"Red Flag" Laws in Practice

[Fl0und3rz]

Like it or not the writing is on the wall for gun control.The pile of bodies has gotten to big and the current system is broken.It won't matter where you live it's just a matter of time.

It's a matter forgetting history, now, isn't it.  Or of letting yhe emotional override the rational.

The biggest piles of bodies, by far, are owned by state actors who first disarmed their people.  History is remarkably consistent on this point.

Death by Gun Control.   See the genocide chart.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

We should take a lesson from history and not let those who died from gun control die in vain.

[pianoman9701]

I don't worry about the red flag law being used against me because I know how to behave.Red flag laws are used against violent people with violent behavior of which I am neither.They may save an innocent girl or womans life from being taken by a violent angry psychopath and that is ok with me.

You are either incredibly naive and obviously not a student of history, or you know what you're saying is complete BS. "If only one life is saved..." This is the byline of the Left's anti-gun movement and it never proves true anywhere gun control is implemented. Always, the heavier the gun control, the heavier the body count. By the time gun confiscation is complete in this country, many tens of thousands will have died. I'm not looking forward to it and it's going to happen. And then after, say goodbye to the rest of our rights.

[Igor]

If the government doesn’t care about rights, and our state of Washington has shown a total disregard of some, then it is just a matter of time before you will have none.

[ctwiggs1]

So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement?

Because removing rights from a felon is constitutional.  The person who got red flagged and shot was not a felon nor was under indictment nor was there PC to arrest.  He'd done nothing wrong.   He was seized under the 4th amendment for the possibility of a future crime.

@KFHunter can you point out where that is in the US Constitution?  Because I just don't see it.

I think it's been given legal precedent by legislation and case law. 

So since this has nothing to do with what's written in the constitution, and everything to do with what legislation and case law have determined are satisfactory requirements for the due process clause in the 14th amendment, I ask again:  Where do you draw the line? 

[Fl0und3rz]

Seems plain as day here, unless I am misunderstanding your point.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There is no affirmation of a crime that has been committed in typical ERPOs.  There is an affirmation about the possibility of a hypothetical future crime.


An analogue is that of restraining orders, where typically and in WA, IIRC, a firearm surrender order is issued.  There, there are particular allegations about a particular person and allegations of particular past conduct, that if it is not charged, it may be chargeable, such as threatening, stalking, harassment, assault, battery, etc.


I draw the line at proper actual notice and actual opportunity to be heard, with representation financed by the jurisdiction seeking to deprive an individual - just as with actual charged crimes - and with strict protections against frivolous and abusive use of the process to legal harass an individual, with statutory liability and damages provisions that pays more than lip service to an individual's 2A, 4A, and 5A rights.

[KFhunter]

So where do you guys draw the line?  Are you ok with felons owning guns?

irrelevant

 

Our right to be armed is inherent with your birth. No man has a right tI interfere.

How is my question irrelevant to this statement?

Because removing rights from a felon is constitutional.  The person who got red flagged and shot was not a felon nor was under indictment nor was there PC to arrest.  He'd done nothing wrong.   He was seized under the 4th amendment for the possibility of a future crime.

@KFhunter can you point out where that is in the US Constitution?  Because I just don't see it.

I think it's been given legal precedent by legislation and case law. 

So since this has nothing to do with what's written in the constitution, and everything to do with what legislation and case law have determined are satisfactory requirements for the due process clause in the 14th amendment, I ask again:  Where do you draw the line?

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

giving ex-felons back their guns is a foggy subject when discussing the constitution, this thread is about non-felons loosing their gun rights. 

[Tinmaniac]

Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.

[Okanagan]

Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.

Have you ever tried to get a firearm back from authorities? 

[Tinmaniac]

Irrelevant.

[Taco280AI]

Irrelevant in what way?

[Taco280AI]

Can't seem to find where in the red flag law a person loses their right to own a gun.Temporary removal of gun,yes,loss of right  to own,no.

I guess because it's a temporary violation of constitutional rights, it makes it all okay 

[Special T]

There is a story on here about some one voluntarily surrendering his weapon to prove he wasn't a poacher. He wasn't, and had to buy his gun back... Just saying...

[Okanagan]

Irrelevant.

You chose this topic that you now call irrelevant.  You used the word temporary.  Temporary indicates a length of time.  How long is acceptable for the authorities to keep private property from an uncharged owner?  Two years of hassle and stalling?  Six months?  Two weeks?
 

[pianoman9701]

This is why gun owners/pro 2A advocates are so reluctant to give any ground at all; because the gun grabbers call their concerns irrelevant. They don't want to listen to the concerns and they don't care about the concerns. And with this attitude, they make it clear that there's only one end game - the end of legal guns in the US. Good luck with that kind of rhetoric trying to find middle ground.

[ctwiggs1]

Irrelevant.

You're doing exactly what KFHunter did.  Just because you don't like someone's response to your argument doesn't mean that their response is irrelevant.

Want to know how hard it is to get guns back once they are wrongfully seized?  Ask @BuckCanyonLodge to tell you a story.