Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[wired]

So? Either civil rights are real and they matter or they aren't and they don't.

You can't say people have civil rights while simultaneously having them be stripped away at a whim and if it may please the court (crown) be allowed to have them back.

Same could be said of any right . Name another absolute right that doesnt have legal restrictions. One.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I perceive that your entire, "it's not a big deal, it requires evidence" viewpoint is demonstrably incorrect with respect to how this can go wrong.

For example, there are plenty of courts, judges, lawyers, politicians who will all share their opinion that the 2nd amendment allows such things as high cap cagazine bans, "semi auto assault rifle bans," modern technology bans, etc.

So if the legal system can distort the second amendment as much as it already has, it is clearly obvious, by historical precedent, that something such as a "red flag order" could become distorted as such as well.


Link to Washington's version for reference:

Chapter 7.94 RCW Dispositions: EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

That isn't what I said, but nice Strawman anyway

But in the end I guess maybe when everyone says they 'don't live in fear' that statement has an asterisk attached

 

[Koda]

And the guilty until proven innocent doesn't stand up to scrutiny because as of today all Red Flag laws do require a presentation of facts / evidence / allegations to a judge before the Red Flag order is issued and that process is not fundamentally different than the one used for search or arrest warrants, a process that has stood the test of time and many court reviews

Except that search and arrest warrants are issued when a crime has happened. An ERPO law removes a constitutional right without evidence of a crime, grant it most cases will be legitimate threats but then why dont they just arrest the suspect? Thats what baffles me about ERPO laws.

And a lot of this depends on the political views of the judge. If someone falsely accuses a gun owner of threats, imagine how that will go with an anti gun judge, obviously there is a conflict here so lets at least take the guns out of the equation.

 

[American123]

Same could be said of any right . Name another absolute right that doesnt have legal restrictions. One.

It sounds like your argument is that:

"Prior violations of the constitution give sufficient precedence for current and future violations of the constitution."

 

[American123]

That isn't what I said, but nice Strawman anyway

But in the end I guess maybe when everyone says they 'don't live in fear' that statement has an asterisk attached

"I don't believe "Red Flag Laws -> Banning Rope" is anything more than hyperbolic fear mongering and so no, I see no 'good evidence" that that chain of events are likely to occur. And the guilty until proven innocent doesn't stand up to scrutiny because as of today all Red Flag laws do require a presentation of facts / evidence / allegations to a judge before the Red Flag order is issued and that process is not fundamentally different than the one"

Your statement can be accurately paraphrased by my statement. Maybe learn the definition of a 'strawman' before trying to claim I used one.

 

[wired]

It sounds like your argument is that:

"Prior violations of the constitution give sufficient precedence for current and future violations of the constitution."

no, more like "There are no absolute rights" . They dont exist.

 

[Cavedweller]

The constitutionality of laws is determined by the courts. It says as much in the constitution. The courts have ruled that firearm centric laws can be constitutional. You dont determine constitutionality. Neither do I . The courts do.

Has there been a court challenge of red flag laws yet? I am not aware of the Supreme Court hearing such a case yet.

See I got this new laptop with an unlighted keyboard and the lamp is on the other side of the room. Its called a typo.

Just messin' with ya.

 

[American123]

no, more like "There are no absolute rights" . They dont exist.

Was that the intent of the constitution?

 

[Cavedweller]

Name another absolute right that doesnt have legal restrictions. One.

How about the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination? Are there circumstances where a person can be compelled to incriminate themselves? I can't think of any.

 

[wired]

How about the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination? Are there circumstances where a person can be compelled to incriminate themselves? I can't think of any.

Plea bargaining makes a mockery of the 5th. The 5th has other holes in it. .The doctrine of dual sovereignty amongst them

 

[SpudBob]

no, more like "There are no absolute rights" . They dont exist.

how did a discussion of red flag laws become an exercise in philosophy??? This idea has been examined for eons by many. I digress, though, untill they establish the "Thought Police"!

 

[wired]

how did a discussion of red flag laws become an exercise in philosophy??? This idea has been examined for eons by many. I digress, though, untill they establish the "Thought Police"!

Because there are no absolute rights. The 2nd amendment included. Even the modern 2nd amendment patron saint Antonin Scalia said as much in the Heller decision.

 

[ma96782]

I am not sure we are that far away from this ,

The school system is full of wannabe tyrannical marxists. As a teacher (who isn't one of those) it's a tough battle but fighting that super bias grade and that teacher is necessary and warranted. That teacher's grade would have never stood up to scrutiny because any writing assignment that was opinion based can have no correct answer and it can only be graded on the merit of the argument supplied and how well any supporting evidence was used to justify such an argument.

LOL.
I don't KNOW as I haven't read the paper. But, I could imagine that......

Since the paper was about Covid. Perhaps, it's all about the "FACTS and TRUTH" as dictated by the WHO, NIH, POLITICIANS and the MEDIA. They have decided. Remember........it's for your own good. There is no room for "questioning or mis-information" by the public (especially by "students" as in this case). Speculation(s)? That maybe.......CHINA and their Wuhan Laboratory could have had a leak.

China said.......it was NOT their fault. Then, China along with their co-conspirators, proceeded to thwart any serious discussion or inquiry along those lines. So there it is.......

"It's OFFICIAL."

Deviation from the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is well, put it this way. YOU will need to be dis-credited and shut down for even bringing it up in the first place. Labeling YOU as a NUT CASE is too lenient of a punishment.

The message is/was sent.
Take this "F" and repent your evil ways.

Aloha, Mark

 

[SpudBob]

Because there are no absolute rights. The 2nd amendment included. Even the modern 2nd amendment patron saint Antonin Scalia said as much in the Heller decision.

Wrong! I can still think, for the moment, what and how I want and there is nothing anyone can do to stop me!

 

[wired]

Wrong! I can still think, for the moment, what and how I want and there is nothing anyone can do to stop me!

Is your right to think whatever you want constitutionally protected and enumerated? Nope. Talking real world and laws here.

 

[Member 53328]

Well someone agrees.

 

[Cavedweller]

Plea bargaining makes a mockery of the 5th. The 5th has other holes in it. .The doctrine of dual sovereignty amongst them

You'll have to do better than that. A person who accepts a plea bargain surrenders their 5th Amendment right. It still exists whether or not they choose to exercise it. Dual sovereignty relates more to double jeopardy than self incrimination. A person tried twice can exercise their right in both trials.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Except that search and arrest warrants are issued when a crime has happened. An ERPO law removes a constitutional right without evidence of a crime, grant it most cases will be legitimate threats but then why dont they just arrest the suspect? Thats what baffles me about ERPO laws.

And a lot of this depends on the political views of the judge. If someone falsely accuses a gun owner of threats, imagine how that will go with an anti gun judge, obviously there is a conflict here so lets at least take the guns out of the equation.

Not all the time, many are issued on suspicion or allegations of a crime

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #57

To some __anti-gunners/or other unkind name you wish to insert here__.

If, you own a firearm. Therefore you are a potential KILLER/MURDERER.

Only the Police and Military should have guns.

YOU (the unwashed masses) should NOT even have access to any firearm. AND, just wanting to have a firearm is a Mental Health Issue. Obviously.......you are NOT sane, reasonable or prudent. See Above.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Member 53328]

Not all the time, many are issued on suspicion or allegations of a crime

True but there has to be enough probable cause (PC) for a judge to sign off on a warrant. And the word/lie of a neighbor, friend, or family member doesn't constitute probable cause. Especially when it's just a he said, she said issue with no action taking place. If we are going to start arresting individuals without due process for words then we as a country are headed in a very scary direction.

It's going to turn into the Middle East where neighbors can snitch on each other due to differences or family feuds without actual evidence. Heaven forbid you "wrong" someone and they know you have guns. They'll just make up a story and you're f-cked.