laughing dog
Contributor
A chief elsewhere quickly acted on the report ( which is information) snd worked through the system to correct the mistake.
-
Features
Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
That page is more than a bit biased, obviously, but in the main that is how a PFA works. And lets not forget that a person with a gun can swear out one of these actions just as easily, so let's keep the discussion on balance. In fact, when I read the actual legislation it reads just like a local PFA. If you read it it states quite clearly that those costs are only assigned after the hearing. So to say that the gun owner automatically bears all the costs is erroneous. That person will have their day in court just the same as if they got a traffic ticket. It's no different.
So I honestly don't see what the big deal is. What am I missing?
DBT
Contributor
Apparently red flag laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights;
''Most now understand that “red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and many Republicans, including the president, now seem willing to join Democrats, after the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton by crazed left-and right-wing extremists, to put dents in the Second Amendment hoping these laws “might” somehow help.
But few realize they also virtually emasculate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the amendments “red flag” laws damage and how.
Amendment I. “Red flag” laws encourage police-led searches of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially violent speech, thus subject to the removal of one’s weapons laws. Liberty ends when free speech, press, assembly and religion end.
Amendment II. This amendment was specifically designed to protect the First Amendment giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founders had, even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, which threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But red flag laws go further, potentially allowing thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime, all this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our papers, and effects include our weapons of self-preservation. It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they Might use to harm themselves or others.
Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore, probable cause was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime; a warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under red flag laws this action violates.
''Most now understand that “red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and many Republicans, including the president, now seem willing to join Democrats, after the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton by crazed left-and right-wing extremists, to put dents in the Second Amendment hoping these laws “might” somehow help.
But few realize they also virtually emasculate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the amendments “red flag” laws damage and how.
Amendment I. “Red flag” laws encourage police-led searches of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially violent speech, thus subject to the removal of one’s weapons laws. Liberty ends when free speech, press, assembly and religion end.
Amendment II. This amendment was specifically designed to protect the First Amendment giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founders had, even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, which threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
But red flag laws go further, potentially allowing thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime, all this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our papers, and effects include our weapons of self-preservation. It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they Might use to harm themselves or others.
Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore, probable cause was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime; a warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under red flag laws this action violates.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,237
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
A little hint. If you put it on social media, it ain't private.
Not even close.
Not even close.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I'll introduce a variation on a legal principle:
My right to possess a firearm ends where your...
My right to possess a firearm ends where your...
DBT
Contributor
Why is it not even close?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,237
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
DBT
Contributor
What then was the point of the second amendment?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,237
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
DBT
Contributor
Not at all. It's a legitimate question.
laughing dog
Contributor
DBT
Contributor
Apparently the amendment goes further than that.
Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''
And there lies the point of contention.
To be fair, it does appear that some states are addressing this concern and have amended their own red flag laws. Hopefully that will be the case in all states.
DBT
Contributor
Perhaps so. As it went on that occasion, maybe unavoidable. But different a approach can yield a different result, and often does...which was my point.
laughing dog
Contributor
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Just want to say that the ammo sexuals in this thread need to be reminded of something a little more important.
In the time that "nearly" 200 people have had their guns taken away, there have been 485 gun deaths (just in NJ mind you). So take your hand wringing and pearl clutching and fuck right off.
In the time that "nearly" 200 people have had their guns taken away, there have been 485 gun deaths (just in NJ mind you). So take your hand wringing and pearl clutching and fuck right off.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
If you're going to use the phrase "ammo sexuals", that puts them on the top of the progressive stack and they must be catered to. Those with non-cis gender identities trump all other groups.
What is it with anti-gun radicals constantly sexualizing firearms? They are compared to genitalia, which makes their desire to remove them interesting from a Freudian perspective. They are compared to male genitalia in particular, which makes one question their view of men in general. The radicals not only consider firearms a fetish, they consider them a sexual fetish, which makes a person wonder if they see sexuality and violence as closely linked. It always comes down to sex with them. It doesn't come down to sex with firearm owners, or even those who protect the right without owning a firearm. It is the radicals who constantly make that connection.
But how much overlap?
Most gun deaths are either suicide (which is unlikely to trip a red flag) or criminals (who didn't have their guns legally in the first place) killing criminals. The number of people who will be saved by red flag laws is low.
DBT
Contributor
Obviously there is, otherwise people would not have raised the concern of wrongful gun seizures based on frivolous or malicious report...or events like the case where a child made a silly comment in school and a police squad turns up at the family home in the night, which is more like something out of Stalinist Russia than the 'Land of the Free.'
laughing dog
Contributor
For once, try to focus. Red flag laws are compatible and consistent with the relevant part of the 4th amendment "Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' i