- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,153
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That'll be an exception for sure. The commies won't want anything they've passed contradict that longstanding agenda.I'm wondering whether LE in WA can still be involved in non-criminal red flag seizures now that the new laws say the police can't be used for civil matters? Wouldn't a non-criminal red flag seizure be a civil matter? Might have to talk to the Sheriff about this.
Great question; there's so much confusion going on now, so much disparity from agency to agency as far as what's allowed, what's forbidden, that I suspect most agencies will err on the side of caution and not participate in enforcement that's not at least been the subject of a *new* written ruling by the AGO.I'm wondering whether LE in WA can still be involved in non-criminal red flag seizures now that the new laws say the police can't be used for civil matters? Wouldn't a non-criminal red flag seizure be a civil matter? Might have to talk to the Sheriff about this.
I recall something called "The Minority Report" and since David Chipwhatever thinks we are all on the verge of revolution, there may be an exemption for future crimes.I'm wondering whether LE in WA can still be involved in non-criminal red flag seizures now that the new laws say the police can't be used for civil matters? Wouldn't a non-criminal red flag seizure be a civil matter? Might have to talk to the Sheriff about this.
Imminent is having the means, opportunity, intent. That's not the case in non-criminal gun confiscation.Imminent threat is the core premise of red flag seizures, whether valid or not, so I assume that will be justification to involve LEOs.
I just figured that red flag seizures were implicit of such, at least that seems to be the intent.Imminent is having the means, opportunity, intent. That's not the case in non-criminal gun confiscation.