Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

    While the guy involved is a racist kook of the worst sort, this incident shows just how easily, and loosely, a red flag law can be used against someone for speech or political reasons.

    “This is a hate-filled human being, but one who, unfortunately, possesses a large number of weapons,” Holmes told King 5 News.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/guns-seiz...shington-state

    Pete Holmes is a local prosecutor.

    The "large number of weapons" amounted to 5 rifles, a shotgun, and three pistols.

    The part that really galls me is that Kaleb Cole, the neo-Nazi POS involved, wasn't charged with any crime. He wasn't held for psychiatric evaluation, and had made no specific threats. The prosecutor and FBI simply decided based on his online, long held and long expressed, views and postings that he was suddenly a threat and deserved to have his weapons taken away.

    My question is, will Holmes and the FBI take the guns of this bunch of radicals who specifically express violence against the government?





    After all, they openly advocate violence-- armed violence-- against the likes of Mr. Cole.

    So, while I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Cole's POV and opinions, I also have a much stronger contempt for the government using red flag laws as loosely and subjectively as they did in this case. This constitutes a real danger because you or I could be next.

  • #2
    now have serious reservations about "red flag"
    So do I, and always have had!

    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

    Comment


    • #3
      My problem with Red Flag laws is that they just kind of tag the whole "Due Process" thing onto the end as some sort of afterthought where the Victim has to prove their innocence and sanity in order to get their private property back from the Government.

      There's already a process and procedure for seizing weapons from dangerous people. It's called an Involuntary Commitment. Prove to a Magistrate that the person is mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others....then you can seize their weapons when you take them to the psych ward to be evaluated. The doctors don't find them to be mentally ill and/or the court doesn't declare them to be incompetent.....they get their guns back. The onus at all points is on the Government/Complainant (if different) to Prove that they're incompetent.

      Also....Red Flag laws are basically making SWATting Legal. Call in a 'Red Flag' on someone you're arguing with online, and get a police response to forcibly disarm them. I can say with certainty, and as an LEO, that if some jackwagon were to have officers sent to forcibly disarm me on the say so of said jackwagon, either they're walking away empty handed, or the medical examiners office is going to have a very busy night.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #4
        5 rifles, a shotgun and three handguns? That's all?
        These red flag laws are creating a constitutional crisis.
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • #5
          The problem I have with those laws is that they specifically violate the Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

          That is plain enough for even Democratic Retards to understand.

          Then there is a little thing known as "presumption of innocence."

          I move to disarm all police since it is highly likely that they will use their weapons in acts of violence against other humans, and a rapidly growing amount of evidence makes it plain that that violence will often be uncalled for and unnecessary.

          And we must make it mandatory that no politician be allowed to have armed security of any kind.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            5 rifles, a shotgun and three handguns? That's all?
            These red flag laws are creating a constitutional crisis.


            That's his whole gun collection.

            Last time this sort of crap happened we ended up at:

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post



              That's his whole gun collection.

              Last time this sort of crap happened we ended up at:

              Ever see the Cruise film Minority Report about cops who arrest people because they are "predicted" to commit a crime in the future? This whole red flag thing doesn't even have that much legality behind it, and it totally ignores the reality that determined killers can always obtain weapons illegally.

              Meanwhile, when the government fails to protect the safety of its citizens, those citizens have the right to protect themselves by whatever means necessary, and we cannot be compelled to bring a knife to a gunfight. These days criminals are better and more heavily armed than the cops.

              Red flag laws are about government fear of being thrown out of office for their long history of criminal behavior. It is the last attempt to survive by politicians who see the end of their corrupt reigns looming over them.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post



                That's his whole gun collection.

                Last time this sort of crap happened we ended up at:

                Good point, But don't forget Ruby Ridge. Or Fast and Furious, And certainly don't forget that while Whitey Ford was butchering his under world competitors he was on the payroll of the FBI.....
                That was the point of my previous OP where I stated the government buy back wouldn't be legal because the government can't pass the back ground check.
                I wasn't joking.
                Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think you meant Whitey Bulger...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is one of the biggest issues I have with Trump. Support of red flag laws is support of gun control. Period. In certain respects it's worse than an outright ban of all guns, as it allows the government to pick and choose who they want to disarm based on a criteria that is vague and unconstitutional.

                    Given how blatantly unconstitutional it is and always has been, I can't help but question the authenticity of anyone who ever supported it.

                    Don't be fooled into thinking the 2nd Amendment is safe just because a faux republican is in office. The fight against disarming will be never ending until we start electing true republicans and constitutionalists.
                    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Additional gun control legislation from the Trump admin

                      William Barr claims that this bill would deal only with “commercial” transactions, but deceptively defines “commercial” to include virtually EVERY private sale.

                      And because your purchase will be on file with the ATF, when a future President Beto O’Rourke (or Joe Biden) decides it’s time to come “take your AR-15,” they’ll know who has them and where you are.

                      Gun Owners of America tried to warn the Senate and President Trump about nominating an anti-gunner like William Barr to be the Attorney General of the United States, given his previous support for a semi-auto ban.

                      Now we’re seeing the consequences.

                      We hope that this time — with the help from voters like you — we can successfully warn the Senate to strike down Barr’s gun control push and prevent America from taking a dark and dangerous turn.
                      https://gunowners.org/alert09192019/

                      It's amazing what can happen when you send a liberal out to parade as a republican, while having him rally conservatives via identity politics. So much so that they've become too partisan to call him out on his liberal policies and rhetoric. Too partisan to realize what's happening right in front of their own eyes.

                      Good information on red flag laws, for those who are actually pro 2A all the time and not just when it suites them:

                      https://gunowners.org/why-red-flag-g...tional-option/

                      FYI, you won't see the NRA bringing up these issues, which is why it's important to support the GoA.
                      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Two LEOs of my acquaintance -- one retired, the other active -- have recently been relieved of their firearms, one due to a DUI, the other a domestic incident. How either of those two jabonies ever got shields in the first place is beyond me, but I'm glad that they've since been been relieved of their weapons.

                        Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community.5, 6, 7, 8 Moreover, when officers know of domestic violence committed by their colleagues and seek to protect them by covering it up, they expose the department to civil liability.

                        "Police Family Violence Fact Sheet," National Center for Women and Policing
                        The fact is, the very first segment of the population that should be subjected to any "red flag" laws are the political class and their flunkies in law enforcement. The funniest part is that they're going to actually practice what they preach. I can't wait to see how the crumbs fall from this one.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          While the guy involved is a racist kook of the worst sort, this incident shows just how easily, and loosely, a red flag law can be used against someone for speech or political reasons..
                          Seems he was a local leader of "Atomwaffen"

                          I wonder if he was notified and showed up in court for the red flag hearing?

                          Atomwaffen, which means "atomic weapon" in German, is an extremist group that hopes to trigger a race war through murders and violence. They've reportedly gained inspiration from Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson--with members being charged in five murders throughout the U.S.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Freebird View Post

                            Seems he was a local leader of "Atomwaffen"
                            I don't care if he was the biological clone of Hitler himself. It makes next to ZERO difference.
                            Would you consider the same thing about radical Leftist groups that advocate violence and owning guns like The John Brown Gun Club, or Redneck Revolt? They have ZERO difference between them and Atomwaffen except for who they hate on.

                            I wonder if he was notified and showed up in court for the red flag hearing?
                            The way this played out, the FBI got an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" (ERPO) with the concurrence of the local prosecutor's office and served that on this guy, taking his weapons. Any hearing that involves him would be months down the road when or if he appeals the ERPO. That is, they got the order and took his guns and now he's left having to prove that they did so erroneously and he should get them back. This is a case of guilty until proven innocent.

                            The FBI and local prosecutor's office didn't summon / arrest / subpoena this guy and bring him to court for a hearing on whether they could take his guns or not. They took them and it's now incumbent on him to prove they shouldn't have. Guilty until proven innocent. That's just totally wrong.

                            The nasty bit in this is if he does appeal / start a court case to get them back and does win, it's likely that they'll either not return his weapons or if they do they'll be in F'd up condition. He could then sue for them not taking proper care of evidence.
                            The downside is this guy could be tied up in court for years and out tens of thousands of dollars trying to win his case while the FBI and prosecutors get off scot free and use taxpayer money.

                            My view is if he was to be found not guilty, the FBI agents involved and prosecutor involved would all receive official disciplinary action that adversely affected their careers (eg., they're demoted and their career just hit a dead end at best) and the government is responsible for completely reimbursing the guy every penny he spent fighting them. The reason for that is that would stop frivolous actions on the part of the government.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              I don't care if he was the biological clone of Hitler himself. It makes next to ZERO difference.
                              Would you consider the same thing about radical Leftist groups that advocate violence and owning guns like The John Brown Gun Club, or Redneck Revolt? They have ZERO difference between them and Atomwaffen except for who they hate on.
                              Well it should make a difference if he's found to belong to a group designated as terrorist.
                              If he was an Al-Qaeda member he should have them taken away, so same deal for radical violent Neo-Nazis


                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              The way this played out, the FBI got an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" (ERPO) with the concurrence of the local prosecutor's office and served that on this guy, taking his weapons. Any hearing that involves him would be months down the road when or if he appeals the ERPO. That is, they got the order and took his guns and now he's left having to prove that they did so erroneously and he should get them back. This is a case of guilty until proven innocent.

                              The FBI and local prosecutor's office didn't summon / arrest / subpoena this guy and bring him to court for a hearing on whether they could take his guns or not. They took them and it's now incumbent on him to prove they shouldn't have. Guilty until proven innocent. That's just totally wrong.
                              Agreed.
                              Before they take someone's guns they should notify him of a hearing.

                              In extreme cases where they're very concerned about officer safety I can see them using an ERPO - but - they should be prepared to hold a hearing within 48 hours, and he prepared with an overwhelming case

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X