Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[bendog]

What exactly are they saying that is trying to block gangs from red flag lists. I haven’t heard this plan yet

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members
Democrats want to pass Red Flag Laws, so long as they do not target gang databases.
by JACK HADFIELD
September 15, 2019
in Gun Rights, The Hill

House Democrats on Wednesday refused to include gang members in a list of who should have their guns removed via red flag laws.

Democrats were advancing a measure in the House Judiciary Committee that would encourage states to pass extreme protection orders, also known as red flag laws, when an amendment was proposed that anyone who was put on a police gang database should automatically be targeted under the orders.

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members

Thank you for answering the question and providing a link. Sounds like the tit for tat continues as the dems are using the same argument that the gop used against red flagging people on the No Fly List, saying the list is not accurate and includes many innocent names.

The amendment sounds fair to me and the dem opposition doesn’t make a lot of sense... I’d think they would jump at the opportunity to red flag as many people as possible.

Perhaps they are worried about the appearance of targeting minorities as the majority of people on the gang lists are brown and black people.

I've got no problem with Markle who seems an honest poster, but I don't know about that site, and I can't find it on the Hill. But I'm not sure why you'd put someone with just a gang affiliation tag on a restricted list. In places with large latino pops, a lot of people have affiliations even though they've not actively sought to kill people.

The article does reference state sentencing laws that have firearm enhancements. I'm not sure really about the effect in diminishing more gun violence, but who can complain about locking up people who use guns in crimes.

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

 

[iceberg]

What exactly are they saying that is trying to block gangs from red flag lists. I haven’t heard this plan yet

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members
Democrats want to pass Red Flag Laws, so long as they do not target gang databases.
by JACK HADFIELD
September 15, 2019
in Gun Rights, The Hill

House Democrats on Wednesday refused to include gang members in a list of who should have their guns removed via red flag laws.

Democrats were advancing a measure in the House Judiciary Committee that would encourage states to pass extreme protection orders, also known as red flag laws, when an amendment was proposed that anyone who was put on a police gang database should automatically be targeted under the orders.

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members

Thank you for answering the question and providing a link. Sounds like the tit for tat continues as the dems are using the same argument that the gop used against red flagging people on the No Fly List, saying the list is not accurate and includes many innocent names.

The amendment sounds fair to me and the dem opposition doesn’t make a lot of sense... I’d think they would jump at the opportunity to red flag as many people as possible.

Perhaps they are worried about the appearance of targeting minorities as the majority of people on the gang lists are brown and black people.

I've got no problem with Markle who seems an honest poster, but I don't know about that site, and I can't find it on the Hill. But I'm not sure why you'd put someone with just a gang affiliation tag on a restricted list. In places with large latino pops, a lot of people have affiliations even though they've not actively sought to kill people.

The article does reference state sentencing laws that have firearm enhancements. I'm not sure really about the effect in diminishing more gun violence, but who can complain about locking up people who use guns in crimes.

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

 

[bendog]

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members
Democrats want to pass Red Flag Laws, so long as they do not target gang databases.
by JACK HADFIELD
September 15, 2019
in Gun Rights, The Hill

House Democrats on Wednesday refused to include gang members in a list of who should have their guns removed via red flag laws.

Democrats were advancing a measure in the House Judiciary Committee that would encourage states to pass extreme protection orders, also known as red flag laws, when an amendment was proposed that anyone who was put on a police gang database should automatically be targeted under the orders.

Democrats Want Red Flag Laws for Everyone Except Gang Members

Thank you for answering the question and providing a link. Sounds like the tit for tat continues as the dems are using the same argument that the gop used against red flagging people on the No Fly List, saying the list is not accurate and includes many innocent names.

The amendment sounds fair to me and the dem opposition doesn’t make a lot of sense... I’d think they would jump at the opportunity to red flag as many people as possible.

Perhaps they are worried about the appearance of targeting minorities as the majority of people on the gang lists are brown and black people.

I've got no problem with Markle who seems an honest poster, but I don't know about that site, and I can't find it on the Hill. But I'm not sure why you'd put someone with just a gang affiliation tag on a restricted list. In places with large latino pops, a lot of people have affiliations even though they've not actively sought to kill people.

The article does reference state sentencing laws that have firearm enhancements. I'm not sure really about the effect in diminishing more gun violence, but who can complain about locking up people who use guns in crimes.

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

 

[iceberg]

Thank you for answering the question and providing a link. Sounds like the tit for tat continues as the dems are using the same argument that the gop used against red flagging people on the No Fly List, saying the list is not accurate and includes many innocent names.

The amendment sounds fair to me and the dem opposition doesn’t make a lot of sense... I’d think they would jump at the opportunity to red flag as many people as possible.

Perhaps they are worried about the appearance of targeting minorities as the majority of people on the gang lists are brown and black people.

I've got no problem with Markle who seems an honest poster, but I don't know about that site, and I can't find it on the Hill. But I'm not sure why you'd put someone with just a gang affiliation tag on a restricted list. In places with large latino pops, a lot of people have affiliations even though they've not actively sought to kill people.

The article does reference state sentencing laws that have firearm enhancements. I'm not sure really about the effect in diminishing more gun violence, but who can complain about locking up people who use guns in crimes.

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

 

[BluesLegend]

Oh no not a protest...Dem's are truly powerless.

 

[bendog]

I've got no problem with Markle who seems an honest poster, but I don't know about that site, and I can't find it on the Hill. But I'm not sure why you'd put someone with just a gang affiliation tag on a restricted list. In places with large latino pops, a lot of people have affiliations even though they've not actively sought to kill people.

The article does reference state sentencing laws that have firearm enhancements. I'm not sure really about the effect in diminishing more gun violence, but who can complain about locking up people who use guns in crimes.

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

 

[iceberg]

I agree about the article, it was full of opinion. The source it used was a Washington examiner article which is a bit more objective.

Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with 'red flag' laws

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

 

[bendog]

Thanks for the link. And yeah "gang affiliation" is a term that means different things. Harmless by itself in some instances.

I really don't understand the definition they are using about red flag laws. What I've understood red flag laws to be is where a parent/spouse/teacher or someone who knows a person comes to believe (or says they believe) a person is potentially an active threat for some specific reason, and the person comes forward to the cops or a court. After an emergency hearing that the person is not necessarily notified about, a judge can issue a short term order for a week or maybe two to allow cops to take his/her firearms. A second hearing "must" be held, and the person is notified, allowed to bring counsel, present evidence and question anyone saying he is a danger.

I think he should be provided a free lawyer if he wants one. And there is a real danger that someone will lie about him. For example, people in child custody disputes often accuse the other of abusing the kids. But despite what the 2ndAmendAbsoluts (-: believe, it is constitutional so long the person gets a chance to respond quickly.

And with "lists" it makes no sense unless there's an actual arrest record or something. Cat Stevens got put on a no fly, which was pretty amusing when you think about it. His Iman counseled him to quit the professional music gig because the women were a distraction. LOL

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

 

[iceberg]

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Agreed and valid points. But how they are enforcing this isn't always as you have stated. It's being used in many instances as an opportunity to GUN GRAB which makes the entire direction quite questionable.

 

[DamnDude]

the problem is how these laws are enforced are hit/miss. some use them to simply knock on your door and demand your guns. this totally bypasses "due process" and i don't care what they come for, is wrong.

now if someone "of authority" makes this claim then we can ask the person to appear before court and go through said "due process" and let the courts decide what to do from there. but random officials demanding your guns isn't going to end well and has already caused the death of at least 1 man.

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Ugh
This is the tangled web we have allowed to be weaved by allowing nonspecific laws and regulations to be implemented.
I've had many a conversation with others on red flag laws. My personal opinion of them, much like bendog has outright stated could be used for malfeasense. Also, to iceberg and his point, has already resulted in the death of an individual, who, for unclear reasons, had an ERPO executed on him.
All things being equal here(based on the info from the link) it shouldn't have happened and leads me to believe someone stuck their proverbial nose where it didn't belong. All that being said, I have to believe there has to be a better way to execute the ERPOs, if they are going to be allowed to continue, with better timeframes than 5 a.m. in the morning and having people not at a full cognizant state of mind. More officers than just 2 to make sure the person (I almost put down victim, which imho applies in this particular case) is less likely to do something completely stupid... AND if the ERPO is found to be malfeasent in ANY manner, then the one swearing it out should be held accountable in a manner beholding to the bullshit stirred up.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Ugh
This is the tangled web we have allowed to be weaved by allowing nonspecific laws and regulations to be implemented.
I've had many a conversation with others on red flag laws. My personal opinion of them, much like bendog has outright stated could be used for malfeasense. Also, to iceberg and his point, has already resulted in the death of an individual, who, for unclear reasons, had an ERPO executed on him.
All things being equal here(based on the info from the link) it shouldn't have happened and leads me to believe someone stuck their proverbial nose where it didn't belong. All that being said, I have to believe there has to be a better way to execute the ERPOs, if they are going to be allowed to continue, with better timeframes than 5 a.m. in the morning and having people not at a full cognizant state of mind. More officers than just 2 to make sure the person (I almost put down victim, which imho applies in this particular case) is less likely to do something completely stupid... AND if the ERPO is found to be malfeasent in ANY manner, then the one swearing it out should be held accountable in a manner beholding to the bullshit stirred up.

And avoiding non specific bullshit is why I will always press for what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle.

To date its now any gun they don't like.

 

[mdk]

Political theater for rubes and nothing more.

 

[Slade3200]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

 

[JGalt]

So I guess their little temper tantrum didn't work. My guns are still where they're supposed to be.

 

[iceberg]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I used to belong to the NRA. it was harmless for the most part but the constant DONATE OR LOSE GUNS got to me.

Very much in the same light the gun grabbers make no sense about their own fear mongering. But when you have a mob mentality coming after you, you tend to respomd proportionally.

 

[Slade3200]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I used to belong to the NRA. it was harmless for the most part but the constant DONATE OR LOSE GUNS got to me.

Very much in the same light the gun grabbers make no sense about their own fear mongering. But when you have a mob mentality coming after you, you tend to respomd proportionally.

Right. It is the wingnuts vs the wingnuts in a battle of branding and marketing. Most people fall in the center but unfortunately don’t have a good forum to actually get things done. They get drowned out by the loud voices

 

[bendog]

I don't think any constitutional scheme would allow taking without a court order, and a court shouldn't issue any order without a judge asking questions of a person who under oath swears he/she has personal knowledge some individual is contemplating violence or under some mental disorder

But there is a danger people will lie about other people because they have some grudge. Happens pretty often in child custody.

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Agreed and valid points. But how they are enforcing this isn't always as you have stated. It's being used in many instances as an opportunity to GUN GRAB which makes the entire direction quite questionable.

There's at least a danger of that. But I think the vast maj of Judges and cops too are not out to take anything away from ordinary people just living their lives.

I have encountered crooks who are judges, and cops who are violent bullies, but not many in the overall scheme. Instead I think judges get righteously pissed off if people lie to them about some threat to hurt someone else. And that causes those judges to not believe those people if they come back around. And that causes govt lawyers to be careful and get cops to verify facts when an person accuses another of being a threat.

 

[iceberg]

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Agreed and valid points. But how they are enforcing this isn't always as you have stated. It's being used in many instances as an opportunity to GUN GRAB which makes the entire direction quite questionable.

There's at least a danger of that. But I think the vast maj of Judges and cops too are not out to take anything away from ordinary people just living their lives.

I have encountered crooks who are judges, and cops who are violent bullies, but not many in the overall scheme. Instead I think judges get righteously pissed off if people lie to them about some threat to hurt someone else. And that causes those judges to not believe those people if they come back around. And that causes govt lawyers to be careful and get cops to verify facts when an person accuses another of being a threat.

my main concern is that the potential for misuse is far too strong in something so vague as "you're a danger, give me those guns".

we can't even fully define "assault rifle" but we can define how someone is dangerous?

we simply have put ourselves too far away from each other these days to ever find the common ground necessary to resolve our common issues.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

 

[Hum Dinger]

i would agree so far. but people are using ambiguity around these "laws" to simply come take guns from random complaints.

Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

first, the gun owner was stupid to challenge the law at his door regardless of their reason. there are far better times and places to fight this.

that said, there was no court order, the man never got to tell his story, they just came for his guns.

from the article:
Chief Altomare announced that since the law became effective on October 1, there have been 19 ERPOs issued in his county, his officers have served nine of them and have seized “around 33 guns” in the process. So successful have the unconstitutional raids been in Anne Arundel County that the department is building a new storage facility specifically to accommodate all the firearms they are expected to confiscate under the new law.

none of these seizures that i am aware of or that has been reported ever gave "due process".

people that think this is OK are going to be mad as hell when they come for something from them and no one is around to protect their rights.

Well at least it appears the police dept is actually asking itself, how did we fuck this up.

But "due process" is not violated when a short term order is issued by a judge who actually asks questions of people who swear they have first hand knowledge. But the gunowner has to be given an opportunity do give his side of the story within days. It's a common sense, local-state government issue that Americans have the ability to reason out.

And according to the article, this guy reached for a gun in the presence of cops. I didn't have much sympathy for the black guy in Minny who got stopped in his car at night and said to the cop "hey I got a gun, let me show it to you." But apparently that guy had no intention of hurting a cop, which would give him a leg up on this guy.

but you don't take property until due process is complete.

knocking on the door saying "gimme your guns" is going to end badly quite often. if you have to ask yourself "why" then that itself is yet another problem.

we've clocked you on the tollway speeding 90% of the time. we're coming to confiscate your car until you can show up in court to say why.

that won't work either. in this instance they don't even need to "clock" you, just have someone SAY they see you speeding all the time. the complaint has to have merit first before ANYTHING is done.

Procedural Due Process and the 5th and 14th amendments allow;

A court may order a temporary taking without a person being in court. A witness must swear to facts before a judge who makes the decision of whether a temporary taking of rights is reasonable in a particular situation. A court may - in ALL states - require a person to do something with his private property to prevent harm to another, and in some states even to surrender weapons in a domestic abuse allegation ….. even without the person going to court.

HOWEVER, in ALL situations, a person must be allowed a hearing within no more than two weeks, and may bring a lawyer and bring any evidence he wants to bring and have some meaningful way to test the accuser. And he must be allowed to appeal any decision by the court doing the taking.

I'm not here to argue some particular situation with you or anyone. Cops screw up ALL the time. And Boss Cops for some reason ok nighttime searches and going into homes, even when there's no real need or even a good reason. Mayors and city counsel can fire Boss Cops, and that's something citizens can demand. But cops should not be shot even when they screw up. Even if the cops are wrong, anyone who even presents a threat of violence to cops, takes their lumps as they come.

Ugh
This is the tangled web we have allowed to be weaved by allowing nonspecific laws and regulations to be implemented.
I've had many a conversation with others on red flag laws. My personal opinion of them, much like bendog has outright stated could be used for malfeasense. Also, to iceberg and his point, has already resulted in the death of an individual, who, for unclear reasons, had an ERPO executed on him.
All things being equal here(based on the info from the link) it shouldn't have happened and leads me to believe someone stuck their proverbial nose where it didn't belong. All that being said, I have to believe there has to be a better way to execute the ERPOs, if they are going to be allowed to continue, with better timeframes than 5 a.m. in the morning and having people not at a full cognizant state of mind. More officers than just 2 to make sure the person (I almost put down victim, which imho applies in this particular case) is less likely to do something completely stupid... AND if the ERPO is found to be malfeasent in ANY manner, then the one swearing it out should be held accountable in a manner beholding to the bullshit stirred up.

And avoiding non specific bullshit is why I will always press for what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle.

To date its now any gun they don't like.

The origins of the AR-15 (from Wikipedia):

"As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[9] The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[34] This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[5][7][35]"

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia