Democrats say the Red Flag database cannot include gang databases

Independent Sentinel ^ | 9/14/2019 | S. Noble

[familyop]

A red flag database should *only* include drug addicts and drug dealers.

[Pajamajan]

Of course it's not necessary to include gangs on red flag lists.

Everybody is following Cali governor Newsome:

Prosecute only American citizens for crimes.

Pardon everyone else for anything.

Then only the Americans are causing problems and need to be on a list.

See how that works?

[familyop]

Antifa is certainly a gang, and its members are on drugs. Same all over the country with leftist punks who are on drugs and conspire with each other to commit crimes. How about defining a gang as two or more individuals who conspire to do drugs, shoplift, etc. Their uniforms are often known to be weaboo apparel, bizarre hair colors, emo apparel and grooming, bizarre haircuts, large discs in holes in earlobes, bones in noses, pieces of metal worn as decorations in tongues, navels, etc.

[familyop]

"It is my considered opinion that existing state “Red Flag” laws are unconstitutional in respect of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, and will be adjudged so in the near term. I am counting on it!"

That *might* be adjudged so, if the next Supreme Court appointment is a man with a record of decisions strongly in favor of the Second Amendment, especially concerning modern sporting rifles (AR-15s and the like). If the appointee is a women for the sake of feminism or some other single issue (e.g. anti-abortion religious faction), though, I doubt it. Many religious people now are arguing behind the scenes that anti-Second-Amendment activism is somehow pro-life and will decrease mass murders.

[Don W]

Putting ANY rocker under your patch will likely get your local HA chapter somewhat unhappy.

Trust me, you don’t want to go there...

[familyop]

Take Action
[Quick, easy interface to send a message to your legislators here.]
https://act.nraila.org/actions/federal

I did it. It’s easy and quick. If you like, add a short paragraph in the message body to ask senators to oppose any bill that includes funding to states for red flag laws. Such laws could only be useful for disarming drug addicts, when reasonable cause for suspicion allows (a no-go for Democrats...heh).

[RollingThunder]

Please remember that the real reason for ‘red flag’ laws is to insure that those who believe in and support the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill Of Rights are made defenseless. This is due to the fact that they are the most dangerous people to the Lousy Lying Leftist Liberals and their wanting total control over us.

[Taxman]

You raise a good point. Given the tenor of the times, President Trump needs to make a great SCOTUS choice when the opportunity presents.

It is widely rumored that Amy Coney Barrett will be President Trump’s next SCOTUS appointment. Her bio seems to point to a pro-Second Amendment lean.

It baffles me how these “Red Flag” haven’t yet been rendered unconstitutional. As far as I know, they have not been challenged in court - so far, there doesn’t appear to be any big legal fee PAYOFFS to be made, so there have been no challenges!

And, keep in mind, the “Red Flag” laws do not permit the “accused violator” to get a Miranda warning and therefore, NO LAWYERS are appointed in his/her defense!

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW, INDEED!

[Taxman]

PS

AND, keep in mind that it is VERY expensive for the “accused violater” to hire lawyers to get his/her guns back!

[familyop]

"It is widely rumored that Amy Coney Barrett will be President Trump’s next SCOTUS appointment. Her bio seems to point to a pro-Second Amendment lean."

I haven't seen that. She was only recently confirmed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October of 2017 and wouldn't have much of a record of opinions in cases, yet. Would you show me with a link?

She has written about her religious belief against the death penalty, though.

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases [Information in re. Amy Coney Barrett]
Marquette Law Review, Notre Dame Law School ^ | 1998 | Amy Coney Barrett, John H. Garvey
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3667995/posts

[familyop]

It is widely rumored, though, due to a bandwagon approach from many women who want another Catholic woman on the Supreme Court. There has been no decision on who the next nominee will be.

[familyop]

"AND, keep in mind that it is VERY expensive for the “accused violater” to hire lawyers to get his/her guns back!"

That's true, and quashing such an order would be unlikely. Courts would be more afraid of being blamed, if the subject of such an order were to carry out a violent act. See how orders of protection related to divorces have been handled. I've known peaceful, mild mannered men who had over $200,000 per year incomes who tried and couldn't do it. Those men had perfectly clean records except for the restraining orders. Two of them were doctors. The orders of protection were tactical moves advised by attorneys for getting custody of children and support/alimony.

[Taxman]

That is but one reason why “Red Flag” laws are unconstitutional!

[Taxman]

I know that no decision has been made - she was on the “short list” for both of the recent selections.

[Taxman]

see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

Scroll down to Second Amendment.

[familyop]

I’m *not* against Barrett being nominated because of her sex (female) or Catholicism but do really want to see a nominee interested in defending our Constitution as it was conceived and constructed by my forefathers. I’ll continue reviewing her arguments written since Kavanaugh’s nomination, and will pass on anything that is interesting. Better not see phrases like “domestic violence” more than once or twice in any case not directly about domestic violence, though...or any other feminist obsession.

[familyop]

Thanks for the Wikipedia link and tip! I found her dissent in the Kanter case and am starting to read it now. Sorting it out will take some time.

[familyop]

So far, it appears that Barrett’s dissent is against keeping nonviolent felons from possessing firearms (except illegal drug users, who are assumed to be potentially violent due to studies, tendencies, etc.). On the other hand, the dissent appears to favor red flag laws by way of more discretion for governments to label groups or individuals as being potentially violent or rebellious (including “words”). Won’t be sure without studying the dissent more thoroughly, though. Sometimes, reading a dissent while considering many statutes and cases can be like solving a complicated puzzle.

[Erik Latranyi]

In Chicago, the police are in cahoots with the gangs. The police would never agree to weaken the gangs, which are their allies on the streets.

Not just Chicago....everywhere.

Remember under Clinton the gangs getting Chinese fully automatics at the docks?

Democrats and gangs have been linked since the 1950s.

[Mr.Unique]

+1