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

[laughing dog]

Why won't ld just come right out and tell us what he thinks?

I have.

So what is the number of dangerous gun owners? To date, you have not provided any evidence for your position.

We can't solve the problem until we understand the scale of the problem. Or, if you have a desired solution before even approaching the problem, you might not want to understand the scale of the problem.

Unless those states have contacted you for help, there is no evidence the states with red flag laws are aware thry have a problem to solve. Thr citizens through their elected officials determined that there was and is a sufficient number of dangerous gun owners to ensct and maintain those laws. If you don’t understand their reasoning or their data (if any), you need to contact them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

It very well might be permanent--they usually don't store them properly. If they're kept long enough they're likely to come back unserviceable.

If the firearms are being kept permanently then there was a problem that required that. But if a firearm is in serviceable, maintained condition when it is confiscated that's how it will be returned, same as any other item. It's not going to start to rot.

Guns don't rot--but they can rust.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So what is the number of dangerous gun owners? To date, you have not provided any evidence for your position.

We can't solve the problem until we understand the scale of the problem. Or, if you have a desired solution before even approaching the problem, you might not want to understand the scale of the problem.

Unless those states have contacted you for help, there is no evidence the states with red flag laws are aware thry have a problem to solve.

So the only way you will answer that question is if I answer it for you?

Then I say it is 2 people, and once you get those two people you don't need red flag laws.

 

[DBT]

Hysteria? Not at all, now you are being melodramatic. .,..

I am not the one misapplying constitutional amendments to justify my handwringing over hypothetical injustices. I am not the using gun nut sources to present very biased examples based on incomplete information or taking the unverified stories as fact.

You still overlook due process.

I gave examples of actual verified cases, names, places, etc.

Seizures that should not have happened in the first place, and would not happened had a basic inquiry been done before the police took action.

Seeing that there are cases of wrongful seizures, easily preventable, this is not hypothetical, it is an actual problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the firearms are being kept permanently then there was a problem that required that. But if a firearm is in serviceable, maintained condition when it is confiscated that's how it will be returned, same as any other item. It's not going to start to rot.

Guns don't rot--but they can rust.

Sure they can, but they're not being held in a salt bath.

 

[laughing dog]

Hysteria? Not at all, now you are being melodramatic. .,..

I am not the one misapplying constitutional amendments to justify my handwringing over hypothetical injustices. I am not the using gun nut sources to present very biased examples based on incomplete information or taking the unverified stories as fact.

You still overlook due process.

I gave examples of actual verified cases, names, places, etc. ...

Your first example had nothing to do with a red flag as you later admitted. The only substantiated examples did not show what you claim. In one, the investigation cleared the man whose confiscated were given to a family member for keeping. In the second, not only were the weapons not confiscated, the petitioner was arrested.

In plain english, you have shown there are no actual problems with red flags despite your catalog of potential problems.

 

[DBT]

You still overlook due process.

I gave examples of actual verified cases, names, places, etc. ...

Your first example had nothing to do with a red flag as you later admitted. The only substantiated examples did not show what you claim. In one, the investigation cleared the man whose confiscated were given to a family member for keeping. In the second, not only were the weapons not confiscated, the petitioner was arrested.

In plain english, you have shown there are no actual problems with red flags despite your catalog of potential problems.

You still miss the point. The issue is precisely as outlined by me and the numerous quotes and articles I provided. Once again, in plain English, this is about seizing property, guns in this instance, without due process. The examples that I gave are examples of a lack of due process, and due diligence.

Acting upon a remark, seizing firearms, license, etc, on a remark heard by a waitress is not an example of due process or due diligence.

Acting upon a malicious claim without first checking is not due process or due diligence. There are more stories, but you reject these as unreliable, yet appear accept the word of claimants in red flag laws as reliable enough to be acted on.

Please pay attention, it doesn't matter if one case did not involve red flag law, it's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the issue here is about due process and the right of individual, presumption of innocence, that no action be taken before the actual risk is assessed.


Five main issues prevail:

1.The seizure of guns without any form of due process.

2. They are based on the testimony of one unrelated person (who need only be someone harboring a grudge).

3. The burden of proof is absurdly low (much leeway to reason No. 2).

4. They shift the burden of proof to the gun owner, rather than the accuser.

5. Even if the accused manages to clear their name, it will require a lot of time and money to regain their firearms, rendering them without defense for an indefinite period of time.

Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You still overlook due process.

I gave examples of actual verified cases, names, places, etc. ...

Your first example had nothing to do with a red flag as you later admitted. The only substantiated examples did not show what you claim. In one, the investigation cleared the man whose confiscated were given to a family member for keeping. In the second, not only were the weapons not confiscated, the petitioner was arrested.

In plain english, you have shown there are no actual problems with red flags despite your catalog of potential problems.

You still miss the point. The issue is precisely as outlined by me and the numerous quotes and articles I provided. Once again, in plain English, this is about seizing property, guns in this instance, without due process. The examples that I gave are examples of a lack of due process, and due diligence.

Acting upon a remark, seizing firearms, license, etc, on a remark heard by a waitress is not an example of due process or due diligence.

Acting upon a malicious claim without first checking is not due process or due diligence. There are more stories, but you reject these as unreliable, yet appear accept the word of claimants in red flag laws as reliable enough to be acted on.

Please pay attention, it doesn't matter if one case did not involve red flag law, it's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the issue here is about due process and the right of individual, presumption of innocence, that no action be taken before the actual risk is assessed.


Five main issues prevail:

1.The seizure of guns without any form of due process.

2. They are based on the testimony of one unrelated person (who need only be someone harboring a grudge).

3. The burden of proof is absurdly low (much leeway to reason No. 2).

4. They shift the burden of proof to the gun owner, rather than the accuser.

5. Even if the accused manages to clear their name, it will require a lot of time and money to regain their firearms, rendering them without defense for an indefinite period of time.

Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Does our constitution define "due process?" I don't think it does, it merely uses the phrase. If a judge has examined evidence and then issued a writ to seize property I don't see how that is not due process. I may not like it but it's still due process.

Is it right that my vote is worth less than another man's vote in another state when I vote for President? How exactly did "due process" give us that? "Due process" doesn't mean I have to like it, it only means that it's legal.

Do you think you may be engaging in a bit of constitution worship?

 

[laughing dog]

You still miss the point. The issue is precisely as outlined by me and the numerous quotes and articles I provided. Once again, in plain English, this is about seizing property, guns in this instance, without due process. The examples that I gave are examples of a lack of due process, and due diligence.

None of your cases showed a lack of due process. The first had no confiscation and was not a red flag law process. The third had no confiscation because the application was denied on its merits - an example of due process. The second one was an example of poor investigation which is not a feature of a red flag law.

It is pretty clear that you and your gunnut sites like to use legal and constitutional terms without any idea what they actually mean. Whether you like it or not, the 4th amendment permits warrants based on an "oath" which means that red flags seizures based on "oaths" are consistent with the 4th amendment and are thus presumably included in the notion of due process.

I understand your issue with poor police work. But that is not a problem with a red flag law, it is a problem of poor police work.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I referred to dangerous gun owners. There are gun owners who are dangerous - there is plenty of evidence to support that statement ( gun murders are a daily occurrence). It would be a clear and obvious misreading of my post to think it referred to all gun owners.

Once again, this issue is about finding a balance between protecting innocent gun owners from false, mistaken or malicious claims and the community from gun owners who may pose a risk to the community.

You keep claiming this. But your argument seems to be all in one direction (in favor of gun ownership). So come on, step up. Make some useful fucking suggestions. Say what you would be for and stop JAQing off with all this 'whataboutism'. Put up or STFU.

Also, sorry about your penis.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about

What you didn’t note is that, in Stephen Nichols’ case he was never actually terminated—merely suspended while being investigated—and it was almost immediately determined that the waitress who heard Nichols wanted to “shoot up a school” mistook what he said and Nichols was then cleared and reinstated in his crossing guard duties. His guns were not “confiscated” so much as they were given to his grandson.

As for Susan Holmes, not only was her petition rejected by the court, an arrest warrant was issued for perjury in making a false claim and she fled the state.

So DBT comes up with 2-3 examples, which are all bad examples if you look at the actual results.

In that time period, DBT, how many people were killed by guns, again?

 

[Worldtraveller]

2 would be an extreme lower bound given the number of murders, suicides, rapes, assaults that involve the use of guns.

So you have a higher number you could present to support your point?

Why don't you just come right out and tell us what you think?
How many lives would have to be saved or how many incremental deaths would be required in order to justify red flag laws?

There is no upper limit to the deaths that can be caused by guns as long as "responsible gun owners" are allowed to buy all the guns and ammo they can. Duh.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused. Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

You are mistaken. Due process foes little to prevent mistaken or arrests made on flimsy evidence. It does offer more protection after the arrest. In both of your examples (which were not such flagrant examples of injustice ad your gunnut sites claimed), the process quickly came to the right outcome.

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

But you don't want to prevent innocent people from being shot.

You realize that correction is impossible when they're dead?

 

[laughing dog]

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

But you don't want to prevent innocent people from being shot.

It seems to me that inconveniencing gun owners and protecting them from any sort of overzealous law enforcement is more important to people like DBT than reducing the number of victims from dangerous gun owners.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

But you don't want to prevent innocent people from being shot.

It seems to me that inconveniencing gun owners and protecting them from any sort of overzealous law enforcement is more important to people like DBT than reducing the number of victims from dangerous gun owners.

That's what I'm getting too, as much as I respect DBT. It's as if guns are more important than people.

I mentioned constitution worship earlier because I think that's the problem for some, perceiving that the constitution makes guns holy. It doesn't. If gun owners are inconvenienced occasionally welcome to the real world. Guns and gun ownership are not sacred, they never have been, and neither is the constitution.

 

[DBT]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about

What you didn’t note is that, in Stephen Nichols’ case he was never actually terminated—merely suspended while being investigated—and it was almost immediately determined that the waitress who heard Nichols wanted to “shoot up a school” mistook what he said and Nichols was then cleared and reinstated in his crossing guard duties. His guns were not “confiscated” so much as they were given to his grandson.

As for Susan Holmes, not only was her petition rejected by the court, an arrest warrant was issued for perjury in making a false claim and she fled the state.

So DBT comes up with 2-3 examples, which are all bad examples if you look at the actual results.

In that time period, DBT, how many people were killed by guns, again?

It's not one or the other. This is simply about due process and diligence. It shouldn't take long to check the facts before charging into action. And there are more than a few reports of wrongful seizure.

These need not happen. Justified removal is not the problem.

 

[DBT]

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

But you don't want to prevent innocent people from being shot.

It seems to me that inconveniencing gun owners and protecting them from any sort of overzealous law enforcement is more important to people like DBT than reducing the number of victims from dangerous gun owners.

It's more than a matter of inconvenience, it comes down to due process of the law, diligence and freedom from harassment. The police coming to your door to confiscate property because someone, a waitress or a collegue, overheard a casual comment, perhaps a joke, is not justice. Which is the point you miss.

 

[DBT]

These things are preventable. Easily preventable, just a bit of rudimentary investigation could have stopped these incidents from happening in the first place, causing needless stress, time lost, financial cost, etc, for the wrongly accused: first the unjustified seizure (preventable if investigated before carried out), then having to go through the correction process.

Prevention not correction after the fact.

But you don't want to prevent innocent people from being shot.

You realize that correction is impossible when they're dead?

How many people would die if the police took a moment to go over a claim or report and assess risk? Please provide the stats.

You appeal to emotion, not reason or standard of justice.

 

[DBT]

You still miss the point. The issue is precisely as outlined by me and the numerous quotes and articles I provided. Once again, in plain English, this is about seizing property, guns in this instance, without due process. The examples that I gave are examples of a lack of due process, and due diligence.

Acting upon a remark, seizing firearms, license, etc, on a remark heard by a waitress is not an example of due process or due diligence.

Acting upon a malicious claim without first checking is not due process or due diligence. There are more stories, but you reject these as unreliable, yet appear accept the word of claimants in red flag laws as reliable enough to be acted on.

Please pay attention, it doesn't matter if one case did not involve red flag law, it's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the issue here is about due process and the right of individual, presumption of innocence, that no action be taken before the actual risk is assessed.


Five main issues prevail:

1.The seizure of guns without any form of due process.

2. They are based on the testimony of one unrelated person (who need only be someone harboring a grudge).

3. The burden of proof is absurdly low (much leeway to reason No. 2).

4. They shift the burden of proof to the gun owner, rather than the accuser.

5. Even if the accused manages to clear their name, it will require a lot of time and money to regain their firearms, rendering them without defense for an indefinite period of time.

Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Does our constitution define "due process?" I don't think it does, it merely uses the phrase. If a judge has examined evidence and then issued a writ to seize property I don't see how that is not due process. I may not like it but it's still due process.

Is it right that my vote is worth less than another man's vote in another state when I vote for President? How exactly did "due process" give us that? "Due process" doesn't mean I have to like it, it only means that it's legal.

Do you think you may be engaging in a bit of constitution worship?

Due process refers to checking the nature or truth of a report or claim before acting upon it in a way that punishes innocent people, which is a presumption of guilt not innocence, the very opposite of justice.
A judge perusing a report without basic investigation is not due process....the basic investigation should be carried out by the police before the papers are put before the judge...that is due process of the law. Which appears not to have been done in the cited cases, and probably many more.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You still miss the point. The issue is precisely as outlined by me and the numerous quotes and articles I provided. Once again, in plain English, this is about seizing property, guns in this instance, without due process. The examples that I gave are examples of a lack of due process, and due diligence.

Acting upon a remark, seizing firearms, license, etc, on a remark heard by a waitress is not an example of due process or due diligence.

Acting upon a malicious claim without first checking is not due process or due diligence. There are more stories, but you reject these as unreliable, yet appear accept the word of claimants in red flag laws as reliable enough to be acted on.

Please pay attention, it doesn't matter if one case did not involve red flag law, it's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the issue here is about due process and the right of individual, presumption of innocence, that no action be taken before the actual risk is assessed.


Five main issues prevail:

1.The seizure of guns without any form of due process.

2. They are based on the testimony of one unrelated person (who need only be someone harboring a grudge).

3. The burden of proof is absurdly low (much leeway to reason No. 2).

4. They shift the burden of proof to the gun owner, rather than the accuser.

5. Even if the accused manages to clear their name, it will require a lot of time and money to regain their firearms, rendering them without defense for an indefinite period of time.

Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process

The Constitution mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”

Does our constitution define "due process?" I don't think it does, it merely uses the phrase. If a judge has examined evidence and then issued a writ to seize property I don't see how that is not due process. I may not like it but it's still due process.

Is it right that my vote is worth less than another man's vote in another state when I vote for President? How exactly did "due process" give us that? "Due process" doesn't mean I have to like it, it only means that it's legal.

Do you think you may be engaging in a bit of constitution worship?

Due process refers to checking the nature or truth of a report or claim before acting upon it in a way that punishes innocent people, which is a presumption of guilt not innocence, the very opposite of justice.
A judge perusing a report without basic investigation is not due process....the basic investigation should be carried out by the police before the papers are put before the judge...that is due process of the law. Which appears not to have been done in the cited cases, and probably many more.

Then by that same argument no judge should be able or would be able to issue a PFA, a restraining order. It would all have to be first investigated by the police. Is that what you are advocating? Or are you saying there is something special about guns?