Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Freebird View Post

    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




    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

    But, as I understand it, he wasn’t charged with any crime.
    If he was actually involved in criminal activity, they would have charged hi with that, but they apparently had nothing. So, they used the red flag law to punish him when there was no other legal basis to do so.

    They just made a Nazi the innocent victim of government oppression.

    Idiots.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


      But, as I understand it, he wasn’t charged with any crime.
      If he was actually involved in criminal activity, they would have charged hi with that, but they apparently had nothing. So, they used the red flag law to punish him when there was no other legal basis to do so.

      They just made a Nazi the innocent victim of government oppression.

      Idiots.
      I wasn't aware that Red Flag Laws are in effect, if they are they shouldn't be, that's insane.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Freebird View Post

        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
        And, groups on the radical Left are equally "terrorist" like the John Brown Gun Club, Redneck Revolt, or the Red Guard. But, they don't get the sort of universal reviling that groups on the radical Right do. The Left excuses its violent radicals.

        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
        But, that's not what happens. I can recall when Bill Clinton was in office the same thing happened with groups on the far Right. There was one case here in Phoenix where a so-called militia group was singled out. The ATF and FBI raided the like 6 or 8 member's homes and confiscated all their weapons. The leader was an air conditioning contractor who had a pretty substantial business.
        The government bankrupted him over this. They (the government) were eventually found to be completely wrong in this case and had to return all the confiscated weapons and release these people from prison before they even went to trail. That took like a year +. But, their lives were ruined, the weapons were returned in crappy condition and not everything was present. Fighting in the courts over that took several more years with the government eventually losing.
        But, the people involved had their entire lives ruined, their livelihood's destroyed.

        The government should have had to pay for that and the people in the government that caused that should have been the ones most hard hit for their actions.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          I can recall when Bill Clinton was in office the same thing happened with groups on the far Right.
          Even worse. When the Nichol's farm was raided by the Feds, live local news reports on the scene were constantly cut off when the person being interviewed started saying something positive about Nichols or his non involvement in the Michigan Militia. A short time later, you heard those people saying the opposite on CBS. Later, I found out that the agents asked him if he had any guns. He said yes. They asked him to go upstairs to get them. He said no. They attempted to bankrupt him by holding him in Federal Prison with no charges for several months.

          I also found out that several individuals in Bay City, militia members, were roughed up by Reno's Thugs. A thumb trucking business was also harassed by them on a daily basis. And, a small arms dealer in Tawas was raided at two in the morning by Reno's Jack Booted Thugs.

          The ultimate of harassment besides Waco or the Ruby Ridge sting where the Feds were posing as gun dealers at a gun show to entrap people with shotguns who'd barrels were 1/4 inch under the legal length was Ellian Gonzales. This image was key in Democrats losing the Presidency in a super close race they and their media allies did everything they could to skew voting.
          “Breaking News,”

          “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

            I wasn't aware that Red Flag Laws are in effect, if they are they shouldn't be, that's insane.





            They are becoming more common. I know Illinois is working on one. In effect it is an effort to charge people with “pre-crimes”.
            I think this will ultimately prove unconstitutional, but as noted by TAG and SRV, some people are going to have their lives ruined simply for legally owning guns.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm sure that most of us are aware of articles and reports about Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police who have stated that they will not support some of the laws being put in place by well meaning but ignorant politicians(IMHO). Here is an very good article on why one Sheriff has stated he refuses to enforce Red Flag Laws"
              https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/spe...#axzz63HaZgajL

              Plus
              https://www.9news.com/article/news/l...3-f45c6b626d41

              https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/new...ws/2211082001/

              I'm sure that there are others also.
              Too Much To Do Too Little Time

              Comment


              • #22
                ^ So now what: law enforcement officials are now cherrypicking which laws they'll enforce, and which they won't?
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                  ^ So now what: law enforcement officials are now cherrypicking which laws they'll enforce, and which they won't?
                  Our elected Sheriffs, here in my County, have been doing exactly that for as long as I remember.
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

                    Our elected Sheriffs, here in my County, have been doing exactly that for as long as I remember.
                    Same here, although it goes all the way up to the governor, and of course to the White House itself.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      btw I hope you guys are taking note. I think this is one of the few threads there is debate and it not the usual cast of guys on one side and the same usual guys on the other side.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                        ^ So now what: law enforcement officials are now cherrypicking which laws they'll enforce, and which they won't?
                        Our elected Sheriffs, here in my County, have been doing exactly that for as long as I remember.
                        Same here, although it goes all the way up to the governor, and of course to the White House itself.
                        If the executive branch is going to do what ever it pleases anyway, then what's the point of having legislatures? While we're at it, why don't we just revert to absolute monarchies, and do away with this pretense of democratic participation altogether?
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Freebird View Post

                          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
                          Who gets to decide what groups domestically, get designated as terrorists? What's the criteria for that? There are plenty of violent groups on the Left that would qualify. I pointed out two who by their actions (they own lots of guns) and words have shown their every bit the equal of groups on the Right like Atomwaffen. I've mentioned two clear cases on the Left: The John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt. Both claim nationwide membership in multiple chapters and basically do all the same stuff some idiot in Atomwaffen would be doing only from a Leftist perspective. I'd toss in the Red Guard with them as well, as yet another group just as potentially dangerous.







                          I see ZERO difference here. Why aren't Red Guards getting their guns confiscated too? You might note that both groups look pretty much lily White as well...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Back to the "red flag" proposals for a second, in this calendar year, the NYPD has suffered ten suicides. Mayor Bill de Blasio and Commissioner James O'Neill have just announced a mental health program that is supposed to guard police officers' confidentiality.

                            Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O'Neill are introducing a new program to offer more mental health resources to officers.

                            The program "Finest Care" comes after 10 members of service took their own lives this year. . . . .

                            It offers free counseling and prescriptions through a partnership with New York-Presbyterian Hospital. . . . .

                            "NYPD: New Mental Health Program for Officers Aims to End Stigma," NY1 Spectrum News, 24 Oct 2019
                            - emphasis mine

                            Why will this program be administered not out of an HHC (City-owned and operated) hospital, but out of a hospital run, at least in part, by Cornell University? What does the NYPD know that the rest of this City's taxpayers don't about HHC's hospitals?

                            More importantly, if a police officer's mental or emotional state is such that he/she is to be treated with psychotropic medications, then shouldn't the veil of confidentiality be removed? Do we really want a cop on the street whose mental/emotional state is so precarious? Shouldn't he be removed from street duty, and shouldn't he be obliged to surrender his weapon? If nothing else, think of the potential liability nightmares that can result from knowingly putting an emotionally/mentally troubled cop on the street, and he winds up shooting some one.

                            And yet, if applying for mental treatment automatically results in a stint on the "rubber gun squad," then won't cops who really need help choose to eschew it?

                            Which end of the equation actually serves the greater good?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              Who gets to decide what groups domestically, get designated as terrorists? What's the criteria for that? There are plenty of violent groups on the Left that would qualify. I pointed out two who by their actions (they own lots of guns) and words have shown their every bit the equal of groups on the Right like Atomwaffen. I've mentioned two clear cases on the Left: The John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt. Both claim nationwide membership in multiple chapters and basically do all the same stuff some idiot in Atomwaffen would be doing only from a Leftist perspective. I'd toss in the Red Guard with them as well, as yet another group just as potentially dangerous.
                              I'd definately agree with you that radical Leftist groups advocating violence should also be included.
                              And while I think it's reasonable to remove guns from the mentally deranged or members of ISIS/islamic Jihad/Nazi/Red Brigade etc, I'd be just as concerned about Due Process.

                              I definately wouldn't trust political appointees like Holder or Lynch, so you'd need some nonpartisan mechanism that respects personal liberty and due process.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Freebird View Post

                                I'd definately agree with you that radical Leftist groups advocating violence should also be included.
                                And while I think it's reasonable to remove guns from the mentally deranged or members of ISIS/islamic Jihad/Nazi/Red Brigade etc, I'd be just as concerned about Due Process.

                                I definately wouldn't trust political appointees like Holder or Lynch, so you'd need some nonpartisan mechanism that respects personal liberty and due process.
                                Absolutely agree that they deserve due process. I don't want a repeat of the Clinton era in particular. I certainly don't want a Reno, Holder, or Lynch sort of Attorney General becoming more a military general waging a war against the US civilian population. That's because at some point soon after such a campaign begins people will start fighting back. We could see worse than the Oklahoma City bombing PDQ once the population decides that the government really is bent on taking their arms based on little more than political whim.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X