Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    ^ So now what: law enforcement officials are now cherrypicking which laws they'll enforce, and which they won't?

    Leave a comment:


  • FTCS
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRV Ron
    replied
    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.

    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
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    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




    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freebird
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freebird
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X