Other State Fatal Gun Confiscation Attempt

[Lexingtonuninc]

Reminds me of the recent SCOTUS hearings, but with a fatal end.
Guilty until proven innocent........

 

[ma96782]

Battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong.

Aloha, Mark

 

[orygun]

Well, that's a bunch of bubblegum.

 

[nwslopoke]

nobody knows, the article didn't say why the relative got the order on him. But we do know a reasonable man would have argued his case in court and proved the person a liar.

I would say history doesn't prove that to be necessarily right. Depends or who you are and where you live.

 

[SUPER X]

A man's sister swore out a "red flag" gun confiscation order on him. For some unfathomable reason the police served it at 05:00. He met them at the door armed and an argument ensued. The homeowner was fatally shot.

Md. officers serving 'red flag' gun seizure fatally shoot armed man

This was going to happen somewhere and it will happen here someday. The law in Oregon you do not get to know who the accuser is and do not get to confront them in a court of law. Nor does the accusser get punished for lieing.It will undoubtedly be abused just like the domestic violence laws sometimes are.
If A person was Batbubblegum crazy I can see the justafacation for it . But for some unqualified person to make that call with no evidence is Rediculess.

 

[Boboclown]

nobody knows, the article didn't say why the relative got the order on him. But we do know a reasonable man would have argued his case in court and proved the person a liar.

This one time in divorce court...

Guilty until proven innocent is the way the law works, innocent until proven guilty is only for the books. It would cost a lot of money to go to court, money he may not have. In the article a relative said he likes to speak his mind, perhaps sister didn't like that and took advantage of the red flag law.

 

[notazombie]

First of all, this was a really weak piece of reporting with almost no useful facts. Article says the police were there to talk to him the evening before. If there was a concern/complaint why didn't they confiscate then? Too many witnesses? If there is pounding on the front door at 5am, how many on this forum might conceivably be armed when they investigate the noise? Article says he put the gun down then picked it back up. Was it to shoot a cop or hand it over to them? Article says a shot was fired that hit nothing, then police shot him. Who fired that first shot? All this horribly written article does is leave room for speculation. Maybe uncle Scary was a total POS, maybe not. Maybe auntie Scaredypants had legit concerns, maybe she was vengeful beeotch who used the system to win an argument. We'll probably never know.
Bottom line is that these red flag laws are dangerous and unconstitutional. The situation itself escalates the situation. Things like this will be happening more and more. We just may not hear about it.

 

[Stomper]

Not to mention the permanent schism caused by this that will be in that family for GENERATIONS....

 

[mkwerx]

Red flag laws need to go. There was already a process for legal committment, or obtaining a restraining order which results in temporary removal of arms - this is another tool more likely to be abused by cowards and women of ill intent, scorned ex's, bubblegumy coworkers, girlfriends who get pissed off.

Nope, like mandatory DV arrests this is a club weilded way too often.

How many guys on here ever had a crazy woman threaten to call the cops and claim they had been hit? Think that won't escalate with red flag laws?

These incidents are going to become more common, and at some point things will break. Either cops will start refusing to execute the orders (unlikely) or a war will break out and anyone in any government issue uniform becomes a target. Look for more Waco type incidents, and look for more summary executions of citizens at the hands of the police. The goons who will follow orders to keep their paycheck outnumber those who will draw the line and do whats right, at least in urban areas and among state & federal agencies. If local cops refuse to do the deeds, they'll bring in staties and feebs like they did with Bundy and Finnicum.

Oregon law hides the cops identities now in those situations, so they can kill citizens with virtual impunity.

These laws are put in place to push us further toward the divide they are not written by Jenny Joe Concerned Citizen, they are written by a bunch of lawyers and political hacks that push the agenda of disarming us. Trying to get federal law changed has proven almost impossible of late, so they attack at state level. They seek to expand prohibited person definitions and cast due process aside for expediency because only gun owners are going to be targetted. Its for the children, don't you know...

 

[Member 34319]

America 2018.

Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

 

[nwslopoke]

Now, I prefer the 1970s Red Flag law. You threaten or touch my sister you can expect an *** woop'n from me then any cousin that may come thru. That worked pretty good. To me that's not vigilantism its natural law.

These current red flag rules don't make people any safer from those that want to do harm. They propose guns are the only way to hurt someone or yourself but as we just saw in the stabbing in Seattle this week, that isn't the case. This woman was killed in a public place where I can believe she would expect a higher level of safety.

If you are so dangerous your guns have to be removed you are dangerous enough that you need to be taken off the streets. Taking guns by force will usually make a bad situation worse, from my standpoint.

 

[Geardo]

If cops come to your house for a "red flag" and demand your guns and you say no, there is zero chance of you leaving that situation alive.

I hope the best outcome is obvious to everyone, if the fact you are not leaving alive is already set.

 

[Geardo]

The law is rather anti-American and possibly escalates a situation into violence where none would have been. Taking a person's firearms is confrontational naturally. Many perfectly law abiding Americans when pressed into such a situation despite a generally respectful and law abiding disposition may find themselves rather rebellious of such a notion.

Well said sir!

 

[11Charlie]

First off the article sucked!!

Second I don't know a guy on this forum that wouldn't answer his door armed at 5 AM!! What in the he!! did they expect to happen at that hour!

 

[Geardo]

First off the article sucked!!

Second I don't know a guy on this forum that wouldn't answer his door armed at 5 AM!! What in the he!! did they expect to happen at that hour!

They got what they wanted and expected I would bet.

 

[11Charlie]

They got what they wanted and expected I would bet.

If that is what they want and continue to do this sort of thing then they better prepare for deaths on both fronts. I know guys that will put up one hell of a fight!

 

[Koda]

What needs to happen is someone needs to sue the state or PD for a wrongful death, as well as challenge the constitutionality of the lack of due process.

 

[Geardo]

.gov has a habbit of reinforcing the need for .gov. As in, hey if we can prove this guy is crazy, it justifies the new task force we created for taking crazy peoples guns.

The second any new government agency, task Force, etc comes into existance, its sole purpose is survival and securing nore funding.

The same thing happens in the private sector, but due to capitalism and profit requirements, the fat gets trimmed regularly.

 

[titsonritz]

Second I don't know a guy on this forum that wouldn't answer his door armed at 5 AM!!

Not just at 5 AM, either.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

BUT.......IF WE COULD SAVE JUST ONE LIFE..............
IM SOOOO SICK OF DEMOCRATS