• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Red Flag laws.

No crime committed, take the guns anyway?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Besides the vengeance of an ex or neighbor, wouldn't this effect veterans or individuals who voluntarily got help for depression or similar? Are they not entitled to rights anymore? What if a new administration comes along and you're deemed unfit to own firearms due to political opposition in your Facebook posts? Guys these red flag laws will destroy due process and the freedom of speech. Quit being fudds, this isn't a compromise, this is handing over several rights at once. Grow some balls.
 
For an example of a person who was weird, but who violated no laws and DIDN'T make any terroristic threats regarding specific people or institutions, see this article about Kim Gill Singh, a "goth" young man from Canada whose morbid fascination with death and frequent glorification of violence and grizzly murders & the macabre had a bunch of his friends and acquaintances wondering about him.

But nobody could do anything because he hadn't made a specific death threat to a specific victim.

He was obviously mentally unstable, and should've been barred from owning any sort of weapon, but the legal system didn't have any "red flag laws" in place at the time.

He later bought guns, posed with his guns (aiming them into the camera in a menacing way) all over social media, joined a shooting club to practice with the guns, and then went to his local university and murdered a bunch of people there before killing himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/world/americas/15canada.html

IF YOU SAY that unless and until a person actually commits a crime that would disqualify him from owning guns, the government should stay out of his life and let him do what he pleases ... you're saying Mr. Gill has a license to commit a murder-suicide any time he wants and without any interference.
OK.
And how many other Canadians (or Americans) could be described in similar terms, who never pose a threat to anyone? They might be a very small percentage, and highly odd, but are they all to be treated as criminals? (And yes, using legal means to deprive a person of their property is criminal punishment of the person, not the object, no matter what legislators, lawyers, or police claim. After all if you take my property you are charged with theft against me, not kidnapping against the object.)

The problems with these ideas are:
1. The 2nd amendment
2. Due process
3. Innocent until proven guilty
4. The 1st ammendment
5. The 5th amendment
 
The constitution already allows for an ARREST of a person, total deprivation of all their rights and liberties (at at least during the arrest in booking process and the time spent in jail prior to bonding out) based on "Probable Cause" to believe you've committed a crime.

So, why do we arrest suspected criminals, rather than just serve them with a notice of a court date? Why do we detain them for more than a couple seconds it takes to hand them the notice? Why do people lose their liberty for hours sometimes days sometimes weeks over an accusation by a single person --with no testimony from any witnesses other than a short statement by a police officer or detective?

The reason is PUBLIC SAFETY. Being arrested physically, being searched, and observed for a little while before being released on bond all serve an important public safety purpose that is more than just a way of telling somebody they had better show up in court later when they get their summons.


There's almost no due process in an arrest. A cop makes the decision to arrest based on his own interpretation of the facts and circumstances. Then some hours or days later, a "neutral and detached magistrate" judge will review the police officer's short written statement explaining why he believed there was probable cause.

And in 999 out of 1000 cases, the judge will agree that there WAS probable cause, and rubberstamp an arrest warrant approving of what the cop has already done.

Unless you fail to make a bond, and are held in jail for a long period of time, you don't get the opportunity to make any statements, or cross-examine the police officer, or introduce any evidence on your behalf. All of those "due process" rights are put off until later, either at your trial or perhaps at a pre-trial hearing. Months in the future.

If the right to challenge the government's evidence against you, and the right to speak and offer evidence in your own behalf, can be put off until long after you're arrested, then I think your 2A and Due Process rights can be put off for a while, and exercised after your guns have already been taken from you for safekeeping, and you have been put on a list of people ineligible to buy guns from a dealership.

But it should happen quickly after the deprivation of your liberty. Maybe within 48 hours.
 
The constitution already allows for an ARREST of a person, total deprivation of all their rights and liberties (at at least during the arrest in booking process and the time spent in jail prior to bonding out) based on "Probable Cause" to believe you've committed a crime.

So, why do we arrest suspected criminals, rather than just serve them with a notice of a court date? Why do we detain them for more than a couple seconds it takes to hand them the notice? Why do people lose their liberty for hours sometimes days sometimes weeks over an accusation by a single person --with no testimony from any witnesses other than a short statement by a police officer or detective?

The reason is PUBLIC SAFETY. Being arrested physically, being searched, and observed for a little while before being released on bond all serve an important public safety purpose that is more than just a way of telling somebody they had better show up in court later when they get their summons.


There's almost no due process in an arrest. A cop makes the decision to arrest based on his own interpretation of the facts and circumstances. Then some hours or days later, a "neutral and detached magistrate" judge will review the police officer's short written statement explaining why he believed there was probable cause.

And in 999 out of 1000 cases, the judge will agree that there WAS probable cause, and rubberstamp an arrest warrant approving of what the cop has already done.

Unless you fail to make a bond, and are held in jail for a long period of time, you don't get the opportunity to make any statements, or cross-examine the police officer, or introduce any evidence on your behalf. All of those "due process" rights are put off until later, either at your trial or perhaps at a pre-trial hearing. Months in the future.

If the right to challenge the government's evidence against you, and the right to speak and offer evidence in your own behalf, can be put off until long after you're arrested, then I think your 2A and Due Process rights can be put off for a while, and exercised after your guns have already been taken from you for safekeeping, and you have been put on a list of people ineligible to buy guns from a dealership.

But it should happen quickly after the deprivation of your liberty. Maybe within 48 hours.

Government owns us. Pretty much sums it up.

Try becoming an expat and not pay taxes. We are one of the few countries in the world that taxes ex-citizens.
 
Due process? Like bird poop on the hood of your car?

The lack of Accountability of Law Enforcement and Politicians is where the problems are.
 
It can take at least a year, maybe longer and a bunch of useless paperwork, to get your firearms back from the BATF if they recover them from being stolen. You will more than likely get to deal with incompetent people there also.

Prove I own the firearms? Foe Reel Doe?

Well if they didn't steal them from me then I don't recon there was a crime committed and you can just turn them back out on the street.
I had to call the dumbass "Special Agent's" supervisor in DC to get my firearms delivered to me.
 
Stolen firearms are different, because they may be needed as evidence to prosecute the thief or a subsequent non-innocent buyer of stolen guns.

But no law enforcement agency should make you prove a gun is "yours" when they got it directly from your holster, your vehicle, your home. They don't demand receipts to return other stuff to citizens, do they? (Other than RX meds-- those have extra proof required also).
 
Back
Top Bottom