Posted on 01/22/2020 6:18:50 PM PST by yesthatjallen
“Deeming” is a pretty open ended thing. One can “deem” anything about anyone.A synonym would be “In someone’s opinion.”
This is what happens when Commies get a single more seat in the legislature than your side has...
A lot like Muslims. Go figure.
This is what happens when Commies get a single more seat in the legislature than your side has...
I’m sure when you’re a commie it’s called a mandate!
True enough I guess.
Hope that wakes some of them up.
Democrats are hunters too, and I suspect they’re not going to be very happy with these new laws.
Some idiots in the cities will be, but they’re airheads.
So is New Mexico - a similar "Red Flag" bill pending in the NM legislature is likely to be passed and if so will be signed by our radical leftist Governor.
In NM the proposed bill would allow just about anyone to petition to have your guns taken. You have an angry ex or crazy relative who hates you and your guns, they can ask that your guns be taken and it's up to you to fight in court to keep them. You are automatically presumed guilty; justice is turned on its head.
They already have video of everyone at the rally. I suspect that those people will be suddenly judged to be “a danger to others”.
Coonman abides tyranny.
Yep. Get a friendly federal judge to slap an injunction on the state prohibiting Virginia from enacting the law because it denies people of their 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights and possibly their 1st Amendment right to free speech.
“Deeming” is spot on. Deem is totally opposite of anything in the Constitution. “Government” can deem anything just as they as they are trying to overthrow our government as I write this. To deem is what blood thirsty totalitarian regimes constantly have done with the result of hundreds of million dead.
these laws will be almost exclusively used as a means of settling personal grudges... the new SWATting
then let’s return the favor in spades. We red flag them and do it quite mercilessly as well.
All is fair in love and war. and this is war!
Yes, the Red Flag ones are very susceptible to that I would think. It’s why they are so illogical. Of course that’s a Leftist’s pipe dream come true.
Hey Rubinstein and Filler-Corn. As one Jew to another, you’re just as bad as any Jewish KAPO was during WW2 including Soros.
How does it feel to be the Democrat Party’s “Good German”, you damned fool?
Do you secretly own a gun? Do you have children who need real protection, not a pansy for a father? Do you walk the streets of Richmond at night, alone and unafraid? DOUBT IT!!
Sure they did
No official power and no pay until and unless found *Not Guilty*. And if found *Guilty,* to forfeit all public retirement funds.
Indiana has temporarily solved the problem very neatly:
Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-41-3-2
Sec. 2 . (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185 .
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).
And add it violates the 14th Amendment, too.
Deeming is pure assertion. But then for them the evidence and proof do not matter. What is important and cause for conviction is the seriousness of the allegation.
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.