Free: Contests & Raffles.
That might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.
Quote from: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 02:08:06 PMThat might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on November 14, 2018, 02:18:28 PMQuote from: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 02:08:06 PMThat might be the case,but someone who knows the law much better than any of us here made a determination that this guy was extreme risk.When confronted by police he fought and got shot.Regardless of why the cops were there in the first place fighting with the cops especially with a gun involved changes everything.Did you read what I wrote? Because I said that.Did I read what you posted before my post?No.Have I read what you posted yes and I agree with most of it.As the law is written now a person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor for filing a false complaint.If they are found guilty of filing a false complaint a judge can and probably would impose a fine and restitution plus lawyer fees to be awarded to the falsely accused person.The claims that there is no accountability to the accuser or petitioner is not true.
Maybe someone that thinks the law is useless and has no teeth should falsely accuse someone.Any volunteers?It won't be me.
So you haven't read the laws and how they take effect?There is a hearing in front of a judge.If the judge decides to remove guns from your possession he will tell you to surrender your weapons to your face provided that you show up at your own hearing.Then you will be notified to surrender your weapons.The knock at the door only comes of you fail to comply or you are found to be extreme high risk.Extreme would be you continually violating a no contact or restraining order.The whole idea that this would be simply a phone call to the cops and they take your guns is not true.
The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit placed third.6th Circuit - 87 percent;11th Circuit - 85 percent;9th Circuit - 79 percent;3rd Circuit - 78 percent;2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;8th Circuit - 67 percent;5th Circuit - 66 percent;7th Circuit - 48 percent;DC Circuit - 45 percent;1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;10th Circuit - 42 percent.The 9th Circuit overturned rate is similar to the findings of a 2010 analysis by Roy E. Hofer, a former president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association.Hofer found that from 1999 to 2008, the Supreme Court reversed or vacated (ruled null or void) 80 percent of the cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit.
Quote from: KFhunter on November 14, 2018, 10:24:06 AMQuote from: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 10:11:59 AMSo where do you guys draw the line? Are you ok with felons owning guns? irrelevant Quote from: fastdam on November 14, 2018, 08:50:23 AMOur right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere. How is my question irrelevant to this statement?
Quote from: ctwiggs1 on November 14, 2018, 10:11:59 AMSo where do you guys draw the line? Are you ok with felons owning guns? irrelevant
So where do you guys draw the line? Are you ok with felons owning guns?
Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.
I do see the need for better monitoring of mentally ill/dangerous people but you have to understand that those laws are going to be used as a tool against people who have done nothing to deserve losing their 2nd Amendment rights. Do I think you should resist the police? Not with a gun in your hands, no. Do I think the police departments should be trained better in serving these warrants (and others) and using alternatives to lethal force? Yes. Do I think the courts should undertake and order these seizures with the understanding that reports of people unfit to own guns will be made falsely? Yes, and I think it should be a serious crime to falsely accuse someone in an attempt to deprive them of their Constitutional rights. It should be written as part of the law and a felony, and the accuser should be forced to pay any legal costs and associated expenses for the accused to be exonerated, fines, and possible prison time. Do I think the government should be held liable for wrongly depriving someone of their Constitutional rights and be forced to return firearms, repay legal fees and related expenses to someone whose rights are reinstated, as well as restitution or further compensation? Absolutely. It would help keep the government from being overzealous in its pursuits. Do I think there are "common sense" gun laws? Maybe, but far more laws that are called "common sense" are nothing of the sort. 1639 was touted as such and that's far from the truth. Do I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is still valid today. Absolutely and maybe more than when the Constitution was ratified.
Serving a red flag order is not an arrest.
Quote from: Tinmaniac on November 14, 2018, 04:51:20 PMServing a red flag order is not an arrest.That's my point. It's an order to seize a persons property with no crime having been committed.