Started By
Message

Red flag laws will not end mass shootings but will end due process

Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:19 pm
Posted by basionok
Member since May 2022
403 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:19 pm
after the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde a few weeks ago, you begin to hear people on television talk about something called red flag laws. The government, they informed us, could actually end mass shootings tomorrow simply by taking the guns away from mass shooters before they commit mass shootings. It's not complicated.

In fact, it's such an obvious solution that you had to wonder why we weren't already doing that. Who doesn't want to prevent mass shootings? Well, only the gun lobby. Everybody else cares about children. So, a lot of Americans, not surprisingly, now say they want red flag laws, and why wouldn't they? Like supporting Black Lives Matter or fighting climate change or getting the COVID shot or standing with the brave people of Ukraine. Red flag laws seem like one of those ideas that no decent person could possibly oppose.

You want crazy people to have guns? Of course, you don't. Who would? So naturally, you're for red flag laws and in fact, we may soon get red flag walks across the country. So, what would that mean if we do?

Well, two things you should know. First: Red flag laws will not end mass shootings, but red flag laws will end due process. Due process is a simple concept, but it's the key to everything that is good about America.

In our system of justice, citizens cannot be punished without first being charged with a crime. Politicians cannot just decide to hurt you, throw you in handcuffs, lock you in jail, seize your property simply because they don't like how you think or how you vote. No. Before they punish you, they have to go through a formal process in which they describe which specific law you broke and exactly how you broke it. They have to prove it.

Under red flag laws, the government doesn't have to prove you did anything wrong in order to strip you of your most basic rights. All that's required to punish you is a complaint, possibly even an anonymous complaint in which somebody says you seem dangerous. Now, that complaint doesn't come from a grand jury. It can come from anyone, including someone who hates you or someone who simply doesn't like your politics. It doesn't matter because no jury will ever see it. On the basis of that unproven complaint, you lose your freedom and your ability to defend yourself and your family.

The White House now wants Congress to pass a law paying the states to enact red flag laws. And here's the amazing part: At least ten Republican senators are backing this effort from the Biden White House and that means this is virtually guaranteed to pass. What's the reasoning? Well, here's one of those senators, John Cornyn of Texas.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN: Some people will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole because they're concerned about the politics of it, but I think this is a time where hopefully we can transcend that personal political interest and do what we think will save lives. To me, that's the ultimate goal. We can do something sensible that does not undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Constitution to keep and bear arms.

So there are two things to notice about that soundbite, which is so revealing. The first is the use of the term "sensible." Now that is a Democratic talking point approved by the DNC. "It's sensible gun safety regulation." So here you have John Cornyn taking Nancy Pelosi's language and he's doing it on purpose and then you hear him describe anyone who disagrees with him. Why would you disagree with John Cornyn? Well, according to John Cornyn, anyone who disagrees with them is "concerned about the politics" of red flag laws, not the wisdom of red flag laws, not whether or not red flag laws are constitutional, but the grubby politics.

John Cornyn is not the only one engaging in it. He is joined in this effort by Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of course of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, needless to say, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (always on board for any bad idea) and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

LINK
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67488 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

The first is the use of the term "sensible."
quote:

"sensible."

Wtodd scours the 2nd for this word.......sorry doesn't show up....but shall not infringe is there

ETA: Forefathers expected a lot more adults than we have now but definitely expected the Government to frick us
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 12:28 pm
Posted by jbgleason
Bailed out of BTR to God's Country
Member since Mar 2012
18905 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:23 pm to
Love the spouse inclusion. Every scorned woman going through a divorce will 100% he using this "law" and then claiming it as evidence in the custody hearing.
Posted by Jjdoc
Cali
Member since Mar 2016
53468 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:24 pm to
Due process is ending via the Jan 6th commission.

Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora, Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
64001 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:25 pm to
Tucker made a good point last night. If someone is dangerous and crazy enough to have their guns seized, they are probably dangerous and crazy enough to be in jail, or a mental institute. There's due process for that.
Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27132 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

Every scorned woman going through a divorce will 100% he using this "law"


Was going through a clearance investigation, DoD officer says "we could not find anyone that anything bad to say about you. Is there anyone that might not say something good about you?"

Me: "My ex old lady."

DoD: "Why would she say something bad about you?"

Me: "Because she is crazy as hell."
Posted by FATBOY TIGER
Valhalla
Member since Jan 2016
8893 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:27 pm to
quote:

John Cornyn


POS
Posted by MMauler
Member since Jun 2013
19216 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:28 pm to
And we all thought that Minority Report was a work of science fiction.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:33 pm to
quote:

Wtodd scours the 2nd for this word.......sorry doesn't show up....but shall not infringe is there
Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts currently serving time in prison. Should they have firearms?

Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts released from prison but still serving part of their term under a conditional release arrangement. Should they have firearms?

I could go on and on.

Biden lacks the intellect to understand the Constitution, and he fouled-up by saying that nothing in the "Constitution" is absolute, but the notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights are not necessarily "absolute" has been a part of our national jurisprudence for a very, very long time.

Now, does the passage of a few days between an ex parte violence protective order and the contested hearing violate established notions of "due process?" That is worthy of discussion. But it is ridiculous to assert that such a protective order AUTOMATICALLY fails to meet Constitutional muster.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48318 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:34 pm to
quote:

Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts currently serving time in prison. Should they have firearms?


Nonsensical. And you know it
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

Tucker made a good point last night. If someone is dangerous and crazy enough to have their guns seized, they are probably dangerous and crazy enough to be in jail, or a mental institute. There's due process for that.
Typical binary thought from Carl Tuckerson. Everyone is either too crazy to not be confined or sane enough to be trusted with deadly weapons. No notion that someone might be too unstable for semi-automatic weapons but still able to hold a job and not be a burden upon society.
Posted by BugAC
St. George
Member since Oct 2007
52788 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:36 pm to
In case the resident lefties want to know why we oppose red flag laws...

Posted by The Maj
Member since Sep 2016
27132 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:37 pm to
quote:

I could go on and on.


Do you have an example where someone loses their Constitutional right(s) without due process being involved? In both the cases you mentioned, they forfeited their rights by being convicted and they were afforded due process.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:40 pm to
quote:

Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts currently serving time in prison. Should they have firearms?
quote:

Nonsensical. And you know it

Not at all. The protections of the Bill of Rights are either "absolute in every circumstance" (as asserted by the "shall not be infringed" crowd) or they are not.

Any sane person understands that many of those protections are not "absolute."

Once we remove the insane from the discussion panel, we are left trying to find the right place to draw that line, short of "absolute."

Where do violence protective orders fall on that spectrum? I think that reasonable people can disagree but eventually find some common ground ... once we cull the crazies.
Posted by TigerAxeOK
Where I lay my head is home.
Member since Dec 2016
24817 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:43 pm to
quote:

The government, they informed us, could actually end mass shootings tomorrow simply by taking the guns away from mass shooters before they commit mass shootings. It's not complicated.


Minority Report, without anyone actually seeing the future beforehand.

Basically:

LEO: HI Mr. Axe, we're here to confiscate your firearms because someone phoned in a complaint saying you're a danger to yourself or others.

Me: Oh? What did they say?

LEO: We cannot disclose that doe to safety and privacy reasons.

Me: OK, well, who called you to lie about me?

LEO: We can't prove it's a lie, so we must take them seriously. And we can't tell you who it was because of privacy and safety.

Me: OK, well you're barking up the wrong tree because I lost my guns in that unfortunate marine mishaps.

LEO: We have a search warrant. Want to walk that back?

Me: :whispers "shite": Well, when can I get my firearms back?

LEO: Well, we have to go through due process on that. But don't you worry your little head, you're innocent until proven guilty just like the imprisoned 01/06/2021 protesters who are still awaiting trial.

Me: Oh, so I'm actually guilty until proven innocent. Got it. Doesn't the US Constitution specifically forbid this gross overreach of authority?

LEO: THE US CONSTITUTION?!?! Oh, so now you bring up that racist, bigoted literature? I knew you were a fricking Nazi! :draws and points weapon: NOW, lie down on the ground face down with your hands behind your back! You're under arrest for sedition!

/end of Axe.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

Do you have an example where someone loses their Constitutional right(s) without due process being involved? In both the cases you mentioned, they forfeited their rights by being convicted and they were afforded due process.
Correct.

But the Second Amendment says nothing explicit about "due process" either. It does not have an ending clause "except subject to due process of law."

By agreeing that a convict can be disarmed, you have acknowledged that there IS a "due process" provision implicit in the Second Amendment.

Again, we can discuss whether an evidentiary hearing within 72 hours of an ex parte order would satisfy those "due process" requirements (like a criminal conviction clearly does), but that is an entirely distinct discussion from the "absolutism" arguments presented by so many 2nd Amendment zealots.
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 12:48 pm
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89529 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:47 pm to
quote:

AggieHank86



You would agree, that reckless use of a vote (e.g. election of Hitler) is more dangerous and potentially far more deadly than reckless use of a firearm, wouldn't you?

We need red flag laws for voting, too.
Posted by dakarx
Member since Sep 2018
6842 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

Every scorned woman going through a divorce will 100% he using this "law" and then claiming it as evidence in the custody hearing.


As any member of the military who got divorced while on or shortly after service, Emergency Protective Orders have been the standard go to tool for divorce lawyers. Because he MUST be a threat, he's a trained killer, blah blah blah... watched judges eating that nonsense up without any evidence presented, and slap the order in place, ex parte and often never notifying the guy!

After 1995, as soon as it's discovered the service member becomes immediately 'non-deployable', no handling of firearms, etc.... Get's to spend another pile of $$$ to try and get the PO lifted, if not done and fast enough, security clearance goes away, administrative discharge proceedings begin. They even had to go back in time to see if there were PO's issued and not rescinded because the way the law was written (ex post facto law that has been allowed to stand).

Watched it happen to a dozen or so of my soldiers in the mid to late 90's.


Now expand this even Further with Red Flag Laws, with no penalties for false reports... what could possibly go wrong with eviscerating so many rights of the 'accused' for the perception of safety?



This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 12:57 pm
Posted by AUCom96
Alabama
Member since May 2020
4993 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:49 pm to
quote:

Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts currently serving time in prison. Should they have firearms?

Second Amendment makes no explicit exception for convicts released from prison but still serving part of their term under a conditional release arrangement. Should they have firearms?

I could go on and on.


Is having a firearm why they were in jail or is how they employed said firearm why they were in jail? You could equally claim they shouldn't have a car, knife, access to gasoline, fertilizer or other potentially explosive chemicals and on and on.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 6/14/22 at 12:53 pm to
quote:

You would agree, that reckless use of a vote (e.g. election of Hitler) is more dangerous and potentially far more deadly than reckless use of a firearm, wouldn't you?

We need red flag laws for voting, too.
Obviously you are being sarcastic, but it is an interesting question.

Essentially, you are suggesting some sort of ex parte proceeding for a non compos mentis declaration (which would remove access to the franchise, among other things).

And you are correct in asserting that the same questions would arise if such a statute could prevent you from voting for a few days, pending an evidentiary hearing. You are also correct in inferring that such a statute might well be subject to significant abuse. For example, would the member of one party file a slew of petitions against partisans on the other side, two days before a close election?

All of these questions are entirely relevant to discussions in the legislature as to whether it is a good idea to enact such a provision.
This post was edited on 6/14/22 at 12:57 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram