Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

[ZiprHead]

That's the "Well Regulated" part... the part that is frequently skipped over during debate.

Everyone is part of the militia.

No.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

And be it further enacted,Militia how to be arranged, and That within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. by whom officered.That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of1803, ch. 15, sec. 3. one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one fife-major.

And be it further enacted,Rules of discipline. That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, shall be the rules of discipline to be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of this act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the commanding officer at every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained agreeably to the said rules of discipline.

How often have you mustered, Trausti?

 

[Trausti]

No.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

And be it further enacted,Militia how to be arranged, and That within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. by whom officered.That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of1803, ch. 15, sec. 3. one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one fife-major.

And be it further enacted,Rules of discipline. That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, shall be the rules of discipline to be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of this act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the commanding officer at every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained agreeably to the said rules of discipline.

How often have you mustered, Trausti?

How do you not interpret “each and every white male citizen” as everyone? (In 1862 it was expanded to all males.) Note that each person is to arm themselves. Why is it that the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms is always ignored? The Second Amendment does not say the “right of Congress” or the “right of the States.” The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government.

 

[Trausti]

Although, I’m not against red flag laws. There are other instances where a Constitutional right can be restructed, so long as the State has a high burden and there is due process.

 

[ZiprHead]

No.

And be it further enacted,Rules of discipline. That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, shall be the rules of discipline to be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of this act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the commanding officer at every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained agreeably to the said rules of discipline.

How often have you mustered, Trausti?

How do you not interpret “each and every white male citizen” as everyone? (In 1862 it was expanded to all males.) Note that each person is to arm themselves. Why is it that the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms is always ignored? The Second Amendment does not say the “right of Congress” or the “right of the States.” The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government.

Oh but there's many more requirements than just being a white male.

Again, how often have you mustered? It's required yearly.

 

[Trausti]

How do you not interpret “each and every white male citizen” as everyone? (In 1862 it was expanded to all males.) Note that each person is to arm themselves. Why is it that the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms is always ignored? The Second Amendment does not say the “right of Congress” or the “right of the States.” The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government.

Oh but there's many more requirements than just being a white male.

Again, how often have you mustered?

Heh, not as often as those who don’t know the difference between the people, Congress, and the States. Using your reading comprehension, the people would not have the right of free speech, the press, or of religion, as stated in the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was meant to protect against your brand of authoritarianism.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you not interpret “each and every white male citizen” as everyone? (In 1862 it was expanded to all males.) Note that each person is to arm themselves. Why is it that the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms is always ignored? The Second Amendment does not say the “right of Congress” or the “right of the States.” The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of government.

Oh but there's many more requirements than just being a white male.

Again, how often have you mustered?

Heh, not as often as those who don’t know the difference between the people, Congress, and the States. Using your reading comprehension, the people would not have the right of free speech, the press, or of religion, as stated in the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was meant to protect against your brand of authoritarianism.

My authoritarianism? I didn't write the requirements.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's the "Well Regulated" part... the part that is frequently skipped over during debate.

Everyone is part of the militia.

So, 'well regulated militia' is a weasel phrase, kinda like 'under god' being ceremonial deism.

 

[DBT]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.

In that case there was no evidence of wrongdoing, just overzealous application of the law that came across like the actions of a police state.

This is not a tautology, just a question of how far the state goes in terms of regulation, not based on evidence but suspicion.

It could be argued that it is better to err on the side of caution, but how far does that go?

Some would have it that it has not gone far enough, others that it has already crossed the line.

Who is right?

This method of 'discussion' is colloquially referred to as JAQing off. Just asking questions.

So DBT, you now have an assignment. GO READ THE FUCKING LAW. Come back and tell us, in your own words, preferably if you feel like the proverbial line has been drawn in the correct place. It seems to me that less than 200 people out of over 90k registered gun owners (just in NJ) isn't that unreasonable.

While I don't trust cops in general, and I'd be willing to bet that an unfair number of those 200 were probably black people, I'm not quite ready to call this unconstitutional.

Crock. Get off your high horse. It's a discussion forum.

If you had understood what I was saying you'd know that I was raising a concern, the consequences related to the seizure of firearms and related issues, attending court, trying to prove innocence, cost, etc, on the basis of suspicion, not evidence.

Which is a concern being raised by gun owners who feel that their rights are effected by the new laws, and point tout possible misuse of the law, frivolous or malicious claims that result in seizure and cause a great deal of trouble for the the gun owner.

For example:

''Red flag laws, for example, are often touted by their supporters as a “common sense” gun-control measure that will help ensure that people who might do harm to themselves or others cannot keep their guns. However, these laws expose lawful gun owners to random, subjective judgment and without due process.

If a family member, co-worker, perhaps a physician, somehow believes — or decides — you may be a threat, they can call authorities with a story about you and empower authorities to seize your firearms. Your Second Amendment rights now fall victim to a disgruntled employee, a neighbor with a grudge or an estranged spouse who can fabricate an accusation allowing the police to remove guns from your home or person.''


''Red-flag measures inevitably spark due-process concerns. People often say or do odd things – or post them on social media – that pose no real dangers, but might grab the attention of friends, neighbors or police. “Possible risk” is hard to define in a law.

“Given the imagined stakes, judges tend to err on the side of granting orders that bar people from possessing guns,” wrote Jacob Sullum in Reason. No one wants to be the judge who denied a gun-seizure order – only to have that person later commit a gun-related crime.

The burden of proof for seizure is low, especially given that a constitutionally protected right is in the balance. Red-flag laws can “empower hostile neighbors, estranged spouses and gunophobic busybodies to harass gun owners,” argued CALmatters’ Dan Walters. Some states allow only police agencies to seek gun removal, but others allow petitions from medical professionals, relatives, friends and others.''

California’s Armed Prohibited Persons System is a similar idea that should offer caution for red-flag supporters. The state may confiscate guns from people no longer deemed eligible to own them because of a mental-health situation or restraining order. But analysts have found the confiscation database to be highly inaccurate, meaning the program has wrongly deprived many citizens of gun-ownership rights in exchange for unclear benefits.

Likewise, David Kopel, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, testified in the U.S. Senate in March that “about a third of gun confiscation orders (under red-flag laws) are wrongly issued against innocent people.”

Are red-flag laws providing safety or an illusion of safety? Are they routinely depriving Americans of their constitutional rights in the process? We’re not saying such laws – or the expansion of existing ones – should be rejected out of hand. But these questions need to be answered first. Just because an idea is bipartisan and politically feasible doesn’t make it ideal.''

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

This is the equivalent of a restraining order. It seems that New Jersey managed to put some reasonable protections into the law (too many states don't make the initial order temporary) but I would like to see more details anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

Yeah. How many children have had their right to life violated by the gun? Bad guy with gun. Good guy with gun. Child with gun. There's one common factor here. Can you spot it?

When's the last time you read in your local news about a child accidentally shooting himself or a sibling? For me it was today. And before that it was two days ago. I wish all these Second Amendment types would stop leaving their rights laying around where children can access them.

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People have their driving privileges removed quite often. It's mostly old people but sometimes not. My brother when he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Everything else you said is practically a tautology and is not disputing anything being done in NJ.

I don't know enough about the red flag laws to argue the details, but the complaints on the gun forum I referred to appear to be that gun owners are being harassed for trivial reasons.

A video was posted where officers came to the door of a guy who was red flagged for attending a protest rally. He argued with them heatedly and they eventually left.[

Seems to me, the law worked as it was intended in that instance, assuming the description is complete.

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some might have had their guns unfairly taken away?

Sending them my thoughts and prayers!

What if the local authorities come and take away your car, not because of anything you have done, but on suspicion of what you may do? Now this may be fair in some circumstances but not all. It may be fair if there is evidence that you plan to run people down.

There lies the line between fair seizure and unfair imposition by the state.

There needs to be safeguards in place and very clear definitions of when seizure is justified and when it is not.

Filing a document with false statements on it to the government has fairly harsh penalties. That is one control over these procedures that exists.

Unfortunately, such penalties are generally not applied unless the evidence that it was malicious is overwhelming.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Although, I’m not against red flag laws. There are other instances where a Constitutional right can be restructed, so long as the State has a high burden and there is due process.

I think the burden should be high and it should be set up to protect the innocent. An example of the problem: I forget the state but a woman quite legitimately reported someone--but only with name & description. The police went and took the guns from someone with the same name but a very different description. The burden of proof to get his guns back is on him--and he has no power to compel her to testify.

 

[DBT]

Seems to me, the law worked as it was intended in that instance, assuming the description is complete.

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

That appears to be the case. The police may act on the flimsiest of reasons, a suspicion, an unfounded claim. Which opens the system to abuse, a relationship goes bad and an emotional partner lashes out by filing a false claim, dishing out their own form of punishment. The red flag laws may be good in principle, but it seems that these are flawed as they now stand.

If the reports are correct, there are not enough safeguards in place.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's the "Well Regulated" part... the part that is frequently skipped over during debate.

Everyone is part of the militia.

Then why doesn't it just say that? Why the phony distinction?

Although, I’m not against red flag laws. There are other instances where a Constitutional right can be restructed, so long as the State has a high burden and there is due process.

I think the burden should be high and it should be set up to protect the innocent. An example of the problem: I forget the state but a woman quite legitimately reported someone--but only with name & description. The police went and took the guns from someone with the same name but a very different description. The burden of proof to get his guns back is on him--and he has no power to compel her to testify.

You seem to be arguing that laws and their application must be perfect. Isn't that impossible? It could be reasonably argued that all laws are ideal in their intent, but that idealism and perfect intent has to be put into words and into actions by people who are not incapable of acting stupidly. You are essentially arguing that we can't have traffic speed laws unless we are certain we can execute the law perfectly. But yet many people are left to break the law. How do you explain the apparent double standard?

 

[laughing dog]

Seems to me, the law worked as it was intended in that instance, assuming the description is complete.

No. Attending a protest rally is nowhere near enough cause to consider taking guns and perhaps even one's career. (If your job involves guns and you're red-flagged you're unemployed.)

Pay attention, the law worked because his guns were not confiscated.

 

[Jarhyn]

So in this thread, I see a pattern that I have seen a hundred times before, with one side arguing in bad faith. Yes, one of the sides here is absolutely arguing in bad faith.

Imagine an office. In this office there is a task involving summing numbers in a table. One employee has the good idea to put this into Excel and do what would take 8 hours in 8 minutes.

Now, one of the employees doing this task complains that the process of using Excel to solve the problem opens it up to errors. Of course, they can't point to any errors, but "computers get it wrong sometimes".

Rather than doing an analysis in the remaining 7 now unused hours of the day, the complaining employee gets management to ban the use of Excel in the task.

This is an issue wherein one side has clearly dishonest motives for attempting a repeal of an advancement. If their motives were honest, they would instead attempt to debug.

One side of this argument here is attempting to cry for repeal rather than a debug. It is not an honest tactic. A debug can still produce a final determination of rewrite or rejection.

This is quite common here, arguing for full rejection rather than tuning an imperfect solution, or allowing a stopgap and iterating.

I personally think such calls for repeal rather than amendment are hyperbolic.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Yes, for example the mandatory background checks that the gun lobby continues to fight against "tooth and nail".

The gun lobby isn't going to give an inch, period, because it's in their financial interest not to.

 

[marc]

This is quite common here, arguing for full rejection rather than tuning an imperfect solution, or allowing a stopgap and iterating.

I personally think such calls for repeal rather than amendment are hyperbolic.

IMO, it is arguing for full rejection in the absence of a perfect solution, when perfect solutions rarely exist in the real world. In other words, rejection of any attempt at a solution because they prefer the problem for some reason. As long as it is not directly affecting them, the problem is not their problem.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They're not actually convicted of anything, yet they are getting their rights violated. That is, around here, a cause for celebration.

Next let's ship them to gulags for daring to own guns.

Yeah. How many children have had their right to life violated by the gun? Bad guy with gun. Good guy with gun. Child with gun. There's one common factor here. Can you spot it?

When's the last time you read in your local news about a child accidentally shooting himself or a sibling? For me it was today. And before that it was two days ago. I wish all these Second Amendment types would stop leaving their rights laying around where children can access them.

Your position is part of the problem. There are reasonable things that could be done to reduce such accidents but when you aim for getting rid of guns they're going to fight you tooth and nail rather than try to actually improve the situation.

Then do those reasonable things already. When one’s right to have a device who’s primary purpose is to end life is in conflict with a person’s right to life, the right to life should take precedence.
Were the taking of innocent lives isolated incidences on par with other developed nation, I would say these two things can coexist while we are implementing these “reasonable things”. But this is not the case. It’s fair to say this is an epidemic in the loose definition of the term. And if a person’s right to bear arms gets stepped on while we are finding a point of coexistence, then so be it. In the nutter alternative, countless lives should be lost while we fight tooth and nail.