Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

anatta said:
you can argue in the abstract that the individual rights are unassailable -but they are obviously not.
we even put restrictions on free speech like no incitement to violence.
The same principle applies to the 2nd. From what I understand those who are red flagged will get due process
Click to expand...
those 'incitements' are not free speech. your rights do not allow for the violation of the rights of others...........so libel, slander, defamation, incitement to violence are all infringements on the rights of others and therefore are not free speech.

anatta said:
it's a short hand term obviously -but if there is shown cause ( and i would expect that to be enumerated/statute)
and a judicial hearing does in fact find them to be a danger top society -there is the deranged mind
Click to expand...

its not due process if your property is taken and your rights are violated first...........
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just curious; but let's go with the OP premise.

What recourse does the accused have, if the Court decides that they're not a danger to themselves or others, against the accuser(s)?
Click to expand...
from what I understand.
there is a "show cause" hearing ,and then a hearing before a judge. I imagine it's similar to the Baker Act. * guessing*
 
anatta said:
from what I understand.
there is a "show cause" hearing ,and then a hearing before a judge. I imagine it's similar to the Baker Act. * guessing*
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I asked; because it's obvious there would be a hearing.

My question is concerning what recourse someone has, when it's show that the accusation has no merit; but he's still had his property confiscated, regardless of it's return.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
those 'incitements' are not free speech. your rights do not allow for the violation of the rights of others...........so libel, slander, defamation, incitement to violence are all infringements on the rights of others and therefore are not free speech.
Click to expand...
with due respect I was not talking to you .
but you are making the case that there are no absolute individual rights. They all have regs, if not actual limits.
If one shows a propensity for hate AND violence by threats or behaviors, then the red flag can be targeted.

That's the statute which is similar to incitement to violence = you are a clear and present danger,and subjected to a hearing


its not due process if your property is taken and your rights are violated first...........
Click to expand...
with cause they can be forfeited
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That wasn't what I asked; because it's obvious there would be a hearing.

My question is concerning what recourse someone has, when it's show that the accusation has no merit; but he's still had his property confiscated, regardless of it's return.
Click to expand...
if the accusation has no merit it would be shown in the hearing -so why would property be confiscated?
 
anatta said:
with due respect I was not talking to you .
but you are making the case that there are no absolute individual rights. They all have regs, if not actual limits.
If one shows a propensity for hate AND violence by threats or behaviors, then the red flag can be targeted.

That's the statute which is similar to incitement to violence = you are a clear and present danger,and subjected to a hearing


with cause they can be forfeited
Click to expand...

you are conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other. that has absolutely no bearing on your so called 'regulations' because they are not rights to begin with............don't fall in to the trap of declaring everything is a right, but because we have laws, those rights can be regulated.............that's doomed to failure.
 
anatta said:
Pres. Donald Trump called for a national Red Flag law on Monday morning after two weekend mass shootings. A similar law, or or Extreme Risk Protective Order, was signed into law by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis earlier this year.

@LindseyGrahamSC
says he's made a deal with @SenBlumenthal
to create a federal grant program to encourage states to adopt 'red flag' laws.

Hopes to introduce legislation soon and says Trump "seems very supportive" of the idea after conversation this morning.
~~

Looks like the plan to offer states carrots to pass red flag laws is coming together. Red flag laws let courts temporarily take weapons from people deemed threats to themselves/others.
Click to expand...

Oh gee, no possibility for abuse there.
 
Stretch said:
A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.
It's a good compromise. Being temporary offers the person the chance to show how the claim against them is false.
I'm willing to err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

Unfuckingbelievable.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other. that has absolutely no bearing on your so called 'regulations' because they are not rights to begin with............don't fall in to the trap of declaring everything is a right, but because we have laws, those rights can be regulated.............that's doomed to failure.
Click to expand...
no point in you debating abstract Constitutional principles here. I've gone over and over this.
This has become a national exigent circumstance -for all the abstract discussions ( which are fine)
there is a pressing need to do something to stop these deranged minds.

from my understanding of the Constitution it was never meant to stop legislation to regulate those rights .
If you have problems with this - i suggest you take it up with SCOTUS
 
countryboy said:
Oh gee, no possibility for abuse there.
Click to expand...
any law has a potential for abuse. I sincerely believe drug testing my piss is a violation of my privacy as an illegal search
But it is what it is..it should be noted there is due process for those flagged
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top