The GOP House leadership has announced they will vote against the gun control passed by the Senate. They are pushing their members to oppose it as well. The Freedom Caucus is also opposed and is particularly incensed by the red flag portion of the bill. “Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

The bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 14 Republicans joining all Democrats to give the needed votes. As long as the house Democrats stay together and no one goes chasing squirrels, the bill should still pass the House.

[www.yahoo.com]

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

[m.youtube.com]

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with facts. That's simply un-American un-Republican.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

for the record that was the Freedumb Caucus saying that, not me.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

what davester said and ...
I guess they're not against mtj control.

they thought about prayers

---

!#$@@$#!

This bill has NOT passed the Senate yet, what they approved was moving the bill forward so they can vote on it.
I think the Senate is voting on it tonight.

Lewis Black chimes in on new "gun control" bill.

Quote
Ombligo

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

for the record that was the Freedumb Caucus saying that, not me.

YES! (I left the quotes intact, but you're right, that was not sufficient.)

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

with no provision for the accused to present their side until AFTER the seizure.

the idea is you are supposed to be able to confront your accuser in court, before your assets are seized.

If the system were set up to "invite" you to participate in your defense when the judge decides the merits of the complaint, I would have no problem with red flag laws.

now, if you truly are a whacko dangerous to yourself or others, your going off on The Man in court will seal your fate anyway.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
“Red flag laws permit the preemptive seizure of firearms from Americans without due process."

Red flag laws all require at the minimum a proceeding before a judge upon a formal complaint or petition. That is one of the common definitions of "due process."

with no provision for the accused to present their side until AFTER the seizure.

the idea is you are supposed to be able to confront your accuser in court, before your assets are seized.

This is a civil procedure.

You have the right to due process in both civil and criminal actions, but the 6th Amendment right to face your accuser only applies in criminal procedures.

Also, it's a temporary "deprivation" (usually lasting just a few weeks, but can be extended up to a year) outside of the scope of the 7th Amendment and is not a seizure.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 06:37PM by Tiangou.

no amount of re-labeling will change the fact that they now have them, and you had no voice in the matter.

they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 06:47PM by Racer X.

I'm kinda torn on this - I think most communities can readily identify "the neighborhood weirdo who is likely to go postal and shouldn't have firearms", but I can also see that some people would use red flag laws to go after/harass their political adversaries.

Edit: or folks they have a disagreement/feud with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 07:57PM by SDGuy.

Quote
SDGuy
I'm kinda torn on this - I think most communities can readily identify "the neighborhood weirdo who is likely to go postal and shouldn't have firearms", but I can also see that some people would use red flag laws to go after/harass their political adversaries.

especially those who's views they don't agree with?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
no amount of re-labeling will change the fact that they now have them, and you had no voice in the matter.

they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

You aren't upset with existing forfeiture laws because they only involve taking property or cash but not guns?

current laws involve you already having broken those laws afaik.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
current laws involve you already having broken those laws afaik.

Current laws allow the cops to take just about any assets they have the @#$%& to grab whenever they want, come up with an excuse at their leisure, and then charge the property with an alleged crime without any requirement that there actually was any crime committed. And then they can opt to keep it or sell it for profit or trade it for military gear.

And they do it with guns all the time. The more rare and expensive, the more likely they are to take 'em.

---

Quote
Racer X
no amount of re-labeling will change the fact that they now have them, and you had no voice in the matter.

they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

Sure they can (and do):

Quote

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today that if you drive drunk, the authorities can seize your car and keep it.

The court ruled in the case of Matthew Nielsen, who was stopped by Minneapolis police in April 2011. He pleaded guilty to DWI, his fourth in two years.

They kept his car. Didn’t have to pay him for it. And he hadn’t killed anyone, but was likely to keep driving drunk until he might.

Quote
pdq

Quote
Racer X
no amount of re-labeling will change the fact that they now have them, and you had no voice in the matter.

they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

Sure they can (and do):

Quote

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today that if you drive drunk, the authorities can seize your car and keep it.

The court ruled in the case of Matthew Nielsen, who was stopped by Minneapolis police in April 2011. He pleaded guilty to DWI, his fourth in two years.

They kept his car. Didn’t have to pay him for it. And he hadn’t killed anyone, but was likely to keep driving drunk until he might.

but what if he had never done it before? that's the "especially when you have no history of it." part.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

In many, if not all, states, mental health professionals are required by law to report to authorities, clients who, through their interactions with the therapist, demonstrate that they represent a danger to others or themselves. Note, this is BEFORE a crime has been committed.

I can see both sides of this argument and Racer has a very solid point.

Would Red Flag be any more palatable if the person was given a hearing before a judge within 48 hrs of their weapon being seized?

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
Racer X
they don't take away your car because you "might" drink and drive, killing someone, especially when you have no history of it. Or your plane/boat/motorcycle, for that matter.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

In many, if not all, states, mental health professionals are required by law to report to authorities, clients who, through their interactions with the therapist, demonstrate that they represent a danger to others or themselves. Note, this is BEFORE a crime has been committed.

but they aren't confiscating anything. It's just a notice. Law Enforcement may or may not do anything. And before any involuntary commitment, there is a 3rd party review, where, obviously, the person involved, can defend themselves.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Ombligo
I can see both sides of this argument and Racer has a very solid point.

Would Red Flag be any more palatable if the person was given a hearing before a judge within 48 hrs of their weapon being seized?

They don't take away the weapon prior to a hearing. It's only done by court order after a hearing. Like a search warrant or injunction.

And often the weapon is not even taken.

While they can issue a warrant for the immediate surrender of a gun, in practice judges often request the voluntary surrender of the weapon into police-custody for a few weeks and give the respondent a block of time within which they must bring the gun to the police station, after which the warrant will issue. I know it's a fine-distinction, but it's important: This is almost never done without all relevant parties being aware of it at every step.

I did write "almost." ... If it's an emergency ex parte proceeding, these laws require that another hearing be held shortly thereafter to allow the respondent to appear and make an argument against the order.

"Due process."

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
I can see both sides of this argument and Racer has a very solid point.

Would Red Flag be any more palatable if the person was given a hearing before a judge within 48 hrs of their weapon being seized?

They don't take away the weapon prior to a hearing. It's only done by court order after a hearing. Like a search warrant or injunction.

And often the weapon is not even taken.

While they can issue a warrant for the immediate surrender of a gun, in practice judges often request the voluntary surrender of the weapon into police-custody for a few weeks and give the respondent a block of time within which they must bring the gun to the police station, after which the warrant will issue. I know it's a fine-distinction, but it's important: This is almost never done without all relevant parties being aware of it at every step.

I did write "almost." ... If it's an emergency ex parte proceeding, these laws require that another hearing be held shortly thereafter to allow the respondent to appear and make an argument against the order.

"Due process."

The judge can order the confiscation of the firearm/s without even talking to the defendant.

and law enforcement is not liable for damage to the firearms. I know for a fact that a property number is commonly electro-penciled into firearms when locked away in the property room. My uncle got his stolen Makarov returned after 2 decades. It was defaced by a unique case number. Law enforcement was too lazy to just file it under the serial number that every firearm sold in the US since at least 1968 has been required to have. No recourse, even for a retired police detective.

Yeah, there is that 1968 again.......

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 11:35PM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
I can see both sides of this argument and Racer has a very solid point.

Would Red Flag be any more palatable if the person was given a hearing before a judge within 48 hrs of their weapon being seized?

They don't take away the weapon prior to a hearing. It's only done by court order after a hearing. Like a search warrant or injunction.

And often the weapon is not even taken.

While they can issue a warrant for the immediate surrender of a gun, in practice judges often request the voluntary surrender of the weapon into police-custody for a few weeks and give the respondent a block of time within which they must bring the gun to the police station, after which the warrant will issue. I know it's a fine-distinction, but it's important: This is almost never done without all relevant parties being aware of it at every step.

I did write "almost." ... If it's an emergency ex parte proceeding, these laws require that another hearing be held shortly thereafter to allow the respondent to appear and make an argument against the order.

"Due process."

The judge can order the confiscation of the firearm/s without even talking to the defendant.

Yes, that's done via an ex parte hearing. I covered that.

---

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Racer X

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Ombligo
I can see both sides of this argument and Racer has a very solid point.

Would Red Flag be any more palatable if the person was given a hearing before a judge within 48 hrs of their weapon being seized?

They don't take away the weapon prior to a hearing. It's only done by court order after a hearing. Like a search warrant or injunction.

And often the weapon is not even taken.

While they can issue a warrant for the immediate surrender of a gun, in practice judges often request the voluntary surrender of the weapon into police-custody for a few weeks and give the respondent a block of time within which they must bring the gun to the police station, after which the warrant will issue. I know it's a fine-distinction, but it's important: This is almost never done without all relevant parties being aware of it at every step.

I did write "almost." ... If it's an emergency ex parte proceeding, these laws require that another hearing be held shortly thereafter to allow the respondent to appear and make an argument against the order.

"Due process."

The judge can order the confiscation of the firearm/s without even talking to the defendant.

Yes, that's done via an ex parte hearing. I covered that.

and they have to pay to defend themselves when they haven't done anything wrong. How about funding the defendant's defense as part of these Red Flag laws? And is there a penalty for malicious reporting?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Racer X
and they have to pay to defend themselves when they haven't done anything wrong. How about funding the defendant's defense as part of these Red Flag laws? And is there a penalty for malicious reporting?

It's a brief civil proceeding. If a landlord is sued in small claims court for a "slip and fall" on his premises, does s/he get compensated for his/her time defending when they can present evidence clearing them of responsibility? (No.) If they think it was wrongfully brought they can file their own lawsuit.

It's not a "seizure." Nothing is "taken" under the plain meaning or any legal distinction so no, the person doesn't get compensated.

The burden of proof under the present bunch of state laws is so great that "malicious reporting" is simply not a concern. In Indiana, for example, the police need to gather so much evidence in so little time to press a "red flag" request that it takes a pretty extreme public display before they'll act.

---

How about some facts to offset the overblown "my guns at any cost" rhetoric.

The seven states with the lowest firearm death rates for 2020 all had red flag laws. And 14 of the 15 states with the highest firearm death rates that year did not have a red flag law. The exception was New Mexico, where a red flag law took effect halfway through the year...

...Research has shown that Connecticut’s red flag law reduced suicides, which involve firearms more than half the time.