Posted on 06/03/2022 12:45:27 PM PDT by RandFan
“It would have to be a fully-adversarial process with notice, judicial determination, appealable, and of limited duration.”
You quickly get to a situation where someone has to spend $1,000 to get a $800 gun back.
Sad. Red flag law would be a good thing if the government could be trusted to execute in good faith with due process, etc. Florida has it, and they say it works effectively. Unfortunately the federal government would be totally incapable of fair and just execution. It is a matter that should be and must be left to the states.
Add a requirement that the defendant be given an appropriate stipend with which to select his own attorney. You could set other limits regarding the maximum number of such orders that could be issued as a percentage of the population in a given jurisdiction, limited duration for which such orders could be effective, etc..
I think there is a good reason for red-flag laws, provided they are adjucated first, with legal counsel and due process. Court should provide defendent legal counsel if requested. And provide appeal and end date, just like a restraining orders. The reasons need to be spelt out and proven.
“Betray your voters”
**************
That’s situation normal.
Republicans are about to loose the the midterms.
************
It will be hard for the Republicans to lose the midterms but rest assured they will try their best. Their ability to do self destructive things is uncanny — and legendary.
From related threads...
As freepers read this post, please bear in mind that, as a consequence of growing up with an unconstitutionally big federal government, we've all been indoctrinated to unthinkingly ask "how high" every time the big bad feds shout "JUMP!," never mind the fed's constitutionally limited powers.
That being said, please consider the following problem concerning the Bill of Rights (BoR) identified by early supporters of the Constitution.
Early defenders of the Constitution were concerned that, since the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to deal with the rights expressly protected by the BoR, the 2nd Amendment (2A) for example, the BoR would ultimately eclipse (my word) the idea that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime restrictive gun laws, even if there was no 2A.
“The defenders of the Constitution argued that a bill of rights would undermine the idea of a government with limited powers." — Ed Feulner, We Almost Didn't Have the Bill of Rights, CNSNews, 12-14-16."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In the context of 10th Amendment (10A)-prohibited federal powers emphasized in United States v. Butler (Butler) excerpt above, while the 1st Amendment (1A) expressly prohibits Congress from having certain powers, people today don't seem to understand that the Constitution's silence about certain issues, like peacetime, non-militia-related use of firearms, is just as significant as 1A's famous "Congress shall make no law...".
Fortunately, the congressional record shows that a well-respected constitutional expert, Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had enumerated what the Constitution's silence about peacetime, non-militia-related use of firearms tells us about federal firearms laws under the rules of 10A, such laws unconstitutional imo, even to discourage murder to help career desperate Democrats get reelected.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union [emphases added]. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day.” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
In fact, in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's emphasis of the reasonably clear meaning of 10A in Butler excerpt above, using inappropriate (imo) terms like "concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
But while FDR's activist justices effectively politically “repealed” 10A in Wickard by treating it like a wives' tale imo, the drafters of the BoR had also effectively “repealed” 10A, even if inadvertently, by "hiding" it at the bottom of the document imo, 1&2A now arguably regarded as the Constitution in its entirety by many constitutionally low-information people.
In fact, I possibly wouldn't be making this post if the “long-forgotten” 10A had actually been drafted as the 1st Amendment, followed by what are now the 1st and 2nd Amendments, numbered as 2nd and 3th Amendments respectively.
"1st Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"2nd Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"3rd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters understood the significance of constitutionally express federal government powers, and therefore the "Congress shall make no law..." as it applies to peacetime, non-militia-related use of firearms under the rules of 10A, the unconstitutionally big, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government would come tumbling down on peacetime, non-militia-related restrictive firearms laws, along with many other likewise constitutionally indefensible federal laws in the books imo.
In fact, consider that the main reason (imo) that there are now non-militia-related restrictive gun laws in the federal books is because constitutionally limited federal government power-ignoring FDR was the first president to establish such laws.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Corrections, insights welcome.
Finally, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
He’s right.
“Red Flag Laws are potentially a Soviet Style approach that can be used to target political enemies in a centralized system.”
That’s a fact.
Existing red flag laws only meet one of your criteria - appealable.
While they may allow situations for notice to be given, there are emergency considerations where the only notice is a knock on your door.
All the laws also allow the police to make the claim of a subject's danger. That means if someone makes a call to them, even if that individual doesn't want to file a claim themselves, the police can take over.
For domestic cases, this typically occurs at night (drinking time) and guess what - the judge is at home.
The decision to allow a red flag seizure is usually made by a magistrate - the guy the works in lieu of a judge after hours. They rubber stamp anything a cop brings them.
Finally, since you have to prove yourself sane to even attempt to get your gun back (and good luck w/that), the duration is indeterminate and possibly for life.
I oppose the kind of laws you described. I’m simply saying that it would be possible to construct a law that would put a lot more limitations on the process, and make abuse much more difficult.
Red Flag Laws = FISA courts
True, but why not carefully construct a law that institutionalizes someone who is a danger to themselves or others?
If suicidal, taking a gun away doesn’t stop someone from killing themselves by other means.
Ditto if murderous, e.g. via car for mass killings, kitchen knife for the home.
This inherent contradiction between the stated goals of these laws should tell you that the real goal is not the stated one.
Yep.
Senator John Cornyn will be leading the way in passing the red flag law. Count on it.
50% of marriages end in divotce, you bet they will use red flag laws against the guy who owns guns.
Red flag laws in reality does away with due process!
.
New Investigation of Gaetz has just been opened (my opinion).
Expect Raids.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.