Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

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

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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'

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    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.
    Of course you do realize that trying to explain how Constitutional Law works to a layman who is willingly ignorant of it is about the same as explaining it to a Klingon.

    Though, if his logic is upheld, I rather think there's some potential. According to the United States Government, John Brown was a traitor and a terrorist who led an insurrection that assaulted government property and murdered people at Harpers Ferry and had to be put down by elements of the United States Marine Corps. Thus, all of these "John Brown Gun Clubs" are praising and glorifying a terrorist and traitor and engaging in the procurement of arms and training and they should have their weapons seized out of hand without recourse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I suggest you follow the conversation and realize the examples I have mentioned or even the examples other people mentioned when there is not any hearing before the action that affects people rights. I even gave you a link in the beginning describing the issue on hand


    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

    Apparently, you read it and did not understand the point and how it is relevant to the situations of ERPO CURRENT LAW we discuss.


    Just like you do not understand what I am saying about the membership in an extremist organization. You still do not understand that my claim is about MY VIEW about how the current law can change when a domestic extremist organization is involved in murders and not about how the current law treats now a membership in an extremist organization. And we can be at war with any extremist group (foreign or domestic) which is affiliated with violence.

    In short, you are wasting my time when you prove yourself incapable of following the conversation.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Even though you keep saying I’m wrong, you’ve yet to point out where I am wrong either in my discussion of the constitution or the process involved in an ERPO. You say my illustration is “weak”, because of the need for hearings. You know, “due process”. Anyway, thank you for demonstrating your grasp of the constitution and giving me a laugh.

    You claim I’m wrong about membership in extremist organizations, but fail to explain where my error is. The organization is Nazis and rather than address the actual Organization, you try to change it to a foreign group we are at war with.
    Regardless, Sticking to the actual facts, members of extremist groups like Nazis, don’t lose their constitutional rights because you don’t like them. The 1st amendment protects freedom of association. That freedom ends when you engage in acts in furtherance of criminal conspiracies of the subject group. Until then, you can hang out with anyone.
    When you can come up with some actual facts to support your feelings I might pay attention.

    You keep saying “current law” but don’t identify this magic current law that you are relying on. This may surprise you, but the Constitution is “current law” and it is also “supreme” where there are conflicts with local laws. Even ERPO laws(See the “Supremacy clause”).

    So, you haven’t proved anything I’ve said is wrong or anything you’ve said is right, but you’re still certain I’m in error.
    You’re kicking my ass aren’t you.







    I suggest you follow the conversation and realize the examples I have mentioned or even the examples other people mentioned when there is not any hearing before the action that affects people rights. I even gave you a link in the beginning describing the issue on hand


    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

    Apparently, you read it and did not understand the point and how it is relevant to the situations of ERPO CURRENT LAW we discuss.


    Just like you do not understand what I am saying about the membership in an extremist organization. You still do not understand that my claim is about MY VIEW about how the current law can change when a domestic extremist organization is involved in murders and not about how the current law treats now a membership in an extremist organization. And we can be at war with any extremist group (foreign or domestic) which is affiliated with violence.

    In short, you are wasting my time when you prove yourself incapable of following the conversation.
    Last edited by pamak; 27 Oct 19, 11:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post


    And the justification you gave to explain why this law violates the constitution is weak because it was based on a blanket statements about the need to have a hearing or a charge . I already gave you examples where there is not such need with different other decade old laws that still stand.


    Your answer also demonstrates that you still do not differentiate between claims (such as those in the previous paragraph) regarding what the current laws are and claims about what the laws should be. Does the first, second and any other amendment protect an American from various legal consequences if he joins ISIS? If a domestic group has a history of violence (and in this case members of this neonazi group have been involved in murders) why should not it be classified together with terrorist groups like ISIS? All the above are not about how the current law treats domestic extremist groups right now. They are about how the laws should and can treat domestic extremist groups without violating the constitution.

    Even though you keep saying I’m wrong, you’ve yet to point out where I am wrong either in my discussion of the constitution or the process involved in an ERPO. You say my illustration is “weak”, because of the need for hearings. You know, “due process”. Anyway, thank you for demonstrating your grasp of the constitution and giving me a laugh.

    You claim I’m wrong about membership in extremist organizations, but fail to explain where my error is. The organization is Nazis and rather than address the actual Organization, you try to change it to a foreign group we are at war with.
    Regardless, Sticking to the actual facts, members of extremist groups like Nazis, don’t lose their constitutional rights because you don’t like them. The 1st amendment protects freedom of association. That freedom ends when you engage in acts in furtherance of criminal conspiracies of the subject group. Until then, you can hang out with anyone.
    When you can come up with some actual facts to support your feelings I might pay attention.

    You keep saying “current law” but don’t identify this magic current law that you are relying on. This may surprise you, but the Constitution is “current law” and it is also “supreme” where there are conflicts with local laws. Even ERPO laws(See the “Supremacy clause”).

    So, you haven’t proved anything I’ve said is wrong or anything you’ve said is right, but you’re still certain I’m in error.
    You’re kicking my ass aren’t you.








    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    And I see it as violating the 4th Amendment, as there is no evidence presented that would rise to the level of Probable Cause for a judicial official to issue a Search Warrant.

    Cambronne sees things through the courtroom legal perspective, I see through the 'street' legal perspective. Under both perspectives, we are finding serious constitutional deficiencies with this law, and through the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and no law can be made that supercedes the Constitution. That is why, when it comes to 2nd Amendment stuff (simply because it's the most challenged Amendment, no one challenges the 13th), the only two possible routes are a Supreme Court Ruling that 'interprets' something in a particular way, or following the Amendment process to repeal the 2nd....a la Prohibition. The Supreme Court has made case law allowing laws such as the NFA to exist, but on the flip side has restricted the scope of those laws rather severely depending on the year.

    What we have in this case is the FBI used a law which has not yet been fought on the SCOTUS level. This law allowed them to circumvent the extensive and consistently interpreted protections of the 4th Amendment and effect a search and seizure of property. This law also denied this man not only his 2nd Amendment Rights and his 4th Amendment Rights, but also his 5th and 14th Amendment rights. It pays a little ex post facto lip service to the 14th Amendment, by having a hearing well after the seizure, which is rather bare faced as being a hearing where the man having his property seized must prove his innocence in order to receive it back.

    Contrast this with the procedure for an Involuntary Commitment, including seizure of firearms, I'll use the NC procedure, which I have been well versed in for the past 10 years.

    --I identify someone who appears to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. My investigation determines that they need a mental health evaluation and they will not or cannot get that voluntarily.

    --IF and ONLY IF there is an exigency, I may physically detain them. If there is not, then I won't....Typically I'll have an officer 'stand by' with them in place while I do the process.

    --I, or an immediate family member, go before the Magistrate, and under oath provide oaths, affirmations, or exhibits showing that this subject is or apparently is mentally ill AND a danger to themselves or others. Just being mentally ill is insufficient, I MUST show WHY they are dangerous. If I am unable to prove this to the Magistrate's satisfaction, the person is immediately released OR the standby officer is immediately told to clear.

    --IF and ONLY IF the Magistrate finds that I have satisfied the proper burden of proof at this early stage, he will issue an Involuntary Commitment Order. With that in hand, I may place them in custody and compel them to go to the nearest 24hr mental health facility (typically the Emergency Room's on-duty Psych). This order is only good for 24 hours, so if I cannot find them for some reason in that 24hrs I must prove again why at this new time they are still mentally ill AND dangerous.

    --Presuming an IVC has been issued and served, upon service I'm allowed to seize any firearms or other dangerous or deadly weapons on or about their person or that I see in plain view that belong to them. If I want to go further I'll need either consent or a search warrant.

    --I take them to the ED. IF and ONLY IF the psychiatrist that evaluates them decides that they do in fact need mental health treatment and that they will not or cannot obtain that on their own and that they are in fact a danger to themselves or others, the psychiatrist will admit them as an involuntary patient....otherwise they are immediately released.

    --They are admitted as a patient. They will have a hearing within 1 week and every week thereafter before a judge where the psychiatrist must show why they must remain under the Involuntary Commitment. If the psychiatrist is unable to satisfy the judge, they are immediately released.

    --IF someone (typically family or DSS) petitions the courts that this person is Incompetent to discharge their own affairs due to their mental illness, then there will be a hearing. At this hearing, it must be proven to a judge that they are indeed mentally incapable and/or dangerous and incompetent.

    --Remember those weapons I could seize all the way back at the IVC being issued by the magistrate? If at any one of these intervening points the courts do not decide in favor of this person being competent, I must return those weapons to them without undue delay. So in order to seize a weapon under the IVC statutes, I must show before 3 judges and a psychiatrist that this person is indeed Mentally Ill and a Danger to Themselves or Others. The presumption is always that their rights are whole and asserted.

    That's what we call due process of law and an adversarial justice system. Not this crap where a mere accusation can be upheld without evidence, and the person subject to this accusation must have a hearing where there is no presumption that the accuser is in fact Wrong. Would you stand for all of your ability to freely express your opinion to be removed from you based upon an accusation without due process?


    Your whole post implies that somehow in this case the judge would be simply satisfied with a "mere accusation without evidence based on any level of burden of proof. Why is this assumption?

    One example from the link
    .
    Last year, @propublica reported that Kaleb J. Cole, who lived in Blaine at the time, helped organize weapons training in Washington and Nevada.https://www.propublica.org/article/atomwaffen-division-inside-white-hate-group …



    https://www.propublica.org/article/a...ite-hate-group
    .
    ProPublica obtained the chat logs of Atomwaffen, a notorious white supremacist group. When Samuel Woodward was charged with killing 19-year-old Blaze Bernstein last month in California, other Atomwaffen members cheered the death, concerned only that the group’s cover might have been blown.

    In the case you describe under certain circumstances there IS a presumption that the person subjected to a forced mental evaluation is wrong to resist such mental evaluation. And in your case an expert on mental issues evaluates if a certain person is dangerous or not and then he has to convince a judge. In this case, the law permits another expert on domestic terrorism make his case in front of the judge. And there is nothing I see to suggest that a mere accusation by such an expert would be enough to convince a judge.

    ERPO laws have stood challenges in state courts.

    https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...ection-orders/


    Hope v. State, 163 Conn. App. 36, 133 A.3d 519 (2016); Redington v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied (rejecting challenges based on the Second Amendment, the Indiana right to bear arms, the takings clause of the US Constitution, and vagueness). The Indiana Supreme Court subsequently refused to hear an appeal of the case. 997 N.E.2d 356 (Nov. 7, 2013);

    https://www.1dca.org/content/downloa...09405740_i.pdf


    The fact that the law has not been challenged at SCOTUS level does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it will be defeated at the SCOTUS level. It can very well be the result that the SVOTUS judges do not want to take the case because they do not consider it as an important enough case which violates any of the different amendments you have mentioned .

    Also, even in ERPO laws, the affected person has the opportunity to challenge the order

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-ar...lemented-them/

    Here's where it gets technical. All states allow orders to remove an individual's firearm to be issued ex parte, meaning without notice to the individual. Though the ex parte order can be executed quickly, it is brief in duration. A court hearing for a final order to remove the gun for a longer period of time generally follows, and at this hearing, the individual has the opportunity to contest the order.

    The duration of ex parte orders varies from state to state, according to the
    Giffords Law Center, a research organization which advocates for more restrictive gun control measures. For example, in California, a hearing must be held within 21 days of an ex parte order. In New York, however, the hearing must be held within just six days.


    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, Other than that, I'm sure you're spot on.

    And I'm sorry, but the 1st amendment protects membership in "extremist" groups like Nazis.
    And Nazis can own guns. (2ndA) and in order to lose the right to own a gun, there must be "due process of law". (5th and 14th).

    I never said I knew the ERPO law better, I said it probably violated the constitution.

    And the justification you gave to explain why this law violates the constitution is weak because it was based on a blanket statements about the need to have a hearing or a charge . I already gave you examples where there is not such need with different other decade old laws that still stand.


    Your answer also demonstrates that you still do not differentiate between claims (such as those in the previous paragraph) regarding what the current laws are and claims about what the laws should be. Does the first, second and any other amendment protect an American from various legal consequences if he joins ISIS? If a domestic group has a history of violence (and in this case members of this neonazi group have been involved in murders) why should not it be classified together with terrorist groups like ISIS? All the above are not about how the current law treats domestic extremist groups right now. They are about how the laws should and can treat domestic extremist groups without violating the constitution.
    Last edited by pamak; 27 Oct 19, 04:52.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X