Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • #31
    A few things.

    1. Screw this Nazi Prick, I wouldn't **** on him if he was on fire.
    2. He is a declared member of an organisation that has been implicated in several murders (none of the other organisations TAG is whining about have been as far as I am aware)
    3. They established that his itinerary involved going to training camps, making videos about gassing Jews and killing blacks and found that he had multiple guns parts from which he could make untraceable weapons

    Originally posted by TAG
    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.
    I am kinda speechless at this this comment. Sounds like TAG is trying to justify murder here.

    So no I am not quite worried about the big bad government yet.

    Comment


    • #32
      This thread can also become a reason of concern about the reluctance of the fed government to characterize certain groups as terrorist organizations. I am sure that if the same suspect was a converted US citizen waving an ISIS flag and making comments on internet about killing American infidels, we would not have any discussion about his second amendment rights and we would instead criticize the FBI for being too soft on him.
      Last edited by pamak; 24 Oct 19, 18:04.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jutland View Post
        A few things.

        1. Screw this Nazi Prick, I wouldn't **** on him if he was on fire.
        2. He is a declared member of an organisation that has been implicated in several murders (none of the other organisations TAG is whining about have been as far as I am aware)
        3. They established that his itinerary involved going to training camps, making videos about gassing Jews and killing blacks and found that he had multiple guns parts from which he could make untraceable weapons



        I am kinda speechless at this this comment. Sounds like TAG is trying to justify murder here.

        So no I am not quite worried about the big bad government yet.

        So what law did he break that justifies the government's seizure of his property?
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


          So what law did he break that justifies the government's seizure of his property?
          I am not sure if you try to talk about what the law should be versus what the law is. If you are interested about the first, then it makes little sense to talk about the violation or not of current laws. If you are interested about the second, then it is obvious that taking his gun was in accordance to the existing laws and the FBI did nothing illegal.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            I am not sure if you try to talk about what the law should be versus what the law is. If you are interested about the first, then it makes little sense to talk about the violation or not of current laws. If you are interested about the second, then it is obvious that taking his gun was in accordance to the existing laws and the FBI did nothing illegal.
            So, what you're saying in effect here is if the government passes a law it's perfectly permissible for them to do whatever that law allows.

            I hold as an example of how that thinking is dead flat wrong, Prohibition.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              So, what you're saying in effect here is if the government passes a law it's perfectly permissible for them to do whatever that law allows.

              I hold as an example of how that thinking is dead flat wrong, Prohibition.
              No, I am not saying that.

              I am just trying to see the basis of the discussion that the poster I addressed wants to have. This is because the simple answer to his question is that there was a violation of the red flag law. And as far as I know, this law is still considered to be constitutional. So one can use the same question he asked about the neonazi member and ask " what law did the FBI violate when it got a court decision to get the suspect's guns?" The answer is none!
              Last edited by pamak; 24 Oct 19, 19:38.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                I am not sure if you try to talk about what the law should be versus what the law is. If you are interested about the first, then it makes little sense to talk about the violation or not of current laws. If you are interested about the second, then it is obvious that taking his gun was in accordance to the existing laws and the FBI did nothing illegal.





                So, what law did he break that justified government seizure of his property?
                I you read the post I was responding to, but the post seemed to justify the seizure based on the man’s association with noxious organizations.
                But that isn’t against the law.
                So, my question remains, what law did he break that justifies government seizure of his property.

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  No, I am not saying that.

                  I am just trying to see the basis of the discussion that the poster I addressed wants to have. This is because the simple answer to his question is that there was a violation of the red flag law. And as far as I know, this law is still considered to be constitutional. So one can use the same question he asked about the neonazi member and ask " what law did the FBI violate when it got a court decision to get the suspect's guns?" The answer is none!
                  No. There was no “violation”. There was an accusation.
                  A determination that there was a “violation” requires a hearing where the man’s due process rights are protected and he can defend himself.
                  That didn’t happen here.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                    No. There was no “violation”. There was an accusation.
                    A determination that there was a “violation” requires a hearing where the man’s due process rights are protected and he can defend himself.
                    That didn’t happen here.
                    The action was not the result of just some accusation. It was a result of a court decision which in turn used laws that are still considered constitutional and which provide exceptions such as...

                    https://law.justia.com/constitution/...ess-civil.html

                    In “rare and extraordinary situations,” where summary action is necessary to prevent imminent harm to the public, and the private interest infringed is reasonably deemed to be of less importance, government can take action with no notice and no opportunity to defend, subject to a later full hearing.892 Examples are seizure of contaminated foods or drugs or other such commodities to protect the consumer...

                    Last edited by pamak; 24 Oct 19, 22:02.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      The action was not the result of just some accusation. It was a result of a court decision which in turn used laws that are still considered constitutional and which provide exceptions such as...

                      https://law.justia.com/constitution/...ess-civil.html

                      In “rare and extraordinary situations,” where summary action is necessary to prevent imminent harm to the public, and the private interest infringed is reasonably deemed to be of less importance, government can take action with no notice and no opportunity to defend, subject to a later full hearing.892 Examples are seizure of contaminated foods or drugs or other such commodities to protect the consumer...


                      Clearly you don’t get my point.
                      I can’t really blame you because none of the articles I looked at addressed the point in any way.

                      The action was the result of an accusation. That is how things like ERPOs work and presumably did in this case. Unfortunately, since none of the media types who reported on this understand the thing they are reporting on, they don’t mention it.

                      Regardless, the FBI sought the ERPO. An order such as that is obtained “ex parte” meaning the defendant is not told about it. The FBI went to a judge and presented its side of the story and its side only. Based on the accusations and conclusions of the FBI the judge granted the request to seize the guy’s guns. The guy only found out about the hearing after it took place and when the cops came to take his guns. Due process typically requires people be told of hearings about taking their stuff a way, but that doesn’t happen in ERPOs.

                      There was no crime. If there was a crime, they would have charged him with that, but they didn’t charge him.
                      The FBI says it prevented a massacre by doing this, but still didn’t charge the guy with a crime. If the hate group he is associated with was planning a massacre, then I don’t understand why there are no charges of a criminal conspiracy to commit a “massacre”.

                      The guy didn’t violate any law. If he had, they would have charged him with that.
                      The FBI accused him of thinking about doing something, and the judge granted the ERPO without ever giving the guy a chance to tell his side.

                      What isn’t clear is whether there was a subsequent hearing. One article noted that the guy will get his guns back in one year. Since a typical ERPO lasts only 2 weeks, that suggests there was a subsequent hearing, but only after the guy’s guns had been seized.

                      I suspect that If the guy actually appeared at the subsequent hearing he represented himself

                      I agree that there was a law that permitted the ERPO, but that doesn’t mean that his constitutional rights were protected in any way. The initial order was entered against him without him knowing anything about it or being able to defend himself against it and resulted in the seizure of his property. There are lots of constitutional issues involved there.
                      I doubt the State even gave him a public defender if he couldn’t afford his own lawyer.

                      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


                      • #41
                        Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

                        https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

                        OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?
                        ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
                        IN MARE IN COELO

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                          Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

                          https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

                          OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?
                          Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.

                          As I said earlier in this thread, there are already means in place to take weapons from dangerous people. Red Flag laws are nothing more than a feel good pile of bull$hit that can and will result in abuse, misuse, and the death or injuring of people who have not committed a violation of law, merely because someone had an opinion or wanted to maliciously use the law....or used the law to push their own political views or agendas against their opposition.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                            Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.
                            When the politics are "right," erstwhile "liberals" suddenly have no problem gutting centuries' worth of legal custom.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                              Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.

                              As I said earlier in this thread, there are already means in place to take weapons from dangerous people. Red Flag laws are nothing more than a feel good pile of bull$hit that can and will result in abuse, misuse, and the death or injuring of people who have not committed a violation of law, merely because someone had an opinion or wanted to maliciously use the law....or used the law to push their own political views or agendas against their opposition.
                              What I find amusing is the fact that the media reports and those here who support this action keep referencing association with bad groups and what a potential threat he was and ignoring the fact that the guns that we are told are creating a threat of a massacre will be given back to him in one year.

                              Will he be cured of impure thoughts by then?
                              You are right, it is feel good BS.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                                Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

                                https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

                                OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?
                                The justification in this case was the FBI using proof of a negative coupled to a Pygmalion. That is they claimed they were stopping a "massacre." Well, the only way they could prove this is if he were on his way to the massacre or had actually committed a massacre. Right now, their claim is based on a combination of what might be and wishful thinking.

                                Don't expect the ACLU to come riding to this guy's defense. Everybody hates a Nazi, so he won't get a fair shake or help fighting the Feds.

                                Just remember, when the Jews were being rounded up, the Nazis were acting within the law. When some Communist / Socialist / Maoist state is imprisoning the opposition or even shooting them, they're acting within the law. Their law. This is the same thing. Being "legal" doesn't make it just or right.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X