Are Red Flag Laws Constitutional?

Mixed up question. Don't use a firearm to threaten anyone.

No, it's not. It's going off of your assumption that someone who owns a firearm used it to threaten someone when someone says they were threatened by this person.

If anything, it just shows you how convoluted and fucked up YOUR logic is.

I've threatened to kick people's asses before, but never used a firearm to do it.
 
No, if you have a firearm and you are accused of threating, you have to answer the blue. No way out.

You would threaten me once and out No, better you just cry and run away,
 
I know that on my gun request forms the last couple of times, there's the question: "Have you ever been convicted of domestic violence?" A truthful 'yes' answer is not recommended to complete the sale. The drug question ditto.

I'm talking about a decade ago, or so. Why is this an issue now? Are they trying to reduce it to having been arrested for domestic violence? I'm not sure what a red flag law is. I could look it up, naw.
 
While the 5th & 14th amendments to the U.S constitution state that a person cannot be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law, I thought that the due process to which they're referring involves the 6th Amendment right ...

"to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."​

That would be the best argument to make against red flag laws that rely on just a judge's warrant.
 
None of you show any ability as constitutional scholars.

Washington would say take away their firearms on principle. They are dangerous to children and wildlife and other criminals.
 
Considering we can detain people before their trial, it might just be enough to go with Red flag laws.
But in order to detain them for more than the required number of hours/days don't they have to be charged with a crime? And if they are and they don't have an attorney or can't afford one then they get a public defender, that's required. But does a person get a public defender under the Red Flag laws?
 
But in order to detain them for more than the required number of hours/days don't they have to be charged with a crime? And if they are and they don't have an attorney or can't afford one then they get a public defender, that's required. But does a person get a public defender under the Red Flag laws?

If red flag laws are to be done properly, they sure as hell should get a PD and a speedy hearing.

If we can detain someone before they reach trial constitutionally, what's to stop other rights from being removed before trial?
 

Forum List

Back
Top