Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freebird
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X