Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Into the Night]

I agree about unnecessary fear. If we had educational classes at a young age it might make a difference. My family are all hunters. We start them young with bb guns teach them the right way to handle firearms.
I think drive bys would happen no matter what some people just kill for no reason.
Every parent on the street with an AR15 would be crazy. Parents get into fights over T-ball.

And they sometimes wind up with one of them dead, if it comes to blows.

 

[Into the Night]

Look! I don't want to get into arguing about the Constitution.

Lie. You are arguing about the Constitution even now.

There is the original document, and then there is the majorly ratified version of 1789-1791 that includes the Bill of Rights. So even 20 some odd years after it was written, even the same (FEDERALIST) forefathers knew, they didn't think of everything or every American's individual rights when it was drafted in 1776. And, you know, and I know, that the Bill Of Rights did not even include the rights of women or minorities. So, it has been amended 100's of times since then.

There are currently 27 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Rights are not given by the Constitution, neither does the Constitution discuss all rights.

But for you people that think that the Constitution is somehow carved in a stone tablet, from some burning bush set ablaze by GOD- and try to justify your skewed political positions today based on the original Constitution are totally bat-shit-crazy people. You people who's minds are stuck in the Revolutionary era of White Nationalists, Protectionists, Misogynists, Federalists, Purists, Racists, Zenophobes, and Zealots, who actually feared democracy, are totally bat-shit-crazy.

It is an inspired document. Your list is incomplete about those that despise democracy, which included George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc.

I can't deal with people who are anti-democracy

Too bad. Unfortunately for you, there is nowhere you can go to live in a democracy. There are currently no democracies anywhere on Earth.

and bat-shit-crazy!

YOU are the one using the image of the Joker as your icon.

But, I will fight them politically-

and I will fight you politically. I will stand with the Constitution.

until we become a PURE democracy in every way-

No way. Not if I can stop it. Democracies are self destructive. They usually result in a dictatorship or an oligarchy in short order.

not just play around the edges of it in a politically hypocritical autocratic way!!

Dictatorships are not democracies, but democracies usually quickly dissolve into dictatorships or oligarchies.

And if you are so dead set against Democracy-

I am.

then maybe it is you who should pack up and go find you another country to live!

Why? We are not a democracy here.

 

[Into the Night]

Going to need more then just your say so, to support this.

See your local drug dealer about this. Many of them will happily sell you a gun, no check or anything.
I can go to Walmart and buy ammunition. No check or anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Fair enough. It was only an analogy though, not a direct comparison. I should have used an inanimate object
like a lawn mower. You see signs of oil leaking and it's sputtering. You need to stop the mower long enough
to check it all out, make some repairs and then fire it up again to see if it's running properly.
Sometimes malfunctioning humans just need to be temporarily stopped and fixed in order to continue
operating smoothly.

A human being is not a lawnmower or just a machine that needs 'fixing'.

 

[Into the Night]

If you let individual juries decide whether something is constitutional through jury nullification the entire constitutional system has been distorted beyond recognition. The typical jury knows nothing about the Constitution and jury nullification does not even apply to civil cases such as various provisions of the Affordable Care Act which was struck down as unconstitutional. Such cases would not appear before a jury.

That's because juries can't change or interpret the Constitution either. Neither can a judge. Neither can the President. Neither can Congress.

 

[Into the Night]

I despise commie nutsacks like you!

Not a commie, dude. Neither do I support democracy. Pay attention.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Not a commie, dude. Neither do I support democracy. Pay attention.

You either support democracy- or you are a commie nutsack!

 

[Flash]

That's because juries can't change or interpret the Constitution either. Neither can a judge. Neither can the President. Neither can Congress.

But the courts do interpret it all the time and it is those interpretations that we live by daily. Your claims that they cannot do that do not change reality.

Your claim that, for example, naturalization laws include the power to control immigration or that executive orders are contained in Article II are just that---interpretations--since those powers are clearly not specifically contained in the Constitution. Laws controlling immigration are based on court interpretation that Congress has that power because they are clearly not contained within the document but from the interpretation the power is included in naturalization.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

No.
The guns are taken first, there can be no due process.
Get your facts right or stop commenting.

Wrong the authorities must get a judge to sign the papers before any action can take place. Try researching the law instead of shooting your mouth off.

 

[Into the Night]

You either support democracy- or you are a commie nutsack!

Neither. False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

But the courts do interpret it all the time and it is those interpretations that we live by daily. Your claims that they cannot do that do not change reality.

No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

Your claim that, for example, naturalization laws include the power to control immigration

They do, by definition.

or that executive orders are contained in Article II are just that---interpretations--since those powers are clearly not specifically contained in the Constitution.

They are. Read Article II.

Laws controlling immigration are based on court interpretation

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

that Congress has that power

They do. They are authorized under Article I, $8.

because they are clearly not contained within the document

It is. Article I, $8.

but from the interpretation the power is included in naturalization.

Naturalization includes immigration, dumbass. They are part of the same thing.

 

[Stretch]

A human being is not a lawnmower or just a machine that needs 'fixing'.

OK.......time out......I won't try to explain again.......Peace

 

[Flash]

They do, by definition.

The definition as provided by the courts--not the Constitution or dictionary or government.

Whose definition and where do we find the definition of naturalization that includes immigration?

If you tell me to "go find it" that means you cannot provide any support for your claim.

 

[Damocles]

Some really really stupid people think that they somehow make up a Militia- just because they own a gun!

OK fine!

We intend to follow the Constitution by not just regulating Militia's- We intend to "Well" regulate you idiots by limiting the kinds of arms you can legally bear and we shall not be infringed! LOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Just following the Constitution!

Remember!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Almost everything about this post is wrong. In the language of the time "well regulated" meant top notch and highly proficient. Other words that changed meaning over time: awesome was not equivalent to "very good" back then, nor was "incredible"... there's tons of them, in this case it unfortunately makes ignorant people who don't understand that some meanings of words in language change over time think it means what they want it to mean rather than what it clearly states.

The first part is the reason the right exists, the second part is the right. At the time there was no standing army and the government was able to call up a militia, the citizens (every time "The People" is used in the constitution it means citizens) have a right to arms because the government has an army...

Written in today's language and today's meaning it would read more like this: The government has a highly trained and proficient standing army, which is necessary to its ability to function, therefore the right of the people to maintain arms that can be used to defend against that army shall not be infringed. Shall not is legalese for "not in any way"...

You have to remember that the founders had quite literally just finished fighting a war against a government that tried to take away their weapons. This right exists and was enumerated in the constitution to ensure that this would not happen again.

 

[Jarod]

Almost everything about this post is wrong. In the language of the time "well regulated" meant top notch and highly proficient. Other words that changed meaning over time: awesome was not equivalent to "very good" back then, nor was "incredible"... there's tons of them, in this case it unfortunately makes ignorant people who don't understand that some meanings of words in language change over time think it means what they want it to mean rather than what it clearly states.

The first part is the reason the right exists, the second part is the right. At the time there was no standing army and the government was able to call up a militia, the citizens (every time "The People" is used in the constitution it means citizens) have a right to arms because the government has an army...

Written in today's language and today's meaning it would read more like this: The government has a highly trained and proficient standing army, which is necessary to its ability to function, therefore the right of the people to maintain arms that can be used to defend against that army shall not be infringed. Shall not is legalese for "not in any way"...

You have to remember that the founders had quite literally just finished fighting a war against a government that tried to take away their weapons. This right exists and was enumerated in the constitution to ensure that this would not happen again.

Someone has been studying his NRA talking points!

 

[Damocles]

Someone has been studying his NRA talking points!

Somebody hasn't read any of my posts for the time he has known me. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not trust them. Although I do study language and words, where they come from and how their meaning changes over time. When you learn languages it is often because stuff like that interests you.

 

[Rune]

Wrong the authorities must get a judge to sign the papers before any action can take place. Try researching the law instead of shooting your mouth off.

Um, might want to research before spewing.
The defendant isn't at the hearing which is why there is no due process.
Try to keep up.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

In some states you can go to an auction and buy a gun or ammunition right there on the spot. No check of anything.

Going to need more then just your say so, to support this.

See your local drug dealer about this. Many of them will happily sell you a gun, no check or anything.
I can go to Walmart and buy ammunition. No check or anything.

How many AUCTIONS have you been to, that your local drug dealer was holding??

Ammunition has nothing to do with it and Barron just threw it in, to see how many he could sucker into the idea.

 

[domer76]

Almost everything about this post is wrong. In the language of the time "well regulated" meant top notch and highly proficient. Other words that changed meaning over time: awesome was not equivalent to "very good" back then, nor was "incredible"... there's tons of them, in this case it unfortunately makes ignorant people who don't understand that some meanings of words in language change over time think it means what they want it to mean rather than what it clearly states.

The first part is the reason the right exists, the second part is the right. At the time there was no standing army and the government was able to call up a militia, the citizens (every time "The People" is used in the constitution it means citizens) have a right to arms because the government has an army...

Written in today's language and today's meaning it would read more like this: The government has a highly trained and proficient standing army, which is necessary to its ability to function, therefore the right of the people to maintain arms that can be used to defend against that army shall not be infringed. Shall not is legalese for "not in any way"...

You have to remember that the founders had quite literally just finished fighting a war against a government that tried to take away their weapons. This right exists and was enumerated in the constitution to ensure that this would not happen again.

You started out fine, but wandered.

The reason for citizen militia, and the concomitant right to bear arms, was just as you stated. There was no standing army and the militia was the first front of resistance. Hence, the right to bear arms.

Here is where current situation derails that 18th century reality. We now have the biggest, baddest standing military in the world. That now negates the reason that personal possession was necessary. There is NO NEED for a citizen population fir any national self defense.

 

[Gonzomin]

so you want to see someone who has never committed a crime have his property and liberty taken away? and you wonder why we consider liberalism a mental disease

Not have anything taken away. Just not permitting a white power type to have a gun. They are violent and dangerous people. We wonder why rightys cannot understand even the most simple ideas.