Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Sorry for wasting your time with accurate information.
    The phrase “current law” is as meaningless as “Klingon law”, but you keep relying on it.
    ERPO laws do not supersede the constitution.

    You reference membership in an organization that has committed murder, but can’t identify the crime this guy committed (hint: none). If he were involved in those crimes he would have been charged, but he wasn’t.
    You quote the ERPO law as if it somehow proves that it is superior to the constitution.

    It isn’t.
    And as I said, the constitution is CURRENT LAW and superior to any ERPO law.
    If you only had read the link and followed the sources, you would have seen that they lead to him organizing the training of members of that organization. So yes, trainers of an organization involved in murders and internet posts talking about race wars can and should be handled in a constitutional way.

    I do not have to prove that the ERPO is superior to the constitution. As long as the ERPO law has survived legal challenges at the state level and the SCOTUS has refused to take a case, the default position is that the ERPO is constitutional.

    On the other hand, it is you who needs to prove that the ERPO is unconstitutional and you think that you somehow proved it even though by now you have read (and not just from me) different examples of laws affecting people's rights without having them charged and without having an initial hearing, both of which you used as "proof" for your claim that the ERPO law is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by pamak; 28 Oct 19, 10:37.
    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


    • #62
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      If you only had read the link and followed the sources, you would have seen that they lead to him organizing the training of members of that organization. So yes, trainers of an organization involved in murders and internet posts talking about race wars can and should be handled in a constitutional way.

      I do not have to prove that the ERPO is superior to the constitution. As long as the ERPO law has survived legal challenges at the state level and the SCOTUS has refused to take a case, the default position is that the ERPO is constitutional.

      On the other hand, it is you who needs to prove that the ERPO is unconstitutional and you think that you somehow proved it even though by now you have read (and not just from me) different examples of laws affecting people's rights without having them charged and without having an initial hearing, both of which you used as "proof" for your claim that the ERPO law is unconstitutional.


      And yet, they didn't charge him with a crime.
      As a result, there is no crime. Only the pretend crimes in your head.
      Your argument about the organization is funny particularly since I addressed that long ago.


      Yes, laws are presumed to be constitutional, that was always implicit in my comments. But that doesn't mean they are, in fact, constitutional.

      I've explained why I think the ERPO, as exercised in this case, probably crosses the line from a constitutional perspective.
      I did it several times.
      I have adequately supported my belief that the law is unconstitutional. And you haven't understood a word I have said, yet you are convinced I'm wrong and you're right.

      What happened to your "current law" argument? I'm assuming you discovered I was completely right about the constitution is supreme
      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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



        And yet, they didn't charge him with a crime.
        As a result, there is no crime. Only the pretend crimes in your head.
        Your argument about the organization is funny particularly since I addressed that long ago.


        Yes, laws are presumed to be constitutional, that was always implicit in my comments. But that doesn't mean they are, in fact, constitutional.

        I've explained why I think the ERPO, as exercised in this case, probably crosses the line from a constitutional perspective.
        I did it several times.
        I have adequately supported my belief that the law is unconstitutional. And you haven't understood a word I have said, yet you are convinced I'm wrong and you're right.

        What happened to your "current law" argument? I'm assuming you discovered I was completely right about the constitution is supreme
        And yet, many examples were mentioned in this thread where there is no need to charge somebody with a crime in order to confiscate his guns or in order to affect his rights.

        So, no you did not explain adequately why you think the ERPO laws are unconstitutional. No charge and no initial hearing are not enough reasons to make a law unconstitutional. This is according to what CURRENT laws and current legal thinking says. I even gave you citation of challenges at the state level where ERPO laws survived legal challenges. I am not into deciphering what you think I meant.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          And yet, many examples were mentioned in this thread where there is no need to charge somebody with a crime in order to confiscate his guns or in order to affect his rights.

          So, no you did not explain adequately why you think the ERPO laws are unconstitutional. No charge and no initial hearing are not enough reasons to make a law unconstitutional. This is according to what CURRENT laws and current legal thinking says. I even gave you citation of challenges at the state level where ERPO laws survived legal challenges. I am not into deciphering what you think I meant.


          Yep, you showed me.
          But just in case, you might want to read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments. Just sayin'
          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


          • #65
            A friend of mine who lives in one of these "Red Flag" states called me a week ago to tell me his wife of 27 years has filed for divorce,
            it is an amicable situation. He has a clean record and has worked at the same job for 24 years, but because his wife has filed for divorce he cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition because this is considered a "trigger event".
            To Hell with the Bill of Rights...
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              A friend of mine who lives in one of these "Red Flag" states called me a week ago to tell me his wife of 27 years has filed for divorce,
              it is an amicable situation. He has a clean record and has worked at the same job for 24 years, but because his wife has filed for divorce he cannot purchase a firearm or ammunition because this is considered a "trigger event".
              To Hell with the Bill of Rights...
              And, that's the problem with "Red Flag" laws. A good idea turned evil by those with an agenda. In this case, those advocating gun control and confiscation see these laws as a work around to gain their political goals. The set conditions within the law that have the broadest reach in the name of "safety." Thus, a divorce automatically becomes a reason to deny someone a firearm and possibly even force them to surrender any that they possess, taken as an absolute. Doesn't matter the divorce is amicable. Doesn't matter if neither party is inclined to violence. All that matters is the possibility exists that violence might occur according to those making this law and that's sufficient to sanction the parties. After all, who can argue with erring on the side of "safety" those making the rule will tell you.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                And, that's the problem with "Red Flag" laws. A good idea turned evil by those with an agenda. In this case, those advocating gun control and confiscation see these laws as a work around to gain their political goals. The set conditions within the law that have the broadest reach in the name of "safety." Thus, a divorce automatically becomes a reason to deny someone a firearm and possibly even force them to surrender any that they possess, taken as an absolute. Doesn't matter the divorce is amicable. Doesn't matter if neither party is inclined to violence. All that matters is the possibility exists that violence might occur according to those making this law and that's sufficient to sanction the parties. After all, who can argue with erring on the side of "safety" those making the rule will tell you.
                Or God forbid your doctor prescribe medicine, here is the liberal logic, see if you can follow,
                1. A person who has a long history of mental illness with violent bouts can't be forced into mental health care, if they decide not to take medications it is their absolute right.
                2. If that person kills others it is because other law abiding perfectly sane peop,e own guns.
                3. If a law abiding perfectly sane person is prescribed a mild anti depressant to treat a skin condition triggered by anxiety that person must forfeit all weapons and be p,aced on a watch list.
                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

                  Or God forbid your doctor prescribe medicine, here is the liberal logic, see if you can follow,
                  1. A person who has a long history of mental illness with violent bouts can't be forced into mental health care, if they decide not to take medications it is their absolute right.
                  2. If that person kills others it is because other law abiding perfectly sane peop,e own guns.
                  3. If a law abiding perfectly sane person is prescribed a mild anti depressant to treat a skin condition triggered by anxiety that person must forfeit all weapons and be p,aced on a watch list.
                  And therefore, ALL politicians must forfeit both guns and armed bodyguards. There is no such thing as a mentally healthy, entirely trustworthy politician, and they attract people who want to do them harm, increasing the likelihood of collateral damage to entirely innocent bystanders.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                    And therefore, ALL politicians must forfeit both guns and armed bodyguards. There is no such thing as a mentally healthy, entirely trustworthy politician, and they attract people who want to do them harm, increasing the likelihood of collateral damage to entirely innocent bystanders.
                    I agree, and as most of our anxiety is caused by politicians they should be held responsible!
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X