I Don't Understand Reg Flag Laws

[Rigby5]

No harm, no foul

Even if you are found to be a danger and your guns are permanently taken, they will be sold and you will get the money

How can you still not get it?
The person who ratted on them is going to die if you do not take the suspect into custody.
Permanently taking firearms does NOTHING in this society, to make the person less dangerous, in any way.
Just as anyone can get pot or pills, the dealers also always have a few extra firearms for the right price.

 

[Rigby5]

They had hearing, but were denied bail. What does that have to do with the topic? Sounds like nothing to me.

Denying bail to people without criminal record, is in general, illegal.
The only purpose of bail is supposed to be to ensure they show up in court.
And these people WANT a day in court.
They would look forward to it.

And it is related to the topic because if you can hold the Jan 6th people who were not accused of violence, then how can those who are being accused of potential violence, NOT be held without bail?

 

[White 6]

Again you totally and completely missed the point.
What I said is that our government is guilty of mass murder.
It is criminal.
Morally, ethically, and legally, it should be totally destroyed, immediately, by force.
Obviously what I said is that I am way too chicken to be part of that destruction.
But we certainly should not make it easier for the government to prevent everyone from implementing justice.

You are singing to the choir and thinking you will impress a 20 plus year combat arms officer, that retired mostly because didn't need the money and no longer got to blow shit up himself, as no longer a line officer, but a staff officer due to rank? Giddouda hea ya doidy slob you

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Temporarily and based on valid evidence

Those who make false claims can be prosecuted

Yea, kinda like all those who break elections laws. Doesn’t happen.

 

[White 6]

No, I was describing the correct way it has always been done for thousands of years.
You do not just anger the suspect by violating their home, but you ensure there is no violence because you take them into custody immediately.

Thats the way red flag laws have worked for thousands of years? What planet are you from?

 

[Rogue AI]

This is a lie.

Protective orders are perfectly Constitutional, gunowners are afforded comprehensive due process, where there is no ‘theft’ of property.

Yet another thread filled with rightwing ignorance, demagoguery, and lies.

Bullshit. This is commie nonsense that ignores innocent until proven guilty and ignores the standards of evidence and probable cause based solely on hearsay.

The so called due process you speak of comes only after the government has seized property with standards that do not match a regular search warrants.

 

[Rigby5]

They might be difficult to understand if one is ignorant of the law.

Like other laws, protective orders follow the rule of law and the right to due process of the law as codified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Government may act pursuant only to a court order based on facts and evidence presented to a judge or magistrate.

A gunowner is afforded a fair hearing to present evidence as to why his firearms should be returned.

Protective orders authorize neither the ‘taking’ nor ‘confiscation’ of firearms.

Firearms are returned to the gunowner once the risk is determined to be no longer present.

Wrong.
Since the defendant is never present at a red flag hearing, then no fact or actual evidence is presented.
All that is present is inuendo and wild accusations.

The idea they can later get their possessions back is a violation of prior restraint.
You have to prove guilt and danger first, with the presumption of innocence.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Not really, you can appear in court and contest the forfeiture

There was no due process at Uvalde or Buffalo

Due process needs to come BEFORE seizure, not AFTER.

 

[Rigby5]

Thats the way red flag laws have worked for thousands of years? What planet are you from?

No.
Red flag laws never existed before because they are inherently illegal and incredibly stupid.
What I said is that instead what has always been done, what is legal, and what works, is that you take a person suspected of being dangerous, into custody.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Temporarily and based on valid evidence

Those who make false claims can be prosecuted

As far as I know no one has ever been prosecuted for filing malicious complaints in nasty divorces or custody matters. Before I'd go along with this I'd need IRONCLAD guarantees of prosecutions for malicious or even mistaken complaints.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Repubs closed the asylums, medicated the inmates & turned them out into the streets. Big Pharma paid them well for that.

No, the ACLU effectively closed the asylums when they sued and made it impossible to incarcerate a mental patient against their wishes short of a clear and immediate danger and even then, only until they were stabilized by drugs.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The accused isn't given notice of any court hearings.

If there is enough evidence to seize someone's weapons because he is a danger to himself or others, there is enough evidence for a 72-hour mental health hold during which a court could evaluate him and the situation. If he truly is a danger, keep him confined and after a court hearing with attorneys for BOTH sides present presenting evidence, THEN take his weapons into some kind of escrow (for lack of a better term) where he has no access to them, and the government can't just steal them. That would protect everyone.

 

[White 6]

No.
Red flag laws never existed before because they are inherently illegal and incredibly stupid.
What I said is that instead what has always been done, what is legal, and what works, is that you take a person suspected of being dangerous, into custody.

Probably should be. I just can't go with 30 days for observation just to get a hearing. No way. People's lives can get ruined with that crap, some people living so close to the barely making it line could lose too much other stuff, situations, employment, credit worthiness, not to mention just being locked up basically with no charges except suspicion for 30 days. If initiated by a Karen complaint, we've had judges around the area that had sex with divorcing women in chambers for favorable treatment in their case. Bad for the woman to intentionally take it laying down so the husband takes it from behind without even knowing what's coming round. Just sayin.....
I can't write it, but I know wrongly written when I see and hear it, not on general principle but in specific action.

 

[daveman]

I get your points.

There were police officers killed and/or injured by Trump's mob.

The US military failed to respond to the call for help by the police. The order wasn't given.

Flynn's brother is guilty of treason.

The president of the US called for a violent overthrow of government.

And I appreciate the faith being held by the military mind. No, I can't too, but in any case, it's not my military. I'm visualizing a situation in which the CIC is empowered to order the military to do whatever pleases him.

Trump has caused the system to be fatally flawed and that's why nobody can have complete faith in the system.

Do you have faith that Milley could uphold your Constitution with lethal force? If so then I'll relent and admit that you can have faith.

Fwiw, you'll be aware that Milley has already demonstrated that, at the expense of making a mockery of the system.

Trump didn't break any laws. Democrats did, and haven't been punished for it. Democrats made people lose faith in the system.

 

[Blues Man]

That is what I kind of don't understand. We use some form of "due process" to take their guns away because these people are such a threat to society but then, after taking their guns away, we just let these same people who have been deemed a danger to society through some form of "due process", just run around loose?

Let's take an example, of which I will be very kind to the left. Jimmy Smith has been found guilty of domestic violence, terrorist threatening, has been slapped with one or more restraining orders, and numerous witnesses have testified that he has repeatedly threatened to kill his girlfriend and her family. He's out on bail or what have you but he's got those RO's against him. So, we use a red flag law to take his guns away. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he got more than enough "due process" in order to take those guns away. Meanwhile, not too long afterwards, his girlfriend and her family are discovered murdered. I'll be kind to the left and say that he was not able to get guns to do the job because gun control laws are just so damned good. He used a different means of murdering them. So, maybe someone on the left can explain to me the value of the red flag law in this case.

In your example he already had restraining orders out on him.

Red Flag laws can be used to deny rights to people even if they don;t have a TRO issued.

In fact the accused may not even be notified that there will be a hearing and the order to deny his rights can be issued in absentia. The accused is not given the opportunity to retain counsel or even to face his accusers

There is no requirement for expert testimony when the accused is said to be mentally unstable

That is a denial of due process

 

[Blues Man]

This is a lie – both ignorant and wrong.

Someone subject to a protective order is not ‘accused’ of anything; it’s a civil proceeding, not criminal.

A red flag revocation of rights can be done when there is no TRO

Red flag laws allow the denial of rights and seizure of property from people who have committed no crime based on nothing but the opinion of civilians

 

[Blues Man]

If there is enough evidence to seize someone's weapons because he is a danger to himself or others, there is enough evidence for a 72-hour mental health hold during which a court could evaluate him and the situation. If he truly is a danger, keep him confined and after a court hearing with attorneys for BOTH sides present presenting evidence, THEN take his weapons into some kind of escrow (for lack of a better term) where he has no access to them, and the government can't just steal them. That would protect everyone.

That's a big IF.

And it requires an exam by a mental health professional not merely the opinion of any civilian

 

[daveman]

Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun​

They'll either take your guns or shoot you dead.

Democrats are okay with either.

 

[j-mac]

"
Even worse than other forms of gun control, red flag laws don’t just violate the Second Amendment; they also violate the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment.

I understand the sincerity of those wanting real solutions to these senseless atrocities. I do as well (and have yet to meet anyone who doesn’t). But the American people should never surrender their constitutional rights to tackle a criminal problem.

The rights and liberties enshrined in these amendments to the U.S. Constitution weren’t just invented in 1791 with the Bill of Rights. They didn’t just spring up by magic. For more than 800 years — even before Magna Carta — men and women have fought to protect and codify our precious freedoms. See what happens when you ask a Russian, a Venezuelan, a Zimbabwean, a Saudi, or even (sadly) a Brit about the right to bear arms, due process, or the right to a trial by jury."

Why ‘red flag’ laws are more dangerous than you think

This month’s shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have politicians once again demanding the ability to violate our constitutional rights.

www.washingtontimes.com

1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence​

2. Congress Lacks the Authority​

3. We Have Federalism​

4. Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process​

5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence​

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged​

7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime​

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws | Jon Miltimore

The AP reports Congress is seriously considering red flag gun legislation. The problem is there is little evidence that red flag laws⁠ work, though they pose clear ethical and constitutional concerns to civil libertarians.

fee.org

 

[Independent thinker]

They might be difficult to understand if one is ignorant of the law.

Like other laws, protective orders follow the rule of law and the right to due process of the law as codified by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Government may act pursuant only to a court order based on facts and evidence presented to a judge or magistrate.

A gunowner is afforded a fair hearing to present evidence as to why his firearms should be returned.

Protective orders authorize neither the ‘taking’ nor ‘confiscation’ of firearms.

Firearms are returned to the gunowner once the risk is determined to be no longer present.

I still don't understand. You're saying that there is enough due process to take this person's guns away but even though you have enough evidence that this person is clearly a danger to themselves or others, you turn around and let them roam around freely. That's what I don't understand. If you have enough evidence to take their guns away then you have enough evidence to take them away and either lock them up or get them help.