House Passes 'Red Flag' Law Allowing Judges To Take Weapons of Americans Dermed 'Dangerous'

[PoliticalChic]

Unfortunately, 'unconstitutional' only means something to those of us on the Right.

There are a whole lot people sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Laws that are unconstitutional are plainly tyranny and a clear call to arms.

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts
We'd all have a Merry Christmas.


The FBI would be included in that group sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, as is the President....and neither does so.


What worries me as much, perhaps more, is the call to arms part.....
I just do not want to think in terms of 'civil war.'
The last one took the lives of over 2% of our nation.
That would approach 8 million with today's population, and today's weapons are far more powerful.
And....it may not even be the solution to the problem.

I'm thinking that civilizations may simply have a 'sell-by' date....and we've reached ours.
It was great while it lasted.



This is what the Democrats have done to us.

 

[two_iron]

There's too many Amber Heards out there for these snitch laws.

Easy repeal in a few months if it passes the senate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Dem's strategy is death of the 2nd amendment by 1,000 cuts and gun control laws.

Did you see this?

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support​

Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia formally rolled out the "Assault Weapons Excise Act" alongside 36 House Democrats spanning the ideological spectrum. Some of them are centrists who face difficult re-election bids in the November midterms.

The 1,000% tax would apply to military-style "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines capable of carrying 10 rounds or more, adding thousands of dollars to the final sales price of such guns in a bid to severely restrict their access. The cost of those weapons typically range between $500 and $2,000, depending on location and other variables. That means the plan would add $5,000 and $20,000 to the final price tag."

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support

"Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities," Rep. Don Beyer said in a press release.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Nostra]

Anyone who rioted, looted, and burned buildings (you are delusional to say cities were burned down) are NOT my fellow travelers. I never defended such ILLEGAL behavior. You, however, defend (or at least excuse) the insurrectionist thugs who attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th, 2021.

Yep, they are your buddies. Or are you here to condemn what BLM and Antifa stand for?


Come on, step up to the plate. Condemn the rioters, looters and criminals known as BLM and Antifa, or admit you support what they do.

 

[Anathema]

Because it's important that crazy people have guns

Not that I like the idea of guns in crazy people’s hands, I’d rather see every lunatic armed than see a single sane person involuntarily disarmed.

 

[BluesLegend]

Did you see this?

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support​

Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia formally rolled out the "Assault Weapons Excise Act" alongside 36 House Democrats spanning the ideological spectrum. Some of them are centrists who face difficult re-election bids in the November midterms.

The 1,000% tax would apply to military-style "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines capable of carrying 10 rounds or more, adding thousands of dollars to the final sales price of such guns in a bid to severely restrict their access. The cost of those weapons typically range between $500 and $2,000, depending on location and other variables. That means the plan would add $5,000 and $20,000 to the final price tag."

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support

"Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities," Rep. Don Beyer said in a press release.

www.businessinsider.com

Dems to PUNISH people into giving up their 2nd amendment rights, shocker.

 

[Lesh]

Not that I like the idea of guns in crazy people’s hands, I’d rather see every lunatic armed than see a single sane person involuntarily disarmed.

That in itself is insane

 

[Nostra]

Yep, they are your buddies. Or are you here to condemn what BLM and Antifa stand for?


Come on, step up to the plate. Condemn the rioters, looters and criminals known as BLM and Antifa, or admit you support what they do.

No condemnation from bodecea

We have our confirmation he supports the criminals in BLM And Antifa.

 

[Anathema]

That in itself is insane

No more or less insane than requiring law-abiding citizens to surrender legally owned and Constitutionally protected firearms without due process based solely on the testimony of a single individual who may or may not have a personal agenda.

 

[easyt65]

The FBI has already labeled Parents as 'Domestic Terrorists'

The FBI has already illegally spied on us and come after us

Biden has declared Conservatives as the biggest threat to this nation / our Democract, greater than Antifa & BLM

Ameticans on their own property, defending their home from domestic terrorists who were trespassing and threatening to burn their home down, by holding legally owned guns were arrested, their home raided, and all of their weapons confiscated ... because defending their home from domestic terrorists who were going around burning down homes / communities made THEM the biggest threat.

Yeah, a new tool to disarm the legally abiding citizen....

 

[Lesh]

No more or less insane than requiring law-abiding citizens to surrender legally owned and Constitutionally protected firearms without due process based solely on the testimony of a single individual who may or may not have a personal agenda.

Which of course is not happening or even proposed

 

[Anathema]

Which of course is not happening or even proposed

I have not seen a single “Red Flag” proposal that allows for any Due Process PRIOR to confiscation of arms.

I have seen individuals have firearms improperly confiscated (non-Red Flag related) without providing receipts for the guns and actually causing significant damage to the guns. It took the citizen more than six years and two lawsuits to get their firearms back.

 

[Lesh]

What are red flag gun laws?
These laws are meant to remove weapons from dangerous people before a crime or tragedy occurs — hence the phrase "red flag."

The process allows people to petition a civil court to temporarily remove that person’s firearms. Red flag laws are sometimes called extreme risk protection orders (shorthanded as ERPOs); gun violence restraining orders; or state crisis intervention orders.

The mass shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, for example, was the subject of two tips to the FBI about his plans as well as multiple 911 calls about his behavior for years before the shooting.

Each state’s law sets rules for who can start the petition process. Some states only allow law enforcement to request the orders. Other states allow family members or close contacts, such as coworkers or teachers, to file a petition. Most petitions are filed by law enforcement, and they are usually granted by the courts.

The petitions generally ask for some sort of documentation. For example, petitioners in Maryland are asked to write on a form what behaviors lead them to believe the person poses an immediate danger by possessing a firearm. It also asks the petitioner to list the number, type and location of the individual’s guns and the individual’s past acts or threats of violence, substance abuse and criminal history.

Once the court receives a petition, judges must follow their state law that explains what criteria a judge must or could consider.

In California, judges must consider whether the person has made threats, acted violently within the past six months or had a pattern of threats or violence over the past year. They must consider whether the person has violated a domestic violence emergency protective order or was convicted of a crime that would keep from legally keeping a firearm. A judge can consider evidence of alcohol or substance abuse.

If the threat of harm is imminent, courts can issue an emergency order without a hearing ordering the removal of a person’s guns. But those orders only last from a few days to three weeks. Before issuing a final order, a court holds a hearing where the person can testify on their own behalf or bring a lawyer.

In most states, final orders can last up to a year, though they can be extended. Once the order is issued, the individual must surrender their firearms. For example, Colorado’s law says that individuals can either sell their firearms to a federally licensed dealer or arrange for storage by a law enforcement agency. If the individual owns an antique firearm, it can be transferred to an eligible relative who doesn’t live with them.

In Broward County, Florida, Chief Judge Jack Tuter said around half of the individuals agree to the order because they don’t own a gun, and many others agree to turn over their firearm.

"In a very small or insignificant portion of the cases the person actually fights the risk protection order and comes to court, and sometimes they win and sometimes lose," Tuter said.

Critics of red flag laws say they lack due process, but that’s not accurate. These are civil proceedings where individuals can testify and face no risk of incarceration, Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg said. Prosecutors are only involved if someone violates an order, which is rare, Aronberg said.

It is possible for someone who is undergoing the red flag law to separately face a criminal charge. But in many situations there is no parallel criminal case.

Courts in Connecticut, Indiana, and Florida ruled that the laws do not violate the process rights of respondents or are constitutional.

 

[Nostra]

What are red flag gun laws?
These laws are meant to remove weapons from dangerous people before a crime or tragedy occurs — hence the phrase "red flag."

The process allows people to petition a civil court to temporarily remove that person’s firearms. Red flag laws are sometimes called extreme risk protection orders (shorthanded as ERPOs); gun violence restraining orders; or state crisis intervention orders.

The mass shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, for example, was the subject of two tips to the FBI about his plans as well as multiple 911 calls about his behavior for years before the shooting.

Each state’s law sets rules for who can start the petition process. Some states only allow law enforcement to request the orders. Other states allow family members or close contacts, such as coworkers or teachers, to file a petition. Most petitions are filed by law enforcement, and they are usually granted by the courts.

The petitions generally ask for some sort of documentation. For example, petitioners in Maryland are asked to write on a form what behaviors lead them to believe the person poses an immediate danger by possessing a firearm. It also asks the petitioner to list the number, type and location of the individual’s guns and the individual’s past acts or threats of violence, substance abuse and criminal history.

Once the court receives a petition, judges must follow their state law that explains what criteria a judge must or could consider.

In California, judges must consider whether the person has made threats, acted violently within the past six months or had a pattern of threats or violence over the past year. They must consider whether the person has violated a domestic violence emergency protective order or was convicted of a crime that would keep from legally keeping a firearm. A judge can consider evidence of alcohol or substance abuse.

If the threat of harm is imminent, courts can issue an emergency order without a hearing ordering the removal of a person’s guns. But those orders only last from a few days to three weeks. Before issuing a final order, a court holds a hearing where the person can testify on their own behalf or bring a lawyer.

In most states, final orders can last up to a year, though they can be extended. Once the order is issued, the individual must surrender their firearms. For example, Colorado’s law says that individuals can either sell their firearms to a federally licensed dealer or arrange for storage by a law enforcement agency. If the individual owns an antique firearm, it can be transferred to an eligible relative who doesn’t live with them.

In Broward County, Florida, Chief Judge Jack Tuter said around half of the individuals agree to the order because they don’t own a gun, and many others agree to turn over their firearm.

"In a very small or insignificant portion of the cases the person actually fights the risk protection order and comes to court, and sometimes they win and sometimes lose," Tuter said.

Critics of red flag laws say they lack due process, but that’s not accurate. These are civil proceedings where individuals can testify and face no risk of incarceration, Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg said. Prosecutors are only involved if someone violates an order, which is rare, Aronberg said.

It is possible for someone who is undergoing the red flag law to separately face a criminal charge. But in many situations there is no parallel criminal case.

Courts in Connecticut, Indiana, and Florida ruled that the laws do not violate the process rights of respondents or are constitutional.

So you think people get due process because they aren't locked up? The govt can seize your property when you have done nothing illegal and refuse to give it back to you, and you think that is due process.

You are a complete moron.

 

[Lesh]

The mass shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, for example, was the subject of two tips to the FBI about his plans as well as multiple 911 calls about his behavior for years before the shooting.

But let's not deal with that kind of thing..

Nahhh

 

[9thIDdoc]

What are red flag gun laws?
These laws are meant to remove weapons from dangerous people before a crime or tragedy occurs — hence the phrase "red flag."

The process allows people to petition a civil court to temporarily remove that person’s firearms. Red flag laws are sometimes called extreme risk protection orders (shorthanded as ERPOs); gun violence restraining orders; or state crisis intervention orders.

The mass shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, for example, was the subject of two tips to the FBI about his plans as well as multiple 911 calls about his behavior for years before the shooting.

Each state’s law sets rules for who can start the petition process. Some states only allow law enforcement to request the orders. Other states allow family members or close contacts, such as coworkers or teachers, to file a petition. Most petitions are filed by law enforcement, and they are usually granted by the courts.

The petitions generally ask for some sort of documentation. For example, petitioners in Maryland are asked to write on a form what behaviors lead them to believe the person poses an immediate danger by possessing a firearm. It also asks the petitioner to list the number, type and location of the individual’s guns and the individual’s past acts or threats of violence, substance abuse and criminal history.

Once the court receives a petition, judges must follow their state law that explains what criteria a judge must or could consider.

In California, judges must consider whether the person has made threats, acted violently within the past six months or had a pattern of threats or violence over the past year. They must consider whether the person has violated a domestic violence emergency protective order or was convicted of a crime that would keep from legally keeping a firearm. A judge can consider evidence of alcohol or substance abuse.

If the threat of harm is imminent, courts can issue an emergency order without a hearing ordering the removal of a person’s guns. But those orders only last from a few days to three weeks. Before issuing a final order, a court holds a hearing where the person can testify on their own behalf or bring a lawyer.

In most states, final orders can last up to a year, though they can be extended. Once the order is issued, the individual must surrender their firearms. For example, Colorado’s law says that individuals can either sell their firearms to a federally licensed dealer or arrange for storage by a law enforcement agency. If the individual owns an antique firearm, it can be transferred to an eligible relative who doesn’t live with them.

In Broward County, Florida, Chief Judge Jack Tuter said around half of the individuals agree to the order because they don’t own a gun, and many others agree to turn over their firearm.

"In a very small or insignificant portion of the cases the person actually fights the risk protection order and comes to court, and sometimes they win and sometimes lose," Tuter said.

Critics of red flag laws say they lack due process, but that’s not accurate. These are civil proceedings where individuals can testify and face no risk of incarceration, Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg said. Prosecutors are only involved if someone violates an order, which is rare, Aronberg said.

It is possible for someone who is undergoing the red flag law to separately face a criminal charge. But in many situations there is no parallel criminal case.

Courts in Connecticut, Indiana, and Florida ruled that the laws do not violate the process rights of respondents or are constitutional.

Red flag laws allow the State to confiscate valuable personal property before that person has been tried and allowed to defend himself in a court of law and that is simply unconstitutional. It is also theft. It sends LEOs out to steal the property of an armed and possibly dangerous person who might not be willing to give up his weapons. Tyranny and dangerous to all involved. How many judges are competent psychiatrists?

 

[Lesh]

Red flag laws allow the State to confiscate valuable personal property before that person has been tried and allowed to defend himself in a court of law and that is simply unconstitutional. It is also theft. It sends LEOs out to steal the property of an armed and possibly dangerous person who might not be willing to give up his weapons. Tyranny and dangerous to all involved. How many judges are competent psychiatrists?

Temporarily...because they are a danger to themselves or others.

And that "valuable personal property" ae GUNS...that KILL

 

[Flash]

Did you see this?

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support​

Rep. Donald Beyer of Virginia formally rolled out the "Assault Weapons Excise Act" alongside 36 House Democrats spanning the ideological spectrum. Some of them are centrists who face difficult re-election bids in the November midterms.

The 1,000% tax would apply to military-style "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines capable of carrying 10 rounds or more, adding thousands of dollars to the final sales price of such guns in a bid to severely restrict their access. The cost of those weapons typically range between $500 and $2,000, depending on location and other variables. That means the plan would add $5,000 and $20,000 to the final price tag."

37 House Democrats roll out a bill to hit AR-15-style weapons with a 1,000% tax that could pass Congress without Republican support

"Congress must take action to stem the flood of weapons of war into American communities," Rep. Don Beyer said in a press release.

www.businessinsider.com

So the goddamn Democrats now think they are going to tax our Constitutional rights?

Didn't the Supreme Court find that to be unconstitutional with the poll tax?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the goddamn Democrats now think they are going to tax our Constitutional rights?

Didn't the Supreme Court find that to be unconstitutional with the poll tax?

Democrats don't believe in the Constitution......they simply ignore it, as they did to steal the election.

 

[Lesh]

So the goddamn Democrats now think they are going to tax our Constitutional rights?

Didn't the Supreme Court find that to be unconstitutional with the poll tax?

You realize they tax machine guns right?