- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/8/19 at 6:59 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
BS. Trump could lose the election over it.
quote:
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Bigger BS. They are a very Big Brother 'esque program designed to keep "the little people" in line. There is NOTHING conservative about a red flag law, hell there is nothing constitutional about them.
They violate several articles of the bill of rights - the 2nd (obviously), the 5th (right to face your accuser), the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure) and I am not even a lawyer.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:05 am to Jjdoc
quote:
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
A big problem with it will be judges will be afraid to reject a case because of the (very) slim possibility the guy did end up doing something. No judge wants to be responsible for that even if it is an infinitesimally small chance the guy goes on a killing spree.
So I see judges pretty much letting all cases proceed.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:23 am to Jjdoc
So, the procedure for a red flag order is exactly the same as for obtaining any other TRO and then extending it to a temporary injunction, EXCEPT that the burden of proof for the State at the second hearing is FAR higher.
You get essentially these same orders already in many divorce cases now.
Sure, they are still too easy to obtain, and I would tweak the procedures somewhat.
I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.
I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.
I would award costs and fees to any prevailing Respondent, for which BOTH the State an complaining witness would be jointly and severally responsible. I would require regular re-hearings (e.g every 6 months), at which the burden of proof word CONTINUE to lie with the State to establish that the respondent CONTINUES to constitute a risk.
That would be a good start
You get essentially these same orders already in many divorce cases now.
Sure, they are still too easy to obtain, and I would tweak the procedures somewhat.
I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.
I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.
I would award costs and fees to any prevailing Respondent, for which BOTH the State an complaining witness would be jointly and severally responsible. I would require regular re-hearings (e.g every 6 months), at which the burden of proof word CONTINUE to lie with the State to establish that the respondent CONTINUES to constitute a risk.
That would be a good start
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 7:58 am
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:25 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
sensible, conservative, non-invasive law
quote:
If a judge agrees to issue the ex-parte 14-day order with very minimal proof threshold, police are authorized to search the individual’s home and confiscate any firearms found there.
Uhhhhhh
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:43 am to corneredbeast
quote:For how long? Isn't this worse than having your guns taken? How many mass shooters would have qualified for institutionalization? Not the last three. It's not the chronic schizophrenic people doing these acts.
I do. Re-institutionalize the mentally ill
You have to be careful with institutionalization. At some point speaking again the left stridently could become criteria.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.
I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.
This worked well in the fisa court
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
This is actually acceptable to me.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:17 am to OnTheGeaux
quote:
There will be many patriotic American lives taken by our Rulers over these Red Flag laws.
Many Americans will be left with black eyes and bruises after people find out who red flagged them to the police.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:22 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
You are allowing them to strip your freedoms and mold you into a tyrant.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:25 am to Jjdoc
I'm totally sure pigs won't abuse the ever living shite out of laws like that. Good god, these red flag laws trample all over the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:25 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
quote: Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
BS. Trump could lose the election over
Trump supporter here. Just me, but if he backs this garbage as is, I will not vote for him next year. Guns and some other items for me are real redlines. I dont compromise on tyrannical ideas
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:34 am to Walkthedawg
quote:How are the FISA procedures comparable to the RI law and my proposed revisions? How do they differ?
This worked well in the fisa court
Posted on 8/8/19 at 5:45 pm to arcalades
quote:
You completely miss the point but that's typical here. It's about secret courts and not having any opportunity to defend yourself first.
And that is the compromise that will get this legislation passed. Mark my words. No compromises should ever be made in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Ever.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News