Are Red Flag Laws Constitutional?

SavannahMann

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2016
14,540
6,818
365
Under the Bruen decision the Supreme Court ruled that for a restriction to be valid, it had to have a historical analog or example. Something similar enough to be used as a basis for modern restrictions.

That seemed simple enough. If they didn’t have a restriction at the time the Second was ratified you can’t have it now.


I’ve read the actual decision. Both Bruen and this one.


And now the Supremes have decided some regulations and restrictions that didn’t exist at the time of the second are fine. As long as they comply with the principles of the founders. And those principles appear to include restricting firearms from someone who authorities believe have a good chance of using firearms to harm another.

In this case, someone who was subject of a Domestic Violence restraining order.

My first thought was that was certainly not the principles I had learned about History. I always admit I could be wrong. But in this case, I don’t think so.

My second thought was that the principle that the Supremes say exists to justify the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence restriction, is the same one people use to justify Red Flag laws.

So I wonder, using the Rahimi decision, if Red Flag Laws would be ruled as Constitutional?
 
No, I personally do not feel red flag laws are at all constitutional. They deprive someone of constitutional rights without due process.

Absolutely 100% illegal IMHO.

I would agree using the Bruen decision as a guide. However Rahimi seems to set another standard. Clarence Thomas dissented for that very reason, that this decision went against the standard of Bruen.
 
Under the Bruen decision the Supreme Court ruled that for a restriction to be valid, it had to have a historical analog or example. Something similar enough to be used as a basis for modern restrictions.

That seemed simple enough. If they didn’t have a restriction at the time the Second was ratified you can’t have it now.


I’ve read the actual decision. Both Bruen and this one.


And now the Supremes have decided some regulations and restrictions that didn’t exist at the time of the second are fine. As long as they comply with the principles of the founders. And those principles appear to include restricting firearms from someone who authorities believe have a good chance of using firearms to harm another.

In this case, someone who was subject of a Domestic Violence restraining order.

My first thought was that was certainly not the principles I had learned about History. I always admit I could be wrong. But in this case, I don’t think so.

My second thought was that the principle that the Supremes say exists to justify the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence restriction, is the same one people use to justify Red Flag laws.

So I wonder, using the Rahimi decision, if Red Flag Laws would be ruled as Constitutional?
Doesn't this ruling concern only those person's under a domestic violence based restraining order?
 
Why do "red flag" laws need to be explicitly tied to gun seizure? Red flag laws should focus on mentally ill people who are dangers to themselves and others.

As with the DV restraining orders, it seeks to remove the tools of destruction from someone who may present a threat to another while authorities investigate and judicial process continues.
 
Under the Bruen decision the Supreme Court ruled that for a restriction to be valid, it had to have a historical analog or example. Something similar enough to be used as a basis for modern restrictions.

That seemed simple enough. If they didn’t have a restriction at the time the Second was ratified you can’t have it now.


I’ve read the actual decision. Both Bruen and this one.


And now the Supremes have decided some regulations and restrictions that didn’t exist at the time of the second are fine. As long as they comply with the principles of the founders. And those principles appear to include restricting firearms from someone who authorities believe have a good chance of using firearms to harm another.

In this case, someone who was subject of a Domestic Violence restraining order.

My first thought was that was certainly not the principles I had learned about History. I always admit I could be wrong. But in this case, I don’t think so.

My second thought was that the principle that the Supremes say exists to justify the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence restriction, is the same one people use to justify Red Flag laws.

So I wonder, using the Rahimi decision, if Red Flag Laws would be ruled as Constitutional?

I think Bruen covered blanket restrictions, not anything involving due process.

It's why they didn't allow the domestic violence challenge to stand. To get a restraining order a Judge has to issue it, hence due process. It would be the same with red flag laws if and only if due process is followed.

That blue cities would mangle due process making it impossible to get off these orders is another thing to sue over.
 
Doesn't this ruling concern only those person's under a domestic violence based restraining order?

Rulings are the basis of how we apply the laws. Plural. Bruen applied only to a limited application of law, but in explaining the reason for their decision the Supremes set out a standard, as they do with every decision. That decision, the explanation instructs us as to what, why, and how. What the laws are, and why we can’t do some things that may be prohibited by our constitution, and how to apply this decision in the future.

Using Bruen there have been some interesting developments. A drug user had his conviction overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals because according to them, using Bruen as a guide, the prohibition against drug users buying guns is unconstitutional.
 
I think Bruen covered blanket restrictions, not anything involving due process.

It's why they didn't allow the domestic violence challenge to stand. To get a restraining order a Judge has to issue it, hence due process. It would be the same with red flag laws if and only if due process is followed.

That blue cities would mangle due process making it impossible to get off these orders is another thing to sue over.

A restraining order is issued without any due process. A single person files the request saying I’m afraid. The court doesn’t wait to hear from anyone else. The order is issued. No opportunity to present contradictory evidence. No hearings are held to discuss the matter. The judge signs it and it is done.

At least with the Red Flag laws the police are involved with the request. They present evidence that this individual has made threats or threatening behavior.

Getting a restraining order quashed is practically impossible. Just making the request would be seen as proof of the threat.

The restraining order lasts for months, or years. No appeal is possible. As long as you are under it, you can’t own firearms. The red flag laws have hearings scheduled to consider the matter in a few days or a couple weeks.

So what is the real difference?
 
A restraining order is issued without any due process. A single person files the request saying I’m afraid. The court doesn’t wait to hear from anyone else. The order is issued. No opportunity to present contradictory evidence. No hearings are held to discuss the matter. The judge signs it and it is done.

At least with the Red Flag laws the police are involved with the request. They present evidence that this individual has made threats or threatening behavior.

Getting a restraining order quashed is practically impossible. Just making the request would be seen as proof of the threat.

The restraining order lasts for months, or years. No appeal is possible. As long as you are under it, you can’t own firearms. The red flag laws have hearings scheduled to consider the matter in a few days or a couple weeks.

So what is the real difference?

Done properly it can satisfy due process IF AND ONLY IF the one it is applied to can fight it immediately, like 2-3 days immediately, in front of a judge. That's a fix needed to restraining orders, not due process.
 
Under the Bruen decision the Supreme Court ruled that for a restriction to be valid, it had to have a historical analog or example. Something similar enough to be used as a basis for modern restrictions.

That seemed simple enough. If they didn’t have a restriction at the time the Second was ratified you can’t have it now.


I’ve read the actual decision. Both Bruen and this one.


And now the Supremes have decided some regulations and restrictions that didn’t exist at the time of the second are fine. As long as they comply with the principles of the founders. And those principles appear to include restricting firearms from someone who authorities believe have a good chance of using firearms to harm another.

In this case, someone who was subject of a Domestic Violence restraining order.

My first thought was that was certainly not the principles I had learned about History. I always admit I could be wrong. But in this case, I don’t think so.

My second thought was that the principle that the Supremes say exists to justify the constitutionality of the Domestic Violence restriction, is the same one people use to justify Red Flag laws.

So I wonder, using the Rahimi decision, if Red Flag Laws would be ruled as Constitutional?
Honestly I'm shocked that this far right SCOTUS ruled to limit violent abuser's ability to commit violent abuse. Republicans must be outraged. Good for SCOTUS.
 
Done properly it can satisfy due process IF AND ONLY IF the one it is applied to can fight it immediately, like 2-3 days immediately, in front of a judge. That's a fix needed to restraining orders, not due process.

That’s now how they work. And the court said that not only are restraining orders fine, but the firearm restriction is constitutional too.
 
Should gun stores be required to sell lethal weapons to masked gang members? Of course not. Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are legitimate and Constitutional.
 
That’s now how they work. And the court said that not only are restraining orders fine, but the firearm restriction is constitutional too.

it was 9-1 for that, which means all except for Thomas think Bruen only applies to blanket restrictions like "no rifles, no semi-autos, no concealed carry because we feel like it"

Someone now has to sue when a restraining order won't be lifted even with evidence it was wrong or doesn't warrant existing anymore, and let that go through the courts.
 
Should gun stores be required to sell lethal weapons to masked gang members? Of course not. Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are legitimate and Constitutional.

Meanwhile I have no criminal record and in NYC it takes over $500 in fees and months of waiting just to get a license to keep a revolver in my apartment.

Is that a legitimate restriction?
 
As with the DV restraining orders, it seeks to remove the tools of destruction from someone who may present a threat to another while authorities investigate and judicial process continues.
I know what the law means. I'm saying there is way too much focus on gun control and seizure and nearly nothing about addressing root cause which is mentally ill people.
 
Using Bruen there have been some interesting developments. A drug user had his conviction overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals because according to them, using Bruen as a guide, the prohibition against drug users buying guns is unconstitutional.
Not just Bruen...Robinson v California.
 
I know what the law means. I'm saying there is way too much focus on gun control and seizure and nearly nothing about addressing root cause which is mentally ill people.

The rub is that we no longer have the facilities we once had. In the 1980’s Reagan shut down the last of the federal mental institutions. The states who were supposed to build and staff facilities to take up the slack, didn’t. So there is a shortage of facilities, and people to treat them.

We don't have the beds, and we can’t just lock them up in prison and hope for the best. Prisons are overcrowded too, and the medical care in prisons is worse than the most awful example of mental hospitals.

That’s the problem. Even if we started to focus on mental health, we couldn’t hope to do anything for at least a decade. It would take time to build the facilities, and moreover, training enough Doctors would take years.

So to get started now, would cost billions, and not show any results for a decade, or two?
 
A restraining order is issued without any due process. A single person files the request saying I’m afraid. The court doesn’t wait to hear from anyone else. The order is issued. No opportunity to present contradictory evidence. No hearings are held to discuss the matter. The judge signs it and it is done.

At least with the Red Flag laws the police are involved with the request. They present evidence that this individual has made threats or threatening behavior.

Getting a restraining order quashed is practically impossible. Just making the request would be seen as proof of the threat.

The restraining order lasts for months, or years. No appeal is possible. As long as you are under it, you can’t own firearms. The red flag laws have hearings scheduled to consider the matter in a few days or a couple weeks.

So what is the real difference?
This is not accurate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top