Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[Koda]

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

Hopefully theres some sort of hard evidence to support the allegation. Im not certain if erpo laws require that level of evidence to the allegation other than just "they said..."

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"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.

Not that part, this part:

"your entire, "it's not a big deal, it requires evidence" viewpoint"

I never said or even implied it wasn't a big deal, so

Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

Looks like I did use that correctly

 

[BlackTemplar]

So? A judge issues an extreme risk order typically because of a request from law enforcement. Occasionally by family members. Years ago when the cops would come to the house for a domestic call they'd ask if there were guns in the house and they'd take them. You'd have to go get them the next day. This just throws another check by a judge in there. Then you can have your day in court to plead your case.

Oh you mean a fair and expedient trial right? Just like the Jan 6 protestors who over a half a year later still haven't gotten their court date and have been held without bail. And then you get to pay legal fees to get your property back, lose wages etc, can't defend yourself in the meantime. Yeah that sounds reasonable….

 

[wired]

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.

Thats bad enough. Does the 5th amendment right to self-incrimination absolute? When the prosecutor essentially forces a confession to a lesser crime vs the real possibility of greatly extended prison times the defendant never gets his chance in court. He never gets to exercise his right. Sure, he can shut all the way to 20 more years in prison. Pretty Faustian.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

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.

Last I checked Texas wasn't in the Middle East

 

[Koda]

re absolute rights, if it has to be written in ink in order to be a "right" its not an absolute right but just a philosophy.

 

[American123]

Not that part, this part:

"your entire, "it's not a big deal, it requires evidence" viewpoint"

I never said or even implied it wasn't a big deal, so

Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

Looks like I did use that correctly

I believe my paraphrasing is an accurate rendering of your claim.

 

[Cavedweller]

Thats bad enough. Does the 5th amendment right to self-incrimination absolute? When the prosecutor essentially forces a confession to a lesser crime vs the real possibility of greatly extended prison times the defendant never gets his chance in court. He never gets to exercise his right. Sure, he can shut all the way to 20 more years in prison. Pretty Faustian.

You're moving the goal posts. You asked for examples of rights that came without legal restrictions. Now you're talking about abuse of power by the government. Apples and oranges.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I believe my paraphrasing is an accurate rendering of your claim.

OK, long weekend, I seriously have no idea what point you are trying to make

 

[American123]

OK, long weekend, I seriously have no idea what point you are trying to make

To reiterate. You seem to not have a problem with red flag laws because a judge is supposed to review testimony or evidence submitted before the confiscation order can be issued.

Summarized: "they aren't a big deal, they require evidence."

Did I misunderstand your opinion of red flag laws?

 

[ma96782]

Hard Evidence?
The Word of the accuser?

LOL.

Some of you are sooooo funny.

BUT, But, but......perhaps it's understandable?

Nah. Not really.

Remember, the issuing of a RED FLAG and/or TRO is normally an ex-parte process.

The requesting party simply has to make a written/signed request, for protection.
NO ONE is questioning the veracity of the requesting party at this time.
Of course.......things could be different, depending on the jurisdiction.

But based on my experience.....
It's mostly a "rubber stamp" by The Judge. The Judge doesn't have the time nor inclination to actually have a "hearing on the matter." The order is issued and the guns and ammo are taken. Only later.....will a hearing be held.

Once the process starts.....guess who is "behind the eight ball"?

BUT, But, but.........
Your lawyer might just advise YOU to NOT fight this "tiny battle". But to WAIT and fight the BIGGER WAR (In DIVORCE/FAMILY COURT). Yeah.....that happens.

So in the End.
Say that your "innocence" is determined from/by the court battles. What happens to the accuser?

Rrrrrright........of course.....GENERALLY NOTHING.

Aloha, Mark

PS.........
SOME PEOPLE prefer to look at it as........
Well, they held/took away some guns. At least, they didn't take away someone's Liberty.

Get over it.

 

[American123]

Hard Evidence?
The Word of the accuser?

LOL.

Some of you are sooooo funny.

BUT, But, but......perhaps it's understandable?

Nah. Not really.

Remember, the issuing of a RED FLAG and/or TRO is normally an ex-parte process.

The requesting party simply has to make a written/signed request, for protection.
NO ONE is questioning the veracity of the requesting party at this time.
Of course.......things could be different, depending on the jurisdiction.

But based on my experience.....
It's mostly a "rubber stamp" by The Judge. The Judge doesn't have the time nor inclination to actually have a "hearing on the matter." The order is issued and the guns and ammo are taken. Only later.....will a hearing be held.

Once the process starts.....guess who is "behind the eight ball"?

Aloha, Mark

That's my issue as well. There is no protection of the accused. They are guilty due to the testimony of the accuser (whether true or not) and then must argue their innocence in a court of law all without any crime having been committed.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

To reiterate. You seem to not have a problem with red flag laws because a judge is supposed to review testimony or evidence submitted before the confiscation order can be issued.

Summarized: "they aren't a big deal, they require evidence."

Did I misunderstand your opinion of red flag laws?

Ahh, yes, you did misunderstand. This is what I was replying to

Interesting that you selectively CHOSE to leave out the Non-fallacious usage of Slippery Slope arguments.

Is it plausible you omitted such because "slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur."

Consequences such as: guilty until proven innocent?

And if you go back to the post BEFORE that

SpudBob
Where does it end??? Should they have access to matches? Rope? Cars? Gasoiline/glass bottles and rags? There are many ways to hurt yourself/others. Thats not what we, here, are addressing IMO. Were talking about your neighbor who you might have a beef with, an Ex that is pissed becauseyou moved on to greener pastures, somebody on your block that doesn't like your Lets Go Brandon flag, somebody who just doesnt like the color of your skin..... Etc, Etc, Etc that calls the authorities because you "might' have something THEY deem as illegal or that you might be a threat. Its a slippery slope at best!


My lack of a problem (as it were) with Red Flag Laws at least as of right now is that no one has shown me that they are an actual problem other than they might be due to some imposable 'slippery slope' or the argument that 'any law is an infringement' which sounds a lot like the Freeman Argument which is a whole different ball of wax!

 

[Knobgoblin]

The major problem with "red flag" excuses for dispensing with the freedom of individuals, even temporarily, is that it legitimizes the concept of denying liberty without due process.
Once this is normalized and accepted, anyone can conceivably be stripped of a variety of rights far more quickly and easily than we see today. Just in case/just for a little while sounds harmless to those not willing to accept the inherent dangers of liberty.

I have no problem living a world made more dangerous by freedom as it is truly defined. Your mileage may vary.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The major problem with "red flag" excuses for dispensing with the freedom of individuals, even temporarily, is that it legitimizes the concept of denying liberty without due process.

Serious question: How much process would qualify as "due process" for you?

 

[SpudBob]

Ahh, yes, you did misunderstand. This is what I was replying to



And if you go back to the post BEFORE that

SpudBob
Where does it end??? Should they have access to matches? Rope? Cars? Gasoiline/glass bottles and rags? There are many ways to hurt yourself/others. Thats not what we, here, are addressing IMO. Were talking about your neighbor who you might have a beef with, an Ex that is pissed becauseyou moved on to greener pastures, somebody on your block that doesn't like your Lets Go Brandon flag, somebody who just doesnt like the color of your skin..... Etc, Etc, Etc that calls the authorities because you "might' have something THEY deem as illegal or that you might be a threat. Its a slippery slope at best!


My lack of a problem (as it were) with Red Flag Laws at least as of right now is that no one has shown me that they are an actual problem other than they might be due to some imposable 'slippery slope' or the argument that 'any law is an infringement' which sounds a lot like the Freeman Argument which is a whole different ball of wax!

I guess we will ALL find out if/when the pending legislation is written/approved!

 

[bradsteen]

Question for those who are familiar with judicial process / law enforcement:

If someone has been arrested, arraigned, and posts bail, does law enforcement search their property and seize any firearms in the interim pending trial?

 

[Knobgoblin]

Serious question: How much process would qualify as "due process" for you?

Due process on what exactly?

Having a meeting with law enforcement, in the presence of a judge to determine whether or not my personal property was going to be removed from my private residence (owned free and clear) ? Having the identity of my accuser withheld? Or are they to be named?

I sincerely apologize for answering a question with questions of my own, but this whole topic is pretty fuzzy on how the practical application will look.

 

[American123]

Ahh, yes, you did misunderstand. This is what I was replying to



And if you go back to the post BEFORE that

SpudBob
Where does it end??? Should they have access to matches? Rope? Cars? Gasoiline/glass bottles and rags? There are many ways to hurt yourself/others. Thats not what we, here, are addressing IMO. Were talking about your neighbor who you might have a beef with, an Ex that is pissed becauseyou moved on to greener pastures, somebody on your block that doesn't like your Lets Go Brandon flag, somebody who just doesnt like the color of your skin..... Etc, Etc, Etc that calls the authorities because you "might' have something THEY deem as illegal or that you might be a threat. Its a slippery slope at best!


My lack of a problem (as it were) with Red Flag Laws at least as of right now is that no one has shown me that they are an actual problem other than they might be due to some imposable 'slippery slope' or the argument that 'any law is an infringement' which sounds a lot like the Freeman Argument which is a whole different ball of wax!

Ok, so again.

If a law has seemingly obvious (glaringly) avenues of perversion, where it could easily be weaponized. Then it should be obvious that such could become a problem.

Comparative example:

Men in women's rooms. The whole trans rights brigade argued it shouldn't be a problem and that thus far (at the time) there had been no issues of predators taking advantage of that.

Fast forward to now, there have been plenty of document assaults, or attempted assaults, indecent exposures, and rapes that have occurred at the hands of men claiming/pretending to identify as women, using those facilities for such crimes.

The claim it would become a problem was right, it did.

This is why I consider your viewpoint of "it hasn't happened yet" is a terrible argument that holds no water.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Due process on what exactly?

Having a meeting with law enforcement, in the presence of a judge to determine whether or not my personal property was going to be removed from my private residence (owned free and clear) ? Having the identity of my accuser withheld? Or are they to be named?

I sincerely apologize for answering a question with questions of my own, but this whole topic is pretty fuzzy on how the practical application will look.

Of the Red Flag Laws I have looked at they all have some option for the person in question to address the allegations prior to the EPO being issued with some differences on how to handle cases of 'extreme risk' (suicide, active threats, that kind of thing) Freely admit I have only looked at a few, so can't tell you if the identity of the accuser is withheld by law or situation