New laws, anyone?

[spencer60]

Maybe they were both Democrats and this whole thing will blow over.

The best news is that 8Chan seems to be taking most of the heat on this. From what I saw it's actually 'gone dark', whether taken down by others or shut down by the owner wasn't clear.

 

[summer44]

Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

 

[summer44]

I hi jacked this but its true

Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No.
We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.

The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.

If you don't believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.
Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

 

[Bypass]

Now we have another shooting in Ohio....that makes 2 in less than 24 hrs. 9dead...16 injured are the numbers so far.
We are screwed for sure !

Thanks to the Liberals that planned the attack.

 

[summer44]

Federal law prohibits records of mental health problems, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government's databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there.

 

[Bear44]

Red flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

Actually, we do and have done from the start. It was common to lock up suspected mentally unstable people until they could be evaluated by professionals. It did not and does not have anything to do with the criminal justice system. Then the liberals attacked that process and common sense went out the window. We are now suffering the consequences of that.

With that said, this is not what Red Flag laws as they are now written do. They do not confine the person, they remove their firearms without due process and the burden of proof is placed on the individual to regain possession of them. That's not only a very questionable process, it's just stupid. If someone is dangerously crazy, taking their guns away does not eliminate the danger. They need to be removed from society until it can be determined if they really are a danger or not.

Either process can be abused, but think about how much more difficult it would be to keep a person incarcerated when it is uncalled for, than it would be to simply keep their guns and claim they have not met the burden of proof to get them back.

 

[41mag]

I hi jacked this but its true

Can the government constitutionally outlaw the types of rifles used by the El Paso and Dayton killers? In a word: No.
We know this because in the first Supreme Court opinion upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court addressed what kind of arms the Second Amendment protects. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of weapons one can carry that are of the same degree of sophistication as the bad guys have – or the government has.

The government? Yes, the government. That's so because the Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people.

If you don't believe me on this, then read the Declaration of Independence. It justifies violence against the British government because of such thefts.
Governments are the greatest mass killers on the planet. Who can take without alarm any of their threats to emasculate our right to defend our personal liberties?

Spot on . The Decaration of Independence also prohibits a list being kept of who has arms, so i have been informed, to keep tyrants from confiscation. This is why FFLs are supposed to keep records and not the ATFE.
Someone will probably be along shortly to correct me.
But, good post summer44 ...... truly an excellent post of info

 

[summer44]

Actually, we do and have done from the start. It was common to lock up suspected mentally unstable people until they could be evaluated by professionals. It did not and does not have anything to do with the criminal justice system. Then the liberals attacked that process and common sense went out the window. We are now suffering the consequences of that.

With that said, this is not what Red Flag laws as they are now written do. They do not confine the person, they remove their firearms without due process and the burden of proof is placed on the individual to regain possession of them. That's not only a very questionable process, it's just stupid. If someone is dangerously crazy, taking their guns away does not eliminate the danger. They need to be removed from society until it can be determined if they really are a danger or not.

Either process can be abused, but think about how much more difficult it would be to keep a person incarcerated when it is uncalled for, than it would be to simply keep their guns and claim they have not met the burden of proof to get them back.

Not just based on someones word, The person had to have commited signs of harming themselves or others. not just someone calling and saying "Hey joe said he was going to shoot up the 4 h club today."

 

[Bear44]

Federal law prohibits records of mental health problems, unless they result in involuntary institutionalization, from entering the government's databases that are consulted in background checks. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there.

"the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there"

Confinement for a mental health evaluation is not a censor, ban or punishment.

 

[summer44]

"the government cannot censor, ban or punish opinions expressed on the Internet or games played there"

Confinement for a mental health evaluation is not a censor, ban or punishment.

didn't say it was. however the burden to hold one for 72 hour evalulation has to be clear, posting on the internet doesnt meet that burden.