Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 8,382
- Reactions
- 21,048
It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
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.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but from my lay perspective, it seems that there is some, uh, creative flexibility in the 1st, 4th and 8th amendments. Just as we see states putting limitations on the 2nd.It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
Like what? There are laws that forbid you to speak if you have a misdemeanor or even a restraining order on your record? Is there a law that says the government can search and seize your stuff without a warrant? Is there a law that says bail is contingent upon any domestic allegations? Really?I'm no constitutional lawyer, but from my lay perspective, it seems that there is some, uh, creative flexibility in the 1st, 4th and 8th amendments. Just as we see states putting limitations on the 2nd.
1A: Hate speech can be criminalized if it targets a specific person or group. And, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.Like what? There are laws that forbid you to speak if you have a misdemeanor or even a restraining order on your record? Is there a law that says the government can search and seize your stuff without a warrant? Is there a law that says bail is contingent upon any domestic allegations? Really?
Those are not the same.1A: Hate speech can be criminalized if it targets a specific person or group. And, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
4A: Tell me that police don't blur this line occasionally.
8A: Some states have outlawed the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, but others still allow it.
Also record every phone call and save every text. In Oregon only one party has to know a phone conversation is being recorded for it to be admissible in court. There are cell phone apps that do work.Me too, and here it is:
Having been falsely red flagged it was extremely disappointing that the ex who accused me only faced the repercussions of paying the attorney fees, in $$ installments. I missed Christmas with my kid and ~13 days of time but restraining order court is not family court, so there is nothing to be done about lost time there. Separate courts, separate lawyer fees too, $$$$ needed to be taken unexpectedly from savings for retainer. Hours will depend on your case and how strong your ability to prove your own innocence is. Vindictive ex's will use this loophole and they have as I can attest to. It just takes a few choice framed words (with a topping of complete lies) to get it granted. In response when I got my chance after over a week of waiting it took 3 minutes of recording (out of ~8 minutes total) to disprove the hours of false witness and testimony in court. Would I want something potentially horrible happening if I was in the judges position? Of course not and I may have made the same decision as the judge did. The problem is that your are judged in absentia. The process itself is absolutely broken, unconstitutional, and worse completely fails to achieve its stated goals. Give 24 hours to stand in front of a judge and plead your case. How does giving a 48 hour window to notify the court you have transferred your firearms keep anyone safe? If I wasn't as blessed and with as strong support network as I have, I would have lost significantly more than my 2A and Christmas. I'll hope that no one else has to suffer such madness.
P.S. Record every encounter with an ex. Cell phone in pocket. Bring a friend if you want to be extra entirely compliant to the law on the recording you are making of picking up your child during a scheduled exchange.
I don't trust medical doctors to make decisions affecting my legal rights. Wrong kind of authority. Besides, who's going to hear you out once you've been labeled a danger to yourself and or others, or are otherwise red-flagged? You'd be asking to have your right to due process trampled upon.I would support a red flag law if it was an actual psychiatrist making the decision and it should have to be at least two coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise it's too rife with people who will abuse it. You don't want your rights taken away by someone who has a vendetta against you and just makes a report and then they take it without any fair trial.
YesIs there a law that says the government can search and seize your stuff without a warrant?
I'm still waiting to see how Wired will turn this into bad newsUS court strikes down domestic violence gun law
The ruling says the law barring domestic abusers from owning firearms is unconstitutional.news.yahoo.com
Ditto - except I have been divorced for over 30 years and have not had contact with ex for 10+ years. Neither has my daughter who is even more strongly opposed to any contact with her mother. I feel sorry for my ex, but she brought this upon herself.I have been divorced for 14 years and the best revenge is being a great dad and letting the children figure out what is what themselves. That and a good counselor for the children to help them sort things out with a uninfluenced third party. My daughter and I have a great relationship and I get along very well with my step daughter too. Neither want to have anything to do with their mother. My daughter has great support from a good counselor, her friends and teachers / counselors at school who all encouraged her to cut off ties with her mom... especially her older half sister who cut off all contact a couple years ago. I didn't leave it to my daughters support network to developing on its own, I had a very active hand in making it happen, especially at school and with the counselor.
Very true. That's SOP on both parties in any contested dissolution. Court ordered to "play nice" and stay away from each other.... or else.Any time there is a contested dissolution a judge will had out restraining orders like they were candy.
A pile of states don't let ex-felons vote. I'd start there In arguing about restoring rights.It's an easy test, really. Are any other constitutionally protected rights affected in this manner? If no, then the law is unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right.
I would have no issue with that, but since this is a gun rights forum...A pile of states don't let ex-felons vote. I'd start there In arguing about restoring rights.
But they are absolute. The only time there is an issue is when those rights are in conflict with each other.That test doesn't have an easy answer if we recognize that no fundamental right is absolute.
I can't think of a reason for disallowing a convicted felon who has served all of their time (including parole) to vote. That isn't about safety, it is about punishment after they have already been punished.A pile of states don't let ex-felons vote. I'd start there In arguing about restoring rights.
Not to be disagreeable or disrespectful, but a fair bit of Supreme Court effort has gone into defining and explaining just how the Constitutional rights set forth in the Amendments are not absolute. People lose sight of the fact that even if framers did more than any government in history to protect individual rights those rights still do not exceed the rights of the state to limit those rights in some circumstances.I would have no issue with that, but since this is a gun rights forum...
But they are absolute. The only time there is an issue is when those rights are in conflict with each other.
Yes, exactly. The highest possible scrutiny. The law is patently invalid otherwise. At least you didn't bring up the "you can't yell fire in a theater" myth.Not to be disagreeable or disrespectful, but a fair bit of Supreme Court effort has gone into defining and explaining just how the Constitutional rights set forth in the Amendments are not absolute. People lose sight of the fact that even if framers did more than any government in history to protect individual rights those rights still do not exceed the rights of the state to limit those rights in some circumstances.
From the Wikipedia, as the easiest source for a quick definition of "strict scrutiny":
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutinystandard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose….
If you support red flag laws, you are for guilty until proven innocent.I would support a red flag law if it was an actual psychiatrist making the decision and it should have to be at least two coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise it's too rife with people who will abuse it. You don't want your rights taken away by someone who has a vendetta against you and just makes a report and then they take it without any fair trial.