It's OK, rahl. And it is not dishonest to not quote a poster, when it is not necessary. You clearly do not understand these laws, and time will show you are wrong, rahl.
As far as I understand they can't actually do that. From what I'm reading it's basically they can ping you as being a nutcase and then you get brought before a judge who will determine whether you are or are not one before they actually take your guns.
We'll see how it goes. As with any controversial proposed law like this it's being hailed as both Constitutional and Unconstitutional by various lawyers, judges, courts, etc. But as you said if they make this federal law then yeah it's going to be on the Supreme Courts desk within days and we'll see what they say.
It will stand up to all challenges just so easily, and then those who get to yelling mad and making threats and wearing soup pots on their head can get 'pinged' and go explain themselves.
If there were solid probable cause (beating up one's family, screaming and threatening your child's teacher, a spouse's quiet description of how scared people are at home of Homer Rambo, etc.), of course remove the weapons first.
Red flag laws are needed now more than ever. "On Saturday, a terrorist who, according to a federal law enforcement official, wrote that he feared a 'Hispanic invasion of Texas' was replacing white Americans opened fire in a Walmart in El Paso.... "While its modern roots predate the Trump administration by many decades, white nationalism has attained a new mainstream legitimacy during Mr. Trump’s time in office. '"Discussions of Americans being 'replaced' by immigrants, for instance, are a recurring feature on some programs on Fox News. Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, for example, return to these themes frequently. Democrats, Ms. Ingraham told viewers last year, 'want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever-increasing number of chain migrants.'.... "Those who sympathize with the white nationalist ideology but who deplore the violence should work closely with law enforcement to see that fellow travelers who may be prone to violence do not have access to firearms like semiautomatic assault-style weapons that are massively destructive." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/opinion/mass-shootings-domestic-terrorism.html
The mother of said individual had previously reported her son to law enforcement out of fear that he might do something. But even with such a report, just as was the case with Nicholas Cruz, law enforcement ultimately decided to not investigate the matter. So-called red flag laws would not change such.
In places without "Red Flag" laws can law enforcement actually do anything? I'm not well versed on the legal matters of things like this.
Unless that person is in a life or death situation after the fact and can't effectively defend him/herself.
He doesn't understand how the Constitution works or doesn't care. His personal feelings on the issue are all that maters.
Any who think amendment is the only why Red Flag laws can be enacted clearly not explain why we have Red Flag laws in several states. Personal opinion about the 2dA means nothing. Only what SCOTUS opines means anything.
I don't carry more than $9,995 on me at any time while out in public unless I'm in Vegas. I don't like making a financial transaction of $10,000 or more because the IRS and LE come snooping around. Why don't they figure in inflation ???
Once a law is on the books, they don't review it. It's part of the reason for so much confusion and hate in the U.S. today.
No, what the States and counties say mean a lot more than SCOTUS. SCOTUS has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. More Than Half Colorado Counties Say WE WILL NOT COMPLY https://www.rallyforourrights.com/colorado-counties-say-we-will-not-comply-to-red-flag-law/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_sanctuary Colorado: 38 out of 64 counties, 3 cities, and 3 towns have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions Illinois: 66 out of 102 counties, 2 cities, and 3 townships have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions Maryland: 3 out of 23 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions New Mexico: 25 out of 33 counties, 6 cities, and 1 town have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions;[Taos initially passed a resolution but later repealed it. 30 out of 33 county sheriffs have signed a letter by the New Mexico Sheriffs Association vowing to not assist in enforcing certain gun control Nevada: 5 out of 16 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. Oregon: 13 out of 36 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. Washington: 24 out of 39 counties and 1 city have sheriffs that have vowed to not enforce I-1639 while it is being challenged in court
I used to carry btwn 3-5k on a regular basis because of inconvenience for going to bank and prefer cash to debit or credit card, but stopped doing so because of the frequency of the reports of the abuse of civil forfeiture in traffic stops. Such amounts are good targets because the legal costs/time/effort to recover the funds may be more than someone is willing expend. The 10,000k as the trigger for attracting the IRS’s attention is something of the thinking prior to 9/11. Since then and with the policy changes focusing on potential fund transfers for terrorism, the IRS monitors for ‘structured’ cash deposits/transfers which can be far smaller amounts if they appear to follow a pattern. Google, ‘IRS seizures’, ‘structured’ and ‘dairy’ to see what was done to a dairy farmer who did periodic cash deposits from money received from providing milk at farmer’s markets. Neither practice has been reviewed by the SCOTUS and on it’s surface appears to me to violate the Constitution, and the Civil Forfeiture abuse by some LE agencies appears to me to be nothing less than institutional theft.
If SCOTUS says they are legal, Red Flag laws are legal. The US Marshals will enforce SCOTUS opinions. Personal opinion in disagreement of SCOTUS is meaningless.
Then such would ultimately mean the opinions of those elected officials who are willfully violating the precedent of Heller, McDonald and Caetano are ultimately meaningless, since the united state supreme court has already ruled in favor of the second amendment.
That is the intent. The goal behind red flag laws is legalizing SWATting innocent gun owners, no more and no less. If some of the gun owners get killed...feature, not a bug.
This is not really going to fly. It's a violation of the 4th and 6th amendments. In order to seize property from somebody even temporarily you have to first obtain a warrant. That's assuming you know this person has a gun you also have to get a warrant to search all of that property. There has to be the due process of law.
Well, not EVERYONE! Democrats frown on targeting gang databases with ‘red flag’ laws. House Democrats this week advanced a new measure to encourage states to pass “red flag” laws, known as extreme risk protection orders, that authorize removing guns and ammunition from dangerous individuals. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee amended the measure during a Wednesday mark-up to authorize the federal government to issue extreme risk protection orders in some instances, but they rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member. “The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.” Democrats objected. Buck pointed out his amendment requires law enforcement to limit red-flagging to only those with probable cause to be included on the list, which is a stricter criteria. Democrats kept objecting. Buck said police have to meet a much higher threshold to list someone as a gang member. “This is a situation where the police officers are trained, and there are very identifiable signs, and it isn't just one sign,” Buck told Nadler. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California offered to support the amendment if Buck agreed to include those listed “individuals affiliated with white nationalism.” Buck agreed, but he said the language should include “any type of supremacy.” “Let’s add Cosa Nostra to this,” Buck added. The amendment ultimately failed 11-21, but not before the top Republican on the panel, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, called out Democrats for their hypocrisy.