Are Red Flag Laws Constitutional?

[the watcher]

I'll tell you what. You call in a a threat and leave your contact info and then you'll be in a position to talk smack, and I'll support you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I'll tell you what. You call in a a threat and leave your contact info and then you'll be in a position to talk smack, and I'll support you.

You call in the threat.

 

[Esdraelon]

Horrible decision.
Oh, and fuck red flag laws.

The Left is going to keep coming until they are stopped by force. That's just how it is.

 

[Esdraelon]

A restraining order is issued without any due process. A single person files the request saying I’m afraid.

And does that complaint also give the government the latitude to seize a citizen's property and remove his 1A, 2A, 4A rights as well? Red Flag laws do all of that.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Left is going to keep coming until they are stopped by force. That's just how it is.

I suggest you find the votes instead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if its been said once, its been said a thousand times:

If a person is a sufficient threat to himself or others that he cannot be trusted with his firearms, he needs to be taken into custody, as simply removing his firearms does not remove the threat.
Of course, those who support red flag laws consider this ridiculous.
Why?
They don't give a hoot in hell about protecting people - they just want confiscate as many guns as they can.

 

[American Eagle]

Nope. Not the spirit anyway.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And does that complaint also give the government the latitude to seize a citizen's property and remove his 1A, 2A, 4A rights as well? Red Flag laws do all of that.

No, stop that, and remind yourself of the truth: you are your side's Mr. Rogers.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

amp.cnn.com

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

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?

Yes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes.

No, inaccurate reasoning.

 

[jbander]

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.

Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

amp.cnn.com

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

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?

bullshit the courts have made it clear that there can be laws restricting gun. Sawed off shotguns

 

[Vastator]

bullshit the courts have made it clear that there can be laws restricting gun. Sawed off shotguns

And the courts are wrong on that...

 

[jbander]

And the courts are wrong on that...

The supreme court is never wrong as far as the law is concerned. They decide if all laws are constitutional or not , and they have already said that regulating guns is constitutional. You lose worm.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The courts rule for Vastator as well as the rest of us.

 

[Vastator]

The supreme court is never wrong as far as the law is concerned. They decide if all laws are constitutional or not , and they have already said that regulating guns is constitutional. You lose worm.

Wrong again worm. The Constitution was plainly written in language any man can understand. Shall not be "infringed". It doesn't get more simple than that. Anyone opposing that ideology is also handily dealt with, when it comes to threats "both foreign, and domestic"... The Founders knew their shit...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong again worm. The Constitution was plainly written in language any man can understand. Shall not be "infringed". It doesn't get more simple than that. Anyone opposing that ideology is also handily dealt with, when it comes to threats "both foreign, and domestic"... The Founders knew their shit...

Shut up. You are not in charge. Never. Ever. The Scotus is and it has ruled.

 

[Vastator]

Shut up. You are not in charge. Never. Ever. The Scotus is and it has ruled.

Pray the lights never go out... My bad... You ain't religious. Bummer for you...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Perfectly capable handling my own here in the dell

 

[jbander]

Wrong again worm. The Constitution was plainly written in language any man can understand. Shall not be "infringed". It doesn't get more simple than that. Anyone opposing that ideology is also handily dealt with, when it comes to threats "both foreign, and domestic"... The Founders knew their shit...

Fuck you , explain the law against sawed off shotguns then.

 

[jbander]

suppressors, automatics ,multiple states with assault weapons bans, large capacity mags banned in some states.