida, where the most vociferous person on this board resides. What has all caterwauling gotten us. It might be more beneficial to be more proactive, part of the process, in order to channel it into a way that provides as much protection and due process as possible.
I knew what you were saying and agree with you. Was hoping some others would realize same.....
The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
Every living breathing human being on this earth presents a danger to themselves or others. Always have, always will.
Oh damn them facts “we choose truth over facts.” Joe Biden
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
They'll take your guns in a heart beat for a PFA filed against you on a woman's word with no proof what so ever, I see this as pretty much the same thing (minus the penalties for false reporting)... and they've been doing it for YEARS!
That’s kind of what I’m saying. The model that lots of places will use has already been in use forever. So, the cat is out of the bag. Seventeen states have Red Flag laws already, including Florida, where the most vociferous person on this board resides. What has all caterwauling gotten us. It might be more beneficial to be more proactive, part of the process, in order to channel it into a way that provides as much protection and due process as possible.
I would go on to say you are wrong about this also. "Caterwauling" on here is the edge of the spear to stop gun control. How can we convince Fudds, let alone people who don't own guns that RF Laws are not good if we ourselves are divided? There is no telling how much good it does to "caterwaul" right here on this very site.
The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
Every living breathing human being on this earth presents a danger to themselves or others. Always have, always will.
Now there's something RF Laws are actually good for, allowing us to pretend that this is not true!
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
Don’t argue with me. Argue with reality. This process in in effect in every state already and already is used to deny firearms rights. California had a protective order confiscation team even before red flag laws. IT HAS BEEN RULED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. Case closed. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
Don’t argue with me. Argue with reality. This process in in effect in every state already and already is used to deny firearms rights. California had a protective order confiscation team even before red flag laws. IT HAS BEEN RULED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. Case closed. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it.
If it is already in place and is "reality" why are you arguing for more of it?
If you want to argue with me, refute the points I made rather than essentially pronouncing yourself the winner by saying this stuff is already in place. I don't live in California.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
Every living breathing human being on this earth presents a danger to themselves or others. Always have, always will.
Now there's something RF Laws are actually good for, allowing us to pretend that this is not true!
A few years back, one of the popular posters here, a lawyer, argued that Universal Registration was a done deal after the Sandy Hook affair. This poster was so "in the know" that he hob knobbed with NRA officials and politicians in the beltway. I argued with him that it was not a done deal and was worthy of opposition and also why. It didn't come to pass and neither do RF Laws if we just stand our ground, make our arguments and also hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire.
These laws are not what they say they are. The are weaponized instruments against normal people, not ways to keep nutcases from killing folks-that is the first and foremost thing to realize about them.
The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
Every living breathing human being on this earth presents a danger to themselves or others. Always have, always will.
Now there's something RF Laws are actually good for, allowing us to pretend that this is not true!
True, well said Ethan. 👍👍👍👍
Thanks. Like Seinfeld said, I like to have several rationalizations during a day.
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
Don’t argue with me. Argue with reality. This process in in effect in every state already and already is used to deny firearms rights. California had a protective order confiscation team even before red flag laws. IT HAS BEEN RULED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. Case closed. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it.
If it is already in place and is "reality" why are you arguing for more of it?
If you want to argue with me, refute the points I made rather than essentially pronouncing yourself the winner by saying this stuff is already in place. I don't live in California.
It is in place in Kansas too. I’m not arguing for more of it, I’m telling you that screeching against it is a lost cause. If you want to have an effect against the coming red flag laws or to channel them in ways that might more effectively protect due process and your rights, don’t screech about Trump, the NRA, or any of that, get on the horn to your state representative. HE/SHE is the one that will vote on whether or not your state has a Red Flag law and exactly what form it will take.
A few years back, one of the popular posters here, a lawyer, argued that Universal Registration was a done deal after the Sandy Hook affair. This poster was so "in the know" that he hob knobbed with NRA officials and politicians in the beltway. I argued with him that it was not a done deal and was worthy of opposition and also why. It didn't come to pass and neither do RF Laws if we just stand our ground, make our arguments and also hold our elected representatives' feet to the fire.
These laws are not what they say they are. The are weaponized instruments against normal people, not ways to keep nutcases from killing folks-that is the first and foremost thing to realize about them.
Exactly. There's always this element who wants us to give up and accept more gun control. We proved them wrong after Sandy Hook.
Two things. Red Flag laws, if they follow the procedures used in protective orders will have due process. There MUST be a hearing within 14 days of the granting of an ex parte order. The person can hire an attorney, present witnesses, cross examine witnesses and so on and so forth. Secondly, the Red Flag Order will not be permanent. It will only be in effect for a year or two at maximum.
Constitutionally, based on long established and used procedures in every state, they are going to be constitutional. The one area I see for attack is sort of collateral in that government is depriving you of property without compensation. Of course, it isn’t permanent and if they allowed you to direct that the guns be given to a relative or someone that you chose for the period you could not possess them, then that would probably take care of that.
Maybe not a popular opinion on this board, but I’m not here to make you happy. I’ll give you an honest opinion as to how this is already working with protective orders. I figure that in many jurisdictions that this is coming even without federal funding and in some it will never happen even with federal funding.
The last I heard of any stats on Red Flag Laws, was that they were not effective something like 90% of the time. Admittedly, I do not have those stats at my fingertips.
Red Flag Laws do circumvent the whole basis of our laws-innocent until proven guilty, etc. They also put the burden of proof on the defendant as opposed to the prosecution. Why should somebody who has done nothing be punished?
If the person is that much of a threat, they should be jailed as opposed to confiscating their property-a move likely to make them more dangerous than less.
The timelines on the RF Orders are out-of-whack too. Fourteen days? "Only" in effect for a year or two? Wtf? Does it make it illegal for you to be around guns or defend yourself with one for that time period? That goes beyond the 2nd Amendment into simply disallowing your defending yourself or loved ones during this time period. It violates several amendments which themselves are only human constructs recognizing "laws" or precepts thought to naturally exist. When laws go against you righteously defending yourself or loved ones from evil, then they themselves are part of the problem, tyrannical even.
Our government was set up by the Founders, now seen as just a bunch of dead white guys, to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. One of the big beefs they had with England was just that and you can see it in many of the original precepts of the government they set up. This is a huge incursion against that philosophy.
Your whole argument is protecting the group from the individual. If that is the case then stats should come into play, exactly how many shootings are we talking and how many people are affected? I would say that more people would be affected negatively by gun confiscation than would even approach being negatively affected by mass shootings...so RF laws do more harm than good.
Your argument is also predicated on the actual goal of these laws-which any thinking person knows is not protecting innocent life but instead disarming the populace. When was the last time some official actually wanted to protect you or even cared whether you or your loved ones lived or died? They care about the dollars they'll get for selling out to the big boys who own the government.
It is further predicated on these people who are accused actually having done the mass shootings. Three with the same MO along with Epstein's "suicide" in the space of about a week...PREDICTED, here on the Campfire and by others all across the land.
Red Flag Laws are a terrible idea. I'd say the vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists are anti-gun. You want THEM testifying about the mental state of gun owners who they see as crazies already if only on the basis of their desire to own a gun?
Don’t argue with me. Argue with reality. This process in in effect in every state already and already is used to deny firearms rights. California had a protective order confiscation team even before red flag laws. IT HAS BEEN RULED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL. Case closed. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it.
If it is already in place and is "reality" why are you arguing for more of it?
If you want to argue with me, refute the points I made rather than essentially pronouncing yourself the winner by saying this stuff is already in place. I don't live in California.
It is in place in Kansas too. I’m not arguing for more of it, I’m telling you that screeching against it is a lost cause. If you want to have an effect against the coming red flag laws or to channel them in ways that might more effectively protect due process and your rights, don’t screech about Trump, the NRA, or any of that, get on the horn to your state representative. HE/SHE is the one that will vote on whether or not your state has a Red Flag law and exactly what form it will take.
If you are not arguing for more of it, then quit arguing, because regardless of what you think, you are ending up arguing for more of it by discouraging a stand against RF laws. There is no Red Flag Law in Kansas and there is little chance of one here. There is a chance of a Federal Red Flag law though. I would rather not have local jurisdictions or the state have to stand up to the Feds and say they are not enforcing it-though I hope they will if it comes to it. Who is screeching? You have written as much as I have on the subject yet you accuse me and others of "screeching", etc. I don't need to talk to my representatives about it because I elected the rights ones. You have no way of knowing whether I've already talked to them anyway.
I don't think I've said a thing about Trump or the NRA on this thread although Trump is on record as not only supporting RF Laws, but desiring them. The NRA just got rid of Chris Cox, a supporter of RF Laws IIRC. That is a good move but the NRA has its own problems.
Again, arguing with supporters of RF Laws such as yourself, is a good move because even if I don't change your mind hopefully others will gain some knowledge or be swayed by it. I'm sorry if you don't like my pro gun stance.
In today's political climate a wise man plans for the worst case scenario. Have pistols, rifles and ammo of your choice dispersed at multiple locations among friends and family that you trust. Retain a good lawyer that will take your calls 24/7.
The system sucks but a good plan and a hotshot lawyer will bend it to your needs.
A "red flag" could work if properly constructed. But in today's political climate, I'd be very skeptical. Most states have a 72-hour mental health hold - which addresses getting the person the needed help. The "red flag" laws I've seen remove the guns, leaves other means of killing including black market purchases and even another gun store/4473 purchase.
You can get an ex parte protective order and get your firearms confiscated in Kansas tomorrow.
Your post is a good example of why we are losing the fight. We don’t understand the fight. There is ZERO chance of a federal red flag law. It doesn’t work that way. Every red flag law will be put in place by a state legislature.
You talked in some of your post as if we have avoided UBC and other measures since Sandy Hook. Far from it. Lots of states have very restrictive UBC, Red Flag laws, AND AWB bans more restrictive than anything ever proposed on the national level while people on this board and elsewhere stay focused on what the idiots in Congress are doing.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Well at least you've revealed on whose side you're on, Joe.
Yeah, whatever. You’re not a serious person.
Wow! Brilliant rejoinder.
It was a nice way of telling you that you’re a dumbass. I’m not telling you a damned thing that isn’t true. Yet, you want to say I’m a traitor and other stupid schit. Today, in every state in the country an ex parte protective order can be taken against a person and they WILL come out to get his guns. Yet you want to rail about due process and all that. I’m just telling you that the courts have settled the issue long ago. Sorry, if you can’t take the truth and would rather be a dumbass. Doesn’t mean that I’m in favor of it. Doesn’t mean I think it’s great. It just means that a process virtually identical to the red flag laws that are mostly proposed is already i widespread use. Arguing that it is unconstitutional and all that is a dead end. If you want to make an argument, make a political argument that guns are a third rail. That might work.
What are you doing in your state? Your state already has a red flag law and narrowly avoided an AWB. What are you doing there?
I’m just telling you that if you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments. Get on the horn with your state legislatures and suggest things that could address due process concerns.
And finally, realize this. The red flag issue is a bit different. Nearly every single gun control proposal, no matter what they tell you, is completely pushed and promulgated by zealots who only wish to take away ALL your guns. Not so with Red Flag laws. Lots of people who are moderately pro gun or indifferent think that the idea of having a tool to temporarily take weapons away from someone who is mentally unbalanced is not a bad thing. When you argue with them, you will not be taken seriously if you are just “No compromise”. They will see you as the zealot and discount what you have to say.
Like I said, in some states, this stuff is coming no matter what. In some, it won’t come no matter what. But the point is, to be rational about it. Be prepared to make reasoned and persuasive arguments that support your position and to be constructive. You’re not.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
I had an auction house pick up my entire collection of firearms today. I'm done playing ball. I'm taking up fishing, until they outlaw fishing rods.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Well, in other posts, I proposed that there be a bond required and that if the red flag is the result of an accusation that turns out to be false, attorney’s fees he assessed. That would take care of the [bleep] neighbor who just doesn’t like you and such.
I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I wouldn't do this part until it had been effectively challenged at least to the federal level.
One argument that might have a chance with a court is the fact that, since there is in reality no penalty for false affirmation in either EPO or RF applications, there is no due process.
The requirement of "Supported by oath or affirmation" is not met when there is no penalty for lying, hence no "support" for the oath.
I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I wouldn't do this part until it had been effectively challenged at least to the federal level.
One argument that might have a chance with a court is the fact that, since there is in reality no penalty for false affirmation in either EPO or RF applications, there is no due process.
The requirement of "Supported by oath or affirmation" is not met when there is no penalty for lying, hence no "support" for the oath.
I’m pretty sure that someone who made a false allegation would be open to a defamation suit. False imputation of a crime is slander or libel per se. That means that you don’t have to prove that you were even damaged.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Well, in other posts, I proposed that there be a bond required and that if the red flag is the result of an accusation that turns out to be false, attorney’s fees he assessed. That would take care of the [bleep] neighbor who just doesn’t like you and such.
That has some merit for sure, but a lot of people don't have the cash up front to hire the attorney. Defense attorneys don't do contingencies for obvious reasons. What do accuseds do, roll over to take it from behind?
You had better believe that states' attorneys will know this and use it as a screw to turn.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Well, in other posts, I proposed that there be a bond required and that if the red flag is the result of an accusation that turns out to be false, attorney’s fees he assessed. That would take care of the [bleep] neighbor who just doesn’t like you and such.
That has some merit for sure, but a lot of people don't have the cash up front to hire the attorney. Defense attorneys don't do contingencies for obvious reasons. What do accuseds do, roll over to take it from behind?
You had better believe that states' attorneys will know this and use it as a screw to turn.
There is going to be abuse. That is why I proposed that a better way might be making it part of an involuntary commitment process. They’ll appoint an attorney for that. And from an equity standpoint, if not strictly constitutional standpoint, if we are going to make the argument that someone is too dangerous to own a gun, then we should make the argument that they need some mental help as well. And committment trials can get a jury as well.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Joe's an attorney, so maybe he'll give you a deal if you get caught up in the Red Flag laws he advocates.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Fine and dandy. Who is going to reimburse the gun owner for legal fees? The state is denying a right and forcing the owner to pony up to protect that right. I sure don't have funds to hire an attorney and am glad I no longer own guns.
Joe's an attorney, so maybe he'll give you a deal if you get caught up in the Red Flag laws he advocates.
I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I wouldn't do this part until it had been effectively challenged at least to the federal level.
One argument that might have a chance with a court is the fact that, since there is in reality no penalty for false affirmation in either EPO or RF applications, there is no due process.
The requirement of "Supported by oath or affirmation" is not met when there is no penalty for lying, hence no "support" for the oath.
I’m pretty sure that someone who made a false allegation would be open to a defamation suit. False imputation of a crime is slander or libel per se. That means that you don’t have to prove that you were even damaged.
The point is, the framers made the due process requirement of a sworn oath necessary to support government intervention, search/arrest warrants being the ones in play at the time.
But that was BITD when false swearing/perjury were actually treated as a serious crime.
Now, they're not, and if there's no criminal penalty for false affirmation/oath, there's no due process as the Constitution requires, for a RF/EPO case.
The Framers wouldn't have considered the possibility of a civil lawsuit at a later time "supported by oath or affirmation".
I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
I wouldn't do this part until it had been effectively challenged at least to the federal level.
One argument that might have a chance with a court is the fact that, since there is in reality no penalty for false affirmation in either EPO or RF applications, there is no due process.
The requirement of "Supported by oath or affirmation" is not met when there is no penalty for lying, hence no "support" for the oath.
I’m pretty sure that someone who made a false allegation would be open to a defamation suit. False imputation of a crime is slander or libel per se. That means that you don’t have to prove that you were even damaged.
The point is, the framers made the due process requirement of a sworn oath necessary to support government intervention, search/arrest warrants being the ones in play at the time.
But that was BITD when false swearing/perjury were actually treated as a serious crime.
Now, they're not, and if there's no criminal penalty for false affirmation/oath, there's no due process as the Constitution requires, for a RF/EPO case.
The Framers wouldn't have considered the possibility of a civil lawsuit at a later time "supported by oath or affirmation".
Kind of depends on the jurisdiction. I’ve seen women get prosecuted for perjury for lying in protective order cases.
I’m pretty sure that someone who made a false allegation would be open to a defamation suit. False imputation of a crime is slander or libel per se. That means that you don’t have to prove that you were even damaged.
Yeah, but they will not wish to discourage people from reporting, so you will likely need to prove malice, which isn't easy.
The way the Colorado law is written it is a civil offense and they will perform a search order on a civil offense which is illegal. It will set a precedent for allowing search orders for such things.
It is more than just the red law being instituted and is very difficult to undue laws once they are established by whatever means...
I’m pretty sure that someone who made a false allegation would be open to a defamation suit. False imputation of a crime is slander or libel per se. That means that you don’t have to prove that you were even damaged.
Yeah, but they will not wish to discourage people from reporting, so you will likely need to prove malice, which isn't easy.
Kind of depends on the jurisdiction. I’ve seen women get prosecuted for perjury for lying in protective order cases.
Can't say for sure, but it probably would never happen around here.
My experience is just anecdotal, fellas I know that got hit with EPOs, broad never showed up in court, no penalty, or showed up and lied their ass off.
Even when the judge said he didn't believe their story, there was no penalty for the lies told, on paper or under oath.
Kind of depends on the jurisdiction. I’ve seen women get prosecuted for perjury for lying in protective order cases.
Can't say for sure, but it probably would never happen around here.
My experience is just anecdotal, fellas I know that got hit with EPOs, broad never showed up in court, no penalty, or showed up and lied their ass off.
Even when the judge said he didn't believe their story, there was no penalty for the lies told, on paper or under oath.
But see that’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. A state rep could poison pill a piece of red flag legislation by putting in amendments for civil and criminal penalties for false accusers, requiring bonds, and that sort of thing.
This is not going to be a fight in Congress. This is going to be a fight at the state and even local levels.
One of my big problems with the red flag laws is that they allow pretty much anyone to make a spurious allegation that results in near-immediate firearms confiscations. So all it will take is for a neighbor to not like you and you'll lose your guns. Or you may have an enemy at work who wants to mess with you. If the laws only allowed immediate family members to make the report, that would be somewhat less offensive. The nature of these laws, though, is that they start with broad categories of people who can seek the order and then they expand over time (this is what has happened in CA).
Also, anyone who thinks that they really do last only 14 days (or thereabouts) has never seen how courts handle these things. You basically have to prove that you are not a threat, and that's simply not how rights work under the Constitution. The reality is that these orders usually last for months, if not longer, and are very expensive to fight.
I have many other serious constitutional problems with the laws, but the practical application of them is even more problematic.
Kind of depends on the jurisdiction. I’ve seen women get prosecuted for perjury for lying in protective order cases.
Can't say for sure, but it probably would never happen around here.
My experience is just anecdotal, fellas I know that got hit with EPOs, broad never showed up in court, no penalty, or showed up and lied their ass off.
Even when the judge said he didn't believe their story, there was no penalty for the lies told, on paper or under oath.
But see that’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. A state rep could poison pill a piece of red flag legislation by putting in amendments for civil and criminal penalties for false accusers, requiring bonds, and that sort of thing.
This is not going to be a fight in Congress. This is going to be a fight at the state and even local levels.
We're talking about two different things.
A poison pill is a good idea for pending legislation, but my efforts are directed towards trying to have the concept of RF laws found unconstitutional.
It would take a federal court decision to have any effect.
The Framers never intended for private individuals to have the power to summon government interference via search or arrest warrants, much less EPO and RF laws.
Kind of depends on the jurisdiction. I’ve seen women get prosecuted for perjury for lying in protective order cases.
Can't say for sure, but it probably would never happen around here.
My experience is just anecdotal, fellas I know that got hit with EPOs, broad never showed up in court, no penalty, or showed up and lied their ass off.
Even when the judge said he didn't believe their story, there was no penalty for the lies told, on paper or under oath.
But see that’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. A state rep could poison pill a piece of red flag legislation by putting in amendments for civil and criminal penalties for false accusers, requiring bonds, and that sort of thing.
This is not going to be a fight in Congress. This is going to be a fight at the state and even local levels.
We're talking about two different things.
A poison pill is a good idea for pending legislation, but my efforts are directed towards trying to have the concept of RF laws found unconstitutional.
It would take a federal court decision to have any effect.
The Framers never intended for private individuals to have the power to summon government interference via search or arrest warrants, much less EPO and RF laws.
No that isn’t correct. Traditionally almost all common law crimes required a private citizen to swear out a complaint. Whereupon the power of the state swings into action. And traditionally prosecution for perjury of an accuser, even when it was pretty clear they were lying has been pretty spotty.
And red flag laws, just like protective orders still provide for the 6th Amendment right to confront your accuser. If you contest it, someone has to take the stand and provide testimony.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
If there is an ex parte emergency order granted, there MUST be a hearing within 14 days. At that point, at that hearing, the accused gets his due process and the order will be denied or granted. If denied, he gets his guns back. If granted, it will be granted for a year or so, depending on the state.
Traditionally almost all common law crimes required a private citizen to swear out a complaint. Whereupon the power of the state swings into action.
The complaint generates the search/arrest warrant, which is supported by oath by LE, a filtering process which the Framers mandated.
That's why you don't see SW affidavits submitted to a judge with a civilian's signature at the bottom. The LEO recites what the civilian said, but it's LE that vouches for it.
Intended to be a level of protection against false statement by those with a grudge, etc.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
If there is an ex parte emergency order granted, there MUST be a hearing within 14 days. At that point, at that hearing, the accuser gets his due process and the order will be denied or granted. If denied, he gets his guns back. If granted, it will be granted for a year or so, depending on the state.
This is why I said the due process is only on paper. My public records act request should give me hard data on this, but anecdotal information indicates that the orders are almost always issued. Due process doesn't mean that there is a show hearing where the citizen gets a chance to watch his rights get taken away. There has to be a substantive elements of fairness and deliberation at the hearing, and that doesn't happen with the red flag orders.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
If there is an ex parte emergency order granted, there MUST be a hearing within 14 days. At that point, at that hearing, the accuser gets his due process and the order will be denied or granted. If denied, he gets his guns back. If granted, it will be granted for a year or so, depending on the state.
This is why I said the due process is only on paper. My public records act request should give me hard data on this, but anecdotal information indicates that the orders are almost always issued. Due process doesn't mean that there is a show hearing where the citizen gets a chance to watch his rights get taken away. There has to be a substantive elements of fairness and deliberation at the hearing, and that doesn't happen with the red flag orders.
Depends on your jurisdiction. I’ve never lost a protective order hearing. Never.
You must have the hearing within 14 days. That is where the court decides to grant the order or not.
Not in CA, which will be the state that most other states follow given how draconian the anti-gun laws are in the state. A cop can get the order issued immediately and family members can get them in expedited proceedings. I'm actually in the process of getting statistics from the CA Attorney General (I submitted a public records request about 2 weeks ago) on how many orders are sought and how many are granted, but the rumors are that the orders are almost always granted. And then, they last for up to a year and can be renewed. There's no due process involved, other than on paper, because the courts simply rubberstamp the petitions.
If there is an ex parte emergency order granted, there MUST be a hearing within 14 days. At that point, at that hearing, the accuser gets his due process and the order will be denied or granted. If denied, he gets his guns back. If granted, it will be granted for a year or so, depending on the state.
This is why I said the due process is only on paper. My public records act request should give me hard data on this, but anecdotal information indicates that the orders are almost always issued. Due process doesn't mean that there is a show hearing where the citizen gets a chance to watch his rights get taken away. There has to be a substantive elements of fairness and deliberation at the hearing, and that doesn't happen with the red flag orders.
Depends on your jurisdiction. I’ve never lost a protective order hearing. Never.
Do you practice in California? I'm not being snarky, I actually would love to be able to refer potential clients if you have had success fighting these orders. Feel free to DM me if you prefer.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
If you didn’t realize in law school when they first told you about the case where the Roosevelt administration used the Commerce Clause to keep a man from growing a backyard garden that they can do whatever the frick they want, then you weren’t paying attention.
And I’m using “you” in the general sense. That isn’t aimed at you specifically.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
They are a dangerous problem with the life tenure of the judges. It's a hard call as to whether that is better or worse than termed appointments, which can change the federal courts as a whole a complete 180.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
If you didn’t realize in law school when they first told you about the case where the Roosevelt administration used the Commerce Clause to keep a man from growing a backyard garden that they can do whatever the frick they want, then you weren’t paying attention.
And I’m using “you” in the general sense. That isn’t aimed at you specifically.
I'm something of a crusader...I fight the ACLU for a living.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
If you didn’t realize in law school when they first told you about the case where the Roosevelt administration used the Commerce Clause to keep a man from growing a backyard garden that they can do whatever the frick they want, then you weren’t paying attention.
And I’m using “you” in the general sense. That isn’t aimed at you specifically.
I'm something of a crusader...I fight the ACLU for a living.
Well...give up fighting the Civil War and quit flaming Yankees who want to fight along side you.
Meh, you guys have already lost the fight. About all you can do is move.
Look with guns specifically, most on this board have watched it happen before their eyes and they still don’t get it. When gun control failed on the national level after Sandy Hook, they changed tactics. I remember reading it at the time. They started focusing on the states. And now, every state with an unassailable Democratic majority has, for the most part a gun control wish list as law.
Meh, you guys have already lost the fight. About all you can do is move.
Look with guns specifically, most on this board have watched it happen before their eyes and they still don’t get it. When gun control failed on the national level after Sandy Hook, they changed tactics. I remember reading it at the time. They started focusing on the states. And now, every state with an unassailable Democratic majority has, for the most part a gun control wish list as law.
This link goes to an article in a very liberal weekly in the heart of Bernie Sanders country. Read it, because this legislation may well become the model for a federal law. It’s not about “mentally ill”. The operative language concerns those who “present a danger to themselves or others.” Think about that a bit. Who decides that? Your doctor could decide it! You heard it around The ‘Fire first.
I have always said there should be 2 separate sources that agree on you mental state and then you are taken into custody and a hearing had to judge your mentally state and then only are the guns taken for a stated period of time. Only taking the guns does nothing for or to you as you can get other guns by hook or by crook. Just my take on things. Cheers NC
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Another traitor.
Some one ask TRH just how would he keep nut jobs from using guns?
If you’re too unstable to owe a firearm in society then you’re too dangerous to be allowed to walk amongst the civilized world. Send them off to a large island turned insane asylum......or whatever, they just don’t get to live with those of us that wish to live peacefully.
You can get an ex parte protective order and get your firearms confiscated in Kansas tomorrow.
Your post is a good example of why we are losing the fight. We don’t understand the fight. There is ZERO chance of a federal red flag law. It doesn’t work that way. Every red flag law will be put in place by a state legislature.
You talked in some of your post as if we have avoided UBC and other measures since Sandy Hook. Far from it. Lots of states have very restrictive UBC, Red Flag laws, AND AWB bans more restrictive than anything ever proposed on the national level while people on this board and elsewhere stay focused on what the idiots in Congress are doing.
You are not responding to my arguments or questions, but instead attacking me. I've never heard of anybody having their guns confiscated due to an ex parte protective order in Kansas, nor is there a Red Flag Law.
If there is no chance of a Federal Red Flag Law, then why are you arguing for one? Seventeen states aren't even half of the US. The only states I know of that restrict assault weapons are California and New York. There is very little possibility anything like that will be passed in my state or those that I spend time in with the possible exception of Texas, which seems to be going south quickly commensurate with the flood of illegals.
As to Sandy Hook specifically, Cali already had an AWB in place. IIRC New York's did come about after Sandy hook and ostensibly in response to it. It is hard to beat a bunch of New York City liberals and the ultra-rich former mayor of the same city when their monies are focused on anti-gun legislation.
I'm not the problem here. The problem is defeatist attitudes such as your own.
You can get an ex parte protective order and get your firearms confiscated in Kansas tomorrow.
Your post is a good example of why we are losing the fight. We don’t understand the fight. There is ZERO chance of a federal red flag law. It doesn’t work that way. Every red flag law will be put in place by a state legislature.
You talked in some of your post as if we have avoided UBC and other measures since Sandy Hook. Far from it. Lots of states have very restrictive UBC, Red Flag laws, AND AWB bans more restrictive than anything ever proposed on the national level while people on this board and elsewhere stay focused on what the idiots in Congress are doing.
You are not responding to my arguments or questions, but instead attacking me. I've never heard of anybody having their guns confiscated due to an ex parte protective order in Kansas, nor is there a Red Flag Law.
If there is no chance of a Federal Red Flag Law, then why are you arguing for one? Seventeen states aren't even half of the US. The only states I know of that restrict assault weapons are California and New York. There is very little possibility anything like that will be passed in my state or those that I spend time in with the possible exception of Texas, which seems to be going south quickly commensurate with the flood of illegals.
As to Sandy Hook specifically, Cali already had an AWB in place. IIRC New York's did come about after Sandy hook and ostensibly in response to it. It is hard to beat a bunch of New York City liberals and the ultra-rich former mayor of the same city when their monies are focused on anti-gun legislation.
I'm not the problem here. The problem is defeatist attitudes such as your own.
How in the blue blazes do you get that I’m arguing for a federal red flag law? Seriously, are you people taking crazy pills?
JoeBob, I'm going to be a hardass on this. Anything short of a psych hold with exam and adjudication is insufficient due process to deprive someone of a Constitutional right. Matter of sufficient evidence, to constitute due process. A judge is not competent to determine if someone is a danger to himself or others unless the subject is stark raving mad and declares his intentions. Not so sure your 14 day TRO would hold water if it was challenged. Seems like a psyche hold would make that moot.
JoeBob, I'm going to be a hardass on this. Anything short of a psych hold with exam and adjudication is insufficient due process to deprive someone of a Constitutional right. Matter of sufficient evidence, to constitute due process. A judge is not competent to determine if someone is a danger to himself or others unless the subject is stark raving mad and declares his intentions. Not so sure your 14 day TRO would hold water if it was challenged. Seems like a psyche hold would make that moot.
My point is not to advocate for this but rather to tell you that the 14 day TRO on ex parte orders is already in effect in every state.
One of the things I was just throwing out there is to make it part of the mental incapacity adjudication process in order to guarantee more due process than what you get in some places in protective orders. My rationale being that if they are going to take your guns, they need to prove that you are crazy, or give them back.
If you’re too unstable to owe a firearm in society then you’re too dangerous to be allowed to walk amongst the civilized world. Send them off to a large island turned insane asylum......or whatever, they just don’t get to live with those of us that wish to live peacefully.
If you didn’t realize in law school when they first told you about the case where the Roosevelt administration used the Commerce Clause to keep a man from growing a backyard garden that they can do whatever the frick they want, then you weren’t paying attention.
And I’m using “you” in the general sense. That isn’t aimed at you specifically.
This shouldn't be an issue, given we have a Constitution that was designed primarily to protect natural human rights.
My late father/Esq stated that his profession was primarily protected by attorney-politicians who made sure attorneys were necessary and increasingly so by self-serving laws.
He was no slouch ambulance chaser and was highly respected in this State...served 12 years as Chairman of the State Board of Bar Examiners and was one of the drafters of the Bar Exam each year. He would no doubt have clobbered some of your assertions and notions.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. We just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue and the ramifications.
Why the frick are you talking about the Constitution? That is a dead instrument. Honest Abe ripped it up and wiped his ass with it 150 years ago.
Seriously, we saw how this schit show was going and tried to leave then. But you damned Yankees drug us back in. Now you expect us to give a damn because your states at taking your rights? Go find a map of the states that have red flag laws in place, only one of them is in the South and it has been occupied by the entire state of New York.
I mean, I’m broadly sympathetic, but quit crying about the Constitution. It’s been a dead letter for a Long damned time and most on this board will cheer its destruction when the subject comes up.
Can't disagree with what you've said about the Constitution. Most of my practice is focused on the Constitution, but it might as well be based on a random number generator the way federal courts work.
And there you have it. White guys with guns should expect nothing but outrageous injustice from our judges. We haven't had any semblance of the rule of law for about 20 years.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Another traitor.
Some one ask TRH just how would he keep nut jobs from using guns?
It is impossible. Infringing on MY rights with feel good legislation isn't the way...that's all I know.
I would propose that firearms could be taken ex parte, but that within 14 days of the order the state must file and pursue an involuntary commitment or the guns go back. I would also provide criminal and civil penalties for falsely reporting someone to be a risk.
Another traitor.
Some one ask TRH just how would he keep nut jobs from using guns?
It is impossible. Infringing on MY rights with feel good legislation isn't the way...that's all I know.
How in the blue blazes do you get that I’m arguing for a federal red flag law? Seriously, are you people taking crazy pills?
We've been thinking that lately you've lost it. We remember you as being against government usurpations of power.
I’m not arguing FOR anything. I’m telling what is ALREADY.
What if the Founders took that attitude?
Founders: "King George, we demand our rights as Englishmen under the Magna Carta."
King George: "LMAO, like we've given a crap about the Magna Carta for a century or more."
Founders: "Oh, I had never looked at it like that before. Never mind."
If the Founders has given a schit about all that, they wouldn’t have put a worse form of government than what they suffered under the British a few years after the Revolution.
If the Founders has given a schit about all that, they wouldn’t have put a worse form of government than what they suffered under the British a few years after the Revolution.
So there you have it. Joe Bob thinks the constitution is a worthless document. He would rather of had English tyranny instead of freedom.
If the Founders has given a schit about all that, they wouldn’t have put a worse form of government than what they suffered under the British a few years after the Revolution.
So there you have it. Joe Bob thinks the constitution is a worthless document. He would rather of had English tyranny instead of freedom.
Has the Constitution constrained government in any way? Is our government appreciably better than any other? Are we more free? Is the rule of law more followed? Do we all get equal treatment under the law, or are some allowed to break laws with impunity that would see you or I do long prison sentences?
So, if the measure of anything is by results, what is the worth of the Constitution?
I'm not a lawyer, never even played one on TV, but an attorney once told me that in law school they had been told: "There is no law, only lawyers". Faculty would mock students for saying something like "I found this law..."
I'm not a lawyer, never even played one on TV, but an attorney once told me that in law school they had been told: "There is no law, only lawyers". Faculty would mock students for saying something like "I found this law..."
Something to think about.
Paul
A bit overstated but essentially true. The law is malleable and is prone to being bent to achieve desired and predetermined outcomes.
My rationale being that if they are going to take your guns, they need to prove that you are crazy, or give them back.
That won't be happening unless a case gets to the SCOTUS & they rule that currently administered RFL's are unconstitutional...................but that's very unlikely as well & would defeat the intentions of the left that is intent on imposing RFL's as far & as wide as they are able to.
If the Founders has given a schit about all that, they wouldn’t have put a worse form of government than what they suffered under the British a few years after the Revolution.
So there you have it. Joe Bob thinks the constitution is a worthless document. He would rather of had English tyranny instead of freedom.
Has the Constitution constrained government in any way? Is our government appreciably better than any other? Are we more free? Is the rule of law more followed? Do we all get equal treatment under the law, or are some allowed to break laws with impunity that would see you or I do long prison sentences?
So, if the measure of anything is by results, what is the worth of the Constitution?
Seems to me the limitations here aren’t a part of English Common Law nor of the Constitution but are in fact inherent in the subjects of those documents’ governance.
We are, after all, totally depraved. If the OT Israelites could see what they saw God do in freeing them from slavery in Egypt then we can collectively forget any and all redemptive acts of Providence.
The object lesson here isn’t the founding documents’ limitations but our own.
Has the Constitution constrained government in any way? Is our government appreciably better than any other? Are we more free? Is the rule of law more followed? Do we all get equal treatment under the law, or are some allowed to break laws with impunity that would see you or I do long prison sentences?
So, if the measure of anything is by results, what is the worth of the Constitution?
Your complaint is not with the document itself, but the humans that have ignored or perverted it for their own purposes.
Has the Constitution constrained government in any way? Is our government appreciably better than any other? Are we more free? Is the rule of law more followed? Do we all get equal treatment under the law, or are some allowed to break laws with impunity that would see you or I do long prison sentences?
So, if the measure of anything is by results, what is the worth of the Constitution?
Your complaint is not with the document itself, but the humans that have ignored or perverted it for their own purposes.
You can get an ex parte protective order and get your firearms confiscated in Kansas tomorrow.
Your post is a good example of why we are losing the fight. We don’t understand the fight. There is ZERO chance of a federal red flag law. It doesn’t work that way. Every red flag law will be put in place by a state legislature.
You talked in some of your post as if we have avoided UBC and other measures since Sandy Hook. Far from it. Lots of states have very restrictive UBC, Red Flag laws, AND AWB bans more restrictive than anything ever proposed on the national level while people on this board and elsewhere stay focused on what the idiots in Congress are doing.
You are not responding to my arguments or questions, but instead attacking me. I've never heard of anybody having their guns confiscated due to an ex parte protective order in Kansas, nor is there a Red Flag Law.
If there is no chance of a Federal Red Flag Law, then why are you arguing for one? Seventeen states aren't even half of the US. The only states I know of that restrict assault weapons are California and New York. There is very little possibility anything like that will be passed in my state or those that I spend time in with the possible exception of Texas, which seems to be going south quickly commensurate with the flood of illegals.
As to Sandy Hook specifically, Cali already had an AWB in place. IIRC New York's did come about after Sandy hook and ostensibly in response to it. It is hard to beat a bunch of New York City liberals and the ultra-rich former mayor of the same city when their monies are focused on anti-gun legislation.
I'm not the problem here. The problem is defeatist attitudes such as your own.
How in the blue blazes do you get that I’m arguing for a federal red flag law? Seriously, are you people taking crazy pills?
If you're not arguing for Red Flag Laws, many of us here don't understand what you're doing. I've refuted many of your arguments, yet here you are, accusing me of taking "crazy pills". It sure seems that if you're not arguing for them, you are arguing against fighting them.
I'm not a lawyer, never even played one on TV, but an attorney once told me that in law school they had been told: "There is no law, only lawyers". Faculty would mock students for saying something like "I found this law..."
Something to think about.
Paul
A bit overstated but essentially true. The law is malleable and is prone to being bent to achieve desired and predetermined outcomes.
Of course, but in many instances SCOTUS has straightened the law out or bent it another direction.
How may second amendment rights be legally divested?
I. Collateral consequence of conviction or adjudication(criminal or mental incompetency);
II. Defined act ( renounce citizenship, fugitive, etc.); and
III. Injunction.
The purpose of domestic violence injunctions is to prevent violence to defined persons (e.g. "intimate partner" or child of the "intimate partner") and the firearms prohibition is collateral to that goal. By contrast, the R.F. proceeding is specifically designed and intended for the singular purpose of divesting a constitutional right from the respondent.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/QCr5jz0J/Danc.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/26WhRYF5/Foff.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/4Muz0Oo.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://loopnewslive.blob.core.windows.net/liveimage/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEbpxsxANT.jpg)