DOJ Launches National ‘Resource Center’ To Aid Authorities In Taking Firearms From People Deemed ‘Threat To Themselves Or Others’

[Hollie]

Once again you demonstrate that you cannot have a fact based adult discussion on the topic. Rather, you stick to ideologically programed talking points like the good troll bot that you are. Then you proceed to show that you are so fucking delusional as to believe that you can ascertain my emotional state by my responses. The fact is that I am just having a blast fucking with your stupid ass head, and find you quite amusing. You have offered NOTHING of substance to defend you position, so do not flatter yourself in thinking that you can trigger me into an emotional state. You are not smart enough. But you do have blood on your hands

You seem to be the one throwing a fit. I'm relaxed and having fun watching you squirm

Once again, your screeching tirades are pointless.

Your cutting and pasting of the same tedious pablum serves what purpose?

 

[BlackSand]

Once again you demonstrate that you cannot have a fact based adult discussion on the topic. Rather, you stick to ideologically programed talking points like the good troll bot that you are. Then you proceed to show that you are so fucking delusional as to believe that you can ascertain my emotional state by my responses. The fact is that I am just having a blast fucking with your stupid ass head, and find you quite amusing. You have offered NOTHING of substance to defend you position, so do not flatter yourself in thinking that you can trigger me into an emotional state. You are not smart enough. But you do have blood on your hands

.

I guess the only real difference would be that you aren't even amusing ...

.​

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Once again you demonstrate that you cannot have a fact based adult discussion on the topic. Rather, you stick to ideologically programed talking points like the good troll bot that you are. Then you proceed to show that you are so fucking delusional as to believe that you can ascertain my emotional state by my responses. The fact is that I am just having a blast fucking with your stupid ass head, and find you quite amusing. You have offered NOTHING of substance to defend you position, so do not flatter yourself in thinking that you can trigger me into an emotional state. You are not smart enough. But you do have blood on your hands

You seem to be the one throwing a fit. I'm relaxed and having fun watching you squirm

.

So report me.

.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sure, and while we are at it, cops should not arrest people who they suspect committed a crime until they go before a judge. What you people don't understand is that due process does not mean that the authorities cannot act before a hearing. People who have their guns take do indeed get due process because those red flag laws mandate a hearing in a specified short time frame

The gunowner has done nothing illegal. Due process has to come first, otherwise the system is ripe for abuse.

 

[Esdraelon]

Well, they are angry, deranged, and deny reality.

So yep by that definition.

And this is the group you expect cops to simply walk up and disarm? Really?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The gunowner has done nothing illegal. Due process has to come first, otherwise the system is ripe for abuse.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, The point is not whether or not they have done something wrong. If it is derermine that there is a high probability that they will do someting they should not have a gun.

We take a persons car keys away if they are proven to be visually impaired. We don't wait for them to kill someone.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

So report me.

.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/07/red-flag-gun-laws-constitution-due-process/

Red-flag laws, which allow guns to be temporarily taken from people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, are one of the few gun-control regulations that have bipartisan support. “I’m generally inclined to think some kind of red-flag law is a good idea,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said shortly after the May 24 school shooting in Uvalde, Tex. Key senators have told reporters that an agreement could be reached soon on legislation that would include incentives for more states to pass such laws.

There is strong popular support for red-flag laws — also known as extreme-risk laws — in both parties, and more than a dozen states have adopted them in the past few years (bringing the total to 19 plus the District of Columbia). Social science research suggests that they work, most strikingly in preventing gun suicides.

Some gun rights advocates and their allies in Congress say they violate the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th Amendments. “Depriving citizens of Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process, is a clear violation of our Constitution,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees “due process of law” whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” But the basic design of extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review article.

CC AZrailwhale
Hollie

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/07/red-flag-gun-laws-constitution-due-process/

But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures, should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees “due process of law” whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” But the basic design of extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review article.

CC AZrailwhale
Hollie

.

So, you didn't report me.

Why not?

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

.

So, you didn't report me.

Why not?

.

I prefer to just watch you self destruct

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The gunowner has done nothing illegal. Due process has to come first, otherwise the system is ripe for abuse.

Firearms, Extreme Risk, and Legal Design: “Red Flag” Laws and Due Process - Virginia Law Review

Extreme risk protection order (“ERPO”) laws—often called “red flag” laws—permit the denial of firearms to individuals who a judge has determined present an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Following a wave of adoptions in the wake of the Parkland murders, such orders are now...

virginialawreview.org

This Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the applicable due process standards and identifies the primary issues of concern. It concludes that, despite some variation, current ERPOs generally satisfy the relevant standards. It also notes those features that are likely to give rise to the strongest challenges. The analysis both builds on and suggests lessons for other areas of regulation where laws are designed so as to lessen extreme risk.

The focus on the right to keep and bear arms is unsurprising, given the magnetic pull of the Second Amendment in nearly any political or legal discussion of gun regulation; the tendency is often to evaluate any proposed rule related to firearms for its conformity with that right in particular.17 17.See generally Joseph Blocher, Gun Rights Talk, 94 B.U. L. Rev. 813 (2014) (arguing that the invocation of the Second Amendment in debates over proposed gun control laws has defeated many of these measures).Show More But a myopic focus on the Second Amendment unnecessarily flattens the gun debate and minimizes different—and often stronger—constitutional claims.18 18.A federal court in California, for example, blocked on First Amendment grounds a Los Angeles law that would have required city contractors to disclose ties to the NRA. As the NRA put it, the “First Amendment Defends the Second.” See First Amendment Defends the Second, NRA-ILA (Dec. 16, 2019), NRA-ILA | First Amendment Defends the Second [NRA-ILA | First Amendment Defends the Second].Show More More generally, it demonstrates the importance of firearms law and scholarship which consider how gun rights intersect with other constitutional rights, including those emanating from the First,19 19.See, e.g., Timothy Zick, Arming Public Protests, 104 Iowa L. Rev. 223, 236–37 (2018) (considering, interalia, the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly and their interaction with the Second Amendment); Luke Morgan, Note, Leave Your Guns at Home: The Constitutionality of a Prohibition on Carrying Firearms at Political Demonstrations, 68 Duke L.J. 175, 179, 211–13 (2018) (same).Show More Fourth,20 20.See, e.g., Jeffrey Bellin, The Right To Remain Armed, 93 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1, 4–5 (2015) (considering implications for search and seizure).Show More and Fourteenth21 21.See, e.g., Pratheepan Gulasekaram, “The People” of the Second Amendment: Citizenship and the Right to Bear Arms, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1521, 1538 (2010) (illustrating and analyzing the difficulties of limiting “the people” to non-citizens).Show More Amendments.22

 

[AZrailwhale]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, The point is not whether or not they have done something wrong. If it is derermine that there is a high probability that they will do someting they should not have a gun.

We take a persons car keys away if they are proven to be visually impaired. We don't wait for them to kill someone.

"high probability" does not trump constitutional rights. I would support an immediate hearing with lawyers present to protect both the gun owner and society, but NOT preemptive action without due process. Your car key example is a red herring. Even then you have to PROVE his eyesight is impaired before taking away his license, you can't do it because his eyesight MIGHT be impaired. If you want an immediate court hearing in front of a real judge before confiscation, I'm all for it. But not immediate confiscation and a court hearing somewhere down the road. If someone is enough of a danger to have his 2nd Amendment rights disregarded, he is enough of a danger to be incarcerated until a competency hearing can be held and incarceration is far more effective at preventing violence than confiscation.

 

[Libby von H]

When the clowns in Biden’s corrupt DOJ launch a national gun grabbing program, it’s time to be concerned about abuse and mismanagement.

There hasn’t been a more anti 2A pretend President than Biden. There hasn’t been a more corrupt DOJ than that run by Garland. This is just a clown show that is wide open for abuse.

DOJ Launches National ‘Resource Center’ To Aid Authorities In Taking Firearms From People Deemed ‘Threat To Themselves Or Others’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a Saturday press release that the new national resource center “will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.” Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as “red flag” laws, allow authorities to confiscate firearms from a person whom a court deems to be a risk to himself or others. ERPOs also prevent a person from buying or possessing a gun for the duration of the order.

I see a SCOTUS absolute overthrow in the works.
Constitution gives POLICE POWER to the states

"In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, The point is not whether or not they have done something wrong. If it is derermine that there is a high probability that they will do someting they should not have a gun.

How does taking away someone's guns based on the "high probability they will do something wrong" not violate their rights?
How does taking away their guns negate the threat they pose themselves and others?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How does taking away someone's guns based on the "high probability they will do something wrong" not violate their rights?

Rights are not absolute and must be considered in relation to the rights of others. The right to have a gun is not greater than the right of others to not live in fear or be killed. It called common sense policy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How does taking away their guns negate the threat they pose themselves and others?

It does, only if there are also safeguards in place to prevent them from getting more weapons

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does, only if there are also safeguards in place to prevent them from getting more weapons

Ahhh.
Going to take away the baseball bats, hammers, and kitchen knives, too?
Close all the bridges, and stop traffic?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rights are not absolute and must be considered in relation to the rights of others.

The right to keep and bear arms, specifically, is not subject to a means-end test.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

So... No.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The right to keep and bear arms, specifically, is not subject to a means-end test.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

So... No.

Except that you missed a few things:

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.​

In the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” [3]

On June 9, 2016 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that “[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and “good cause” for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146]

A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violate the Second Amendment between the 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed. [157]

Gun Control - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

gun-control.procon.org

Neither Heller nor McDonald prohibiprohibiting cts the government from dangerous people from posessing guns

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except that you missed a few things:

Not in the slightest.

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.​

The 2nd Amendment, unquestionably, protects an individual right to own guns.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And the limits of that protection can be determined with a simple test:

...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Demonstrate to the class how "red flag laws" or "extreme risk protection orders pass this test; absent this demonstration, they presumptively violate the 2nd,

 

[M14 Shooter]

On June 9, 2016 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that “[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and “good cause” for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146]

You missed something:

It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home....

...The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

NYSRPA v Bruen
USSC, 6-3

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu