testtest

Rhetorical Question

Keystone19250

Keystone19250

SAINT
So based on what’s going on specifically the RedFlag laws being a major talking point in gun control I have a concern in regards to what is also going on in the January 6th hearings, so much of what happened on that specific day is being addressed as an attempt to end (democracy) so going back to RedFlag laws and the fact that these laws are….
“Guilty until proven Innocent” is this not the end of (Democracy)?
The old saying
“talking out of both sides of your mouth”
Comes to mind.
Don’t get me wrong as I am all for ending the cycle of violence against the innocent and vulnerable however where is the line drawn?
Someone who doesn’t like the color of your house or maybe you passed gas while cutting your lawn and unfortunately your neighbor knows you have firearms and reports you as being a danger to society, a judge signs off on removal of your guns, your not arrested or charged with a crime but you lose your guns and since your not a criminal you can’t petition for a government supplied defense. I digress…..
When is democracy good and when is it bad??

Your thoughts.
 
Keystone19250 said:
So based on what’s going on specifically the RedFlag laws being a major talking point in gun control I have a concern in regards to what is also going on in the January 6th hearings, so much of what happened on that specific day is being addressed as an attempt to end (democracy) so going back to RedFlag laws and the fact that these laws are….
“Guilty until proven Innocent” is this not the end of (Democracy)?
The old saying
“talking out of both sides of your mouth”
Comes to mind.
Don’t get me wrong as I am all for ending the cycle of violence against the innocent and vulnerable however where is the line drawn?
Someone who doesn’t like the color of your house or maybe you passed gas while cutting your lawn and unfortunately your neighbor knows you have firearms and reports you as being a danger to society, a judge signs off on removal of your guns, your not arrested or charged with a crime but you lose your guns and since your not a criminal you can’t petition for a government supplied defense. I digress…..
When is democracy good and when is it bad??

Your thoughts.
Click to expand...
The Florida law, which has been touted as a model, allows only law enforcement to petition the court for an emergency protection order, necessitating an investigation of some sort. The law spells out due process protections and the evidence must be clear and convincing. Other state versions of the law do not provide due process protections to this extent. I urge you all to read the statute, as it answers many of the questions and misconceptions as to how it may be implemented.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.401.html
 
Keystone19250 said:
So based on what’s going on specifically the RedFlag laws being a major talking point in gun control I have a concern in regards to what is also going on in the January 6th hearings, so much of what happened on that specific day is being addressed as an attempt to end (democracy) so going back to RedFlag laws and the fact that these laws are….
“Guilty until proven Innocent” is this not the end of (Democracy)?
The old saying
“talking out of both sides of your mouth”
Comes to mind.
Don’t get me wrong as I am all for ending the cycle of violence against the innocent and vulnerable however where is the line drawn?
Someone who doesn’t like the color of your house or maybe you passed gas while cutting your lawn and unfortunately your neighbor knows you have firearms and reports you as being a danger to society, a judge signs off on removal of your guns, your not arrested or charged with a crime but you lose your guns and since your not a criminal you can’t petition for a government supplied defense. I digress…..
When is democracy good and when is it bad??

Your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think “ red flag” should be an open, clear danger threat to oneself or others. No gray area or hint . A true “ I will kill you” proven.

Social media post to kill someone, or themselves can lead to an investiagtion, but to just come in and take away hits a lot of “guilty until proven innocent”.
Then a judge can issue the law enforcement to investigate.
So many have posted about doing harm and cops dont follow thru on the investigation.
 
@Keystone19250

I feel you are correct on so many levels. Due process is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Red flag laws, whether initiated by law enforcement or a concerned citizen, makes the person guilty until proven innocent. Don’t even get me started on the fact that the entire burden and cost is placed on the person to get their guns back. Seems like another tax on the poor, since the majority of people reported will probably be lower middle class or below.

The whole sham that is January 6 was the nail in the coffin of this country to me. Whether you liked Trump or not, the last election stinks more than a week old skunk on the side of the road. There should have been multiple investigations. People had every right to protest. I don’t agree with marching through the capital and damaging property, but it was never an attack on our democracy. The people had every right to voice their displeasure. The press has long abandoned any attempt at being impartial, so I understand people wanting to get together and voice their frustrations. Then some bad actors or feds pushed a small number to do dumb things that defined the entire day. Lastly some talking heads/politicians made the day out to be worse than 12/7/1941 and instead of being laughed out of the country, we have this tribunal with one goal, to prevent Trump from being able to run for President again.

Yep, I would say democracy has left the building.
 
In Virginia, the Commonwealth's attorney shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or to other individuals in the near future by such person’s possession or acquisition of a firearm, the court shall issue a substantial risk order. My problem here is the law allows a judge to decide is the facts are clear and convincing. To me this can be a less than objective judgement, especially if the judge is anti-gun. Even worse, because this is a civil proceeding, there is no constitutional requirement for the State to provide counsel for the person subject to the courts action. This means that those subject to a red flag order who can’t afford a lawyer on their own are required to attend the court hearing, where the return of their firearms is deliberated, potentially without counsel present on their behalf. Another concern is if the court finds that the person does not pose a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or to other individuals in the near future, the court shall order that any firearm that was previously relinquished be returned to such person. Does "shall" mean the person will get his or her gun back that day, or does that mean perhaps the court will decide later? Another shortcoming of the law is that any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or attorney for the Commonwealth who is in the course of conducting an investigation undertaken is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Seems kind of a trivial punishment for taking away a Constitution right. Finally, after all is said and done law-enforcement is immune from civil or criminal liability for any damage to or deterioration, loss, or theft of your firearms. My son's deptment is small and it does not have the room to store lots of firearms, nor the effort it takes to keep your guns from being damaged. Just think of your highly collectable, expensive guns being tossed into the trunk of a police car! Again, if there is "clear and convincing evidence" that a person poses a substantial risk then the court should issue a tempory detention order and the person should be held for a psych eval and then given their day in court with counsel present.
 
Hi,

Could a red flag law have stopped the Uvalde shooting? Due process can move slowly. Red flag laws can be abused easily without due process. Let's not forget the meaning of "shall not be infringed". There are a lot of aspects I need to research and ponder. I hope others do the same and not just rely on their emotions.

And that's my profound glimpse into the obvious. 😉


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
The process is nothing new and amounts to a civil order. This is no different when neighbors despise one another over tree limbs or barking dogs.

A person petitions the court most likely with an attorney and a checkbook (fee and filing costs) along with substantiated proof that there is sufficient reason to believe that harm to others and respondent are probable. If granted, the Respondent is then notified to surrender firearms, appear before the court with attorney if desired, and a remedy is sought. Voluntary surrendering firearms is an easy way to resolve matters.

In the matter of emergency order, police petition the court only on behalf of the Petitioner, when the Petitioner presented their evidence to show probable cause exists, that there is an immediate or eminent likelihood of harm to self or others. The court may grant search warrant at this time.

Much is dependent on a Petitioner going through the process at each court hearing. This can become burdensome and often defense draws out the process and the Petitioner withdraws.

The RFL is clear about lying, false claims and purjury. This too is also sorted in court as he said/she said. Very common in domestic related matters both civil and criminal. RFL is clear about returning firearms that are not the subject of any criminal offense. RFL for a convicted criminal offense is another matter whether it be the discharge of the firearm and/or unlawful possession not limited to type of firearm and classification or modification according to local restrictions.

I don’t expect the courts to be overwhelmed by droves of anti2A’s.
There is no and likely never be a federal red flag law and federal court cases are accepted on a limited basis.

If Red Flag Laws were effective, gun violence crime in urban areas would have been substantially reduced by now. RFL’s by definition have been around for over 20 years but the courts have always sought to confiscate and destroy firearms in domestic or criminal matters for ages.
It’s all theater and a knee jerk response for the always screaming libs chanting Do Something.
 
Bassbob said:
If someone is an extreme risk they should be taken out of society to an appropriate facility after they are adjudicated. At which point their 2A rights would be suspended. Taking their guns and leaving them on the street is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
People allowed their elected to ban “appropriate facilities“.
They already shuttered mental health institutions, and now they’re closing prisons faster than coal and nuke fired power facilities. Think about all the weirdos that don’t have firearms shoving people off train platforms or knockout sucker punching in NYC lately and the former mayor had his spouse running a newly created billion dollar (2015) program called Thrive NYC.

Check this out;

cwbchicago.com

#24: Gunman left a woman paralyzed in River North just 4 weeks after officials sent his felony gun case to a "peace circle," prosecutors say

Prosecutors say Ojani Cruz opened fire on a minivan in River North last month, paralyzing a woman and narrowly missing a man, just four weeks after officials referred his felony gun case to a "peace circle" courtroom that specializes in "restorative justice."
cwbchicago.com cwbchicago.com
 
You all are hitting at the heart of the Constitutionality of these laws. Florida's law, for example, has pretty strong due process built in, however the crux of the matter will be, is the due process provided Constitutionally sufficient in the context of the 2nd Amendment? The Supreme Court has ruled in 2021 that warrantless seizure of firearms by police is unconstitutional, but does not address a court order. Does a court order based upon an affidavit meet the requirements of a warrant as stated in the 4th Amendment? I am sure it will not be long before a Red Flag law will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and this question will be answered.
 
I think the hearings regarding January 6th are pure and simple political theater. What a waste of our money.

Since people are being allowed to harass our Supreme Court justices in order to influence their decisions, it looks like governance by whomever makes the most noise will rule rather than our Constitution. Sad.
 
I have no issue with guns removed from mentally unstable persons. The problem lies with the details, ensuring due process and fairness. Hasty statutes may prove problematical.
I've encountered many who I would prefer to be unarmed, primarily due to stupidity, carelessness and/or intemperance. I don't believe they would be covered by red flag laws, yet I don't want to be anywhere near them.
 
My thoughts on the January 6 so called hearings, all political, they don’t want Trump running again in 2024, but if you notice they don’t say anything about the women who got shot and died, but they keep saying some of the capital police some died that day which is a false statement, as for red flag laws, this is a dangerous road, no due process, anybody can say your a dangerous person with no proof and they come in and take your guns, they say you can get them back, but that never happens. Just my thoughts here.
 
Annihilator said:
My thoughts on the January 6 so called hearings, all political, they don’t want Trump running again in 2024, but if you notice they don’t say anything about the women who got shot and died, but they keep saying some of the capital police some died that day which is a false statement, as for red flag laws, this is a dangerous road, no due process, anybody can say your a dangerous person with no proof and they come in and take your guns, they say you can get them back, but that never happens. Just my thoughts here.
Click to expand...

Pretty much lock you up, shame your name, place you in isolation, drain your finances on lawyers, lose any wealth, housing, family, friends and by the time of your next hearing, you’re ready to give up and plea to lesser charge and you’re expected to accept that as meaningful new world justice.

The more They get away with bastardizing the laws and process as written the more Fundamental Transformation™️ becomes the new normal.
 
SimonRL said:
As stated by many others here, my concern with red flag laws is the abuse of these laws that is certain to occur.
Click to expand...

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”​

― Ronald Reagan
 
Keystone19250 said:
Interesting article.

www.heritage.org

Is American Democracy at Risk?

The United States has a history of facing seemingly insurmountable challenges, beginning with its founding when Americans won independence by defeating the most powerful nation in the world.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
Click to expand...
The answer to the question, "is democracy at risk," I'd say yes. Democracy has a long history of being at risk, probably since day one when this concept came into being. Dr. Edwards last paragraph points out the solution: "In this present political crisis, we must resolve anew to preserve and protect that most precious of our possessions—ordered liberty. If we do, we will keep the republic that the Founders handed to us almost two-and-a-half centuries ago." Can't hardly wait for November to get here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top