Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Gonzomin]

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

Wrong. Obama did not encourage or cause people to commit hate crimes. Trump incites haters and white power types.
I am sure when those kids got shot in Sandy Hook you can remember the intelligent and heartfelt speech Obama gave. Trump read a message off a teleprompter badly.

 

[Gonzomin]

then why do you demand that the state has them?

When did I do that?

 

[Gonzomin]

never get through, liberals have stopped it every time, privacy concerns

and besides, take his away today, mine tomorrow , not very American

Mcconnell is sitting on gun bills and many others. Can you post the truth?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

jury nullification has been a right of the people since the magna carta era..................so it hardly rings true that it would break down the entire constitutional system. if people are stupid and don't care to know anything about their constitution, then we don't deserve our freedom.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

situational constitutionality does not negate rights, you fuckwit shitstain. watching you try to discuss the constitution is laughable, at best, especially since you have no citations from the founders that you haven't twisted like a flag in the wind.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

so you want to deprive a certain group of people their rights because you think their beliefs are dangerous.........................sounds like nazi germany to me. you wonder why lefties are despised by sane americans.

 

[Wolverine]

This bill has bi-partisan support, shitstain.

You did not answer the question, you are the weakest link, good bye!

 

[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.

Bullshit.
I never said there isn't a hearing.
I said there is no due process.
Try to keep up.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

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.

Errrr there is no defendant sport! You don't understand what due process means so I'll explain.

due proc·ess
/do͞o prəˈses/
noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

Now show us were it says the person must be present!

 

[Getin the ring]

Wrong. Obama did not encourage or cause people to commit hate crimes. Trump incites haters and white power types.
I am sure when those kids got shot in Sandy Hook you can remember the intelligent and heartfelt speech Obama gave. Trump read a message off a teleprompter badly.

Obama started the war against our men and women in law enforcement, he disrespected our military, and liberals have continued their disenfranchising campaign by disrespecting Christians, Jews, our coal industry and whomever else they see as in the way of their political socialist agenda.

best of luck with that strategy, see you November 2020

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Errrr there is no defendant sport! You don't understand what due process means so I'll explain.

due proc·ess
/do͞o prəˈses/
noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

Now show us were it says the person must be present!

so the right to face ones accuser is now thrown out? you don't need that right anymore? ROFL. do you idiots not see what you're doing to the constitution?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Bullshit.
I never said there isn't a hearing.
I said there is no due process.
Try to keep up.

Which is due process you stupid SOB.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Obama started the war against our men and women in law enforcement

the police are solely responsible for the animosity displayed towards them, nobody else. that so called war started long before obama

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Which is due process you stupid SOB.

a hearing where the so called defendant doesn't have to be to offer rebuttal testimony or witnesses to counter the accusations sounds amazingly like a judicial system that we rebelled from in the 1770s

 

[Celticguy]

Wouldnt be simpler to demand that mental health professionals report those who are a danger to themselves and others as required by law ?
We have more than enough laws. What we lack is enforcement. Lock a few shrinks up and see if compliance doesnt improve.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wouldnt be simpler to demand that mental health professionals report those who are a danger to themselves and others as required by law ?
We have more than enough laws. What we lack is enforcement. Lock a few shrinks up and see if compliance doesnt improve.

how do we know that the law isn't being followed? how do we know that there is actually sufficient showing to these shrinks to trigger the law report?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

a hearing where the so called defendant doesn't have to be to offer rebuttal testimony or witnesses to counter the accusations sounds amazingly like a judicial system that we rebelled from in the 1770s

You are confusing criminal proceedings with a public safety hearing.

"Red flag laws are a fairly simple process. Depending on the state, family members or law enforcement can go to court and seek an order that would allow police to remove guns from the individual’s home and restrict their ability to purchase firearms. The person seeking the order must first fill out a form providing evidence of danger to others or self, then the court holds an expedited hearing. If a judge agrees that the individual is a threat, their guns will be removed for a temporary period that can last from a few weeks to a year."

These laws could like any law be abused. But they can also be effective. Example the El Paso shooter made plenty of public statements that showed he was a potential danger to others. So even though I firmly support the second amendment I can also see that something must be done to slow or prevent other mass shootings. If you have a plan on how to do this then let's hear it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are confusing criminal proceedings with a public safety hearing.

"Red flag laws are a fairly simple process. Depending on the state, family members or law enforcement can go to court and seek an order that would allow police to remove guns from the individual’s home and restrict their ability to purchase firearms. The person seeking the order must first fill out a form providing evidence of danger to others or self, then the court holds an expedited hearing. If a judge agrees that the individual is a threat, their guns will be removed for a temporary period that can last from a few weeks to a year."

These laws could like any law be abused. But they can also be effective. Example the El Paso shooter made plenty of public statements that showed he was a potential danger to others. So even though I firmly support the second amendment I can also see that something must be done to slow or prevent other mass shootings. If you have a plan on how to do this then let's hear it.

you don't make laws with the intention of the good it might do. you make laws after considering how badly they can be abused. these red flag laws are ripe for abuse because it allows ANYONE with a grudge to make ANY kind of complaint and the victim doesn't get to do anything about it until afterwards. When said victim is shown to have not been a threat, what would you consider suitable award for their rights violations?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

you don't make laws with the intention of the good it might do. you make laws after considering how badly they can be abused. these red flag laws are ripe for abuse because it allows ANYONE with a grudge to make ANY kind of complaint and the victim doesn't get to do anything about it until afterwards. When said victim is shown to have not been a threat, what would you consider suitable award for their rights violations?

Let's see yelling fire in a crowed theater (free speech) laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, trespass laws. Just to name a few that can and are often abused. I'm sorry but any law can be abused it's our right to challenge the charges. Same as Red Flag laws.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Let's see yelling fire in a crowed theater (free speech) laws, DUI laws, speeding laws, trespass laws. Just to name a few that can and are often abused. I'm sorry but any law can be abused it's our right to challenge the charges. Same as Red Flag laws.

nobody gets gagged before going in to the theater. DUI checkpoints violate your 4th Amendment rights, speeding laws are victimless crimes, and i don't know what you're trying to do with trespass laws. If a law can be abused, why is it still a law? the founders didn't want that. Now, when a person is found to have had his rights violated by the abuse of these laws, what do you consider an appropriate recompense?