Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

SmarterthanYou said:
stare decisis..........even though it isn't constitutional........yep, that explains your position
Click to expand...
you are alone in your declaration.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
What was the reason for Marbury v Madison?
Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
 
anatta said:
you are alone in your declaration.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
What was the reason for Marbury v Madison?
Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

this statement basically says 'the constitution didn't give the federal government power to do something, but we say it does'...........see how that doesn't work?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this statement basically says 'the constitution didn't give the federal government power to do something, but we say it does'...........see how that doesn't work?
Click to expand...
When it comes to conflicts, someone has to make the final decision. Interestingly, the writers of the Constitution did not determine which of the three branches of government would be the final arbiter of Constitutional issues. Today, it is assumed that the courts are the final authority on such matters. However, their role wasn’t always clear.

Marbury v. Madison firmly established that the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to determine the constitutionality and validity of the acts of the other two branches of government – a concept that is a fundamental characteristic of American government. But this was not always the case. In Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, the Supreme Court, for the first time, struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. This decision created the doctrine of judicial review and set up the Supreme Court of the United States as chief interpreter of the Constitution.

Historians say that the genius of Chief Justice John Marshall's decision is that it established the Judiciary's power to review the acts of the Legislative and Executive branches and declare them unconstitutional without creating a constitutional crisis at the time.
The Supreme Court's first decision declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional was palatable because it did two things. In it, the Court recognized that Congress gives the Judiciary certain powers and, at the same time, the Court reined in some of its own authority. By initially exercising judicial review with a case that recognized the power of Congress and limited the power of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall effectively established the Supreme Court – not Congress – as the ultimate Constitutional authority without triggering what could have been destructive opposition from the Legislative and Executive branches. This skillful handling of a politically charged situation established the Judiciary as an independent, co-equal branch of government.

The concept of judicial review is so fundamental to the success and maintenance of American democracy that international delegations of judges and court employees, to this day, study the American Judiciary to learn how they might apply this model in their own countries. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has relied heavily on the precedent set by this case to ensure that government acts comply with the United States Constitution. The decision set the stage for pivotal decisions in every century since it was handed down by the Court
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judicial-review_0.pdf

go debate someone else who cares to argue the fundamental concept of review
 
Earl said:
Lots of us have more than one weapon. The Constitution does not limit the number, it just protects their possession, Snowflake.

How are you going to take them from criminals? They are sold daily on the streets.

There are ~ 300 million guns in America.

Will you take them from the Black Panthers, ANTUFA...lots of luck with that. They espouse.black supremacy views either online or in person,
Click to expand...

Notice he's not even talking about taking guns from criminals.

These leftist loons falsely accuse people of "white supremacy" every few minutes. Who thinks it's a good idea to let them and their ilk be the judge of what that even means? Also notice he didn't mention anything about racism and bigotry in the other direction.

This has nothing to do with public safety, or combating racism and bigotry, it's all about disarming the citizenry. I can't believe some of the so-called "conservatives" on this board are falling for this red flag bullshit.
 
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

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...

I get the pitfalls to Red Flag laws but the idea isn’t without some merit.

Recall the FL student who shoot the school up was literally telling people what he was going to do but law enforcement was helpless in preventing it because the shooter hadn’t broken any laws. With a Red Flag law that one could have been prevented.

But, of course, there is potential for abuse and for that reason I’m a little wary of it. But I absolutely think the country should at least debate it.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away.
Click to expand...

Who decides what are white supremacy views, what about black supremacy? Black Panthers nation of Islam what about Anitfa?
 
Hello domer76,

domer76 said:
No, he doesn’t. Recall that he reversed an Obama EO that identified people who were deemed incapable of managing their own affairs in order to reduce the risk of them possessing firearms.
Click to expand...

Yup. This has all the earmarks of ending up the same way. An immediate message against the NRA just after the mass shooting is followed by a reversal the next week. And if that is the case then I shall surely withdraw my approval.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Define the ‘conditions’.
Click to expand...

Already did:

PoliTalker said:
I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away.
Click to expand...

It's a proven bad situation. The combination of possessing an arsenal and expressing white nationalism. That can lead to no good. This is a person looking for trouble.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Darth,



Already did:



It's a proven bad situation. The combination of possessing an arsenal and expressing white nationalism. That can lead to no good. This is a person looking for trouble.
Click to expand...

I’m less concerned about the arsenal [and good luck with that lol] and more interested in ‘expressing white nationalism’.

What do you mean by that, specifically?
 
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

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...

You understand incorrectly.
Red flag laws already exist.

So far, they are being enforced late at night. With no knock. Warrents.

Due process must come before seizure. Such is not the case.

The first victim of this incredibly unconstitutional law will never get due process since the police shot him while stealing his guns and ammo.

You are a dirty fucking liar.
 
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...

Florida passed it's red flag law last year and it appears to be working well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top