- 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
RI's use of Red Flag and what the future for you will look like.. SECRET COURT baby!
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:05 pm
I'm going to start with the words of LEO:
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
It's been 1 year as a law, and they have used it 21 times!
And EVERY DAMN TIME, YOU ARE GUILTY until you prove your innocence!
Secret court?
YEP!!!!!
Your arse ain't even allowed to go defend yourself.
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Next up...
You have NOT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!!!! and they are breaking your door down to get your guns!
Wait... so they have to present a clear and convincing case AFTER they took your guns? not at the first trial!
LINK
quote:
“It’s like anything else — once you do it and get comfortable with it you understand what needs to be done,” Ciullo told Target 12 during an interview at the police department. “We want to make sure that the community is safe, that the individual is safe, and we have this tool to use.”
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
It's been 1 year as a law, and they have used it 21 times!
And EVERY DAMN TIME, YOU ARE GUILTY until you prove your innocence!
quote:
The law allows a police department to ask a Superior Court judge to block someone’s access to guns — either by removing firearms from their possession or blocking their ability to purchase weapons — if they are deemed a danger to themselves or the community. Red flag hearings are civil proceedings, not criminal ones. The hearings are closed to the public, and the individuals’ identities are not disclosed.
Secret court?
YEP!!!!!
Your arse ain't even allowed to go defend yourself.
quote:
When police petition the courts for an Extreme Risk Protection Order, there is an initial hearing, usually that day, at which a judge decides if there is probable cause to think someone is risk. If so, the judge can issue a 14-day order to remove the person’s firearms. The initial court proceeding is “ex parte,” which means the individual is not notified or present.
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Next up...
quote:
If a judge agrees to issue the 14-day order, police are authorized to search the individual’s home and confiscate any firearms found there.
You have NOT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!!!! and they are breaking your door down to get your guns!
quote:
A second hearing is then scheduled where police have to present “clear and convincing” evidence that the person is a potential threat to themselves or the community.
Wait... so they have to present a clear and convincing case AFTER they took your guns? not at the first trial!
quote:
After the second hearing, a judge can issue an order blocking the individual’s access to guns for up to a year. Violating the order constitutes felony contempt of court, carrying a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. The person has the right to petition for termination of the order once every 12 months.
LINK
10
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:09 pm to Jjdoc
Melt
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
This post was edited on 8/7/19 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
HailHailtoMichigan
California isnt Real America and you are proof of it.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:17 pm to Jjdoc
You got a better plan?
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:28 pm to texridder
How about leave us the f—k alone? Enforce the current laws that are within the bounds of the conventions of American jurisprudence? We know secret courts are subverted and weaponized. You are daft to think they couldn’t one day be used against you.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:30 pm to texridder
quote:
You got a better plan?
I do. Re-institutionalize the mentally ill. Sterilize them, too. We'll use the same court process above to adjudicate the nominees.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:31 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
HailHailtoMichigan
Moron...
A person who has not committed a crime has his home invaded over thought or speech.
You are a friggin moron!
quote:
GVROs are sensible,
NOPE! a secret court where you are not allowed your voice... NOPE!
quote:
conservative
The HELL you say!
quote:
non-invasive
Tell that to people getting the homes invaded for no CRIMES committed.
quote:
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
Don't care if he does. He WILL lose my support!
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:32 pm to texridder
quote:
You got a better plan?
Yes. tell the left and MSM to stop promoting non sense.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:33 pm to Jjdoc
There will be many patriotic American lives taken by our Rulers over these Red Flag laws.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:34 pm to corneredbeast
quote:
quote:
You got a better plan?
I do. Re-institutionalize the mentally ill. Sterilize them, too. We'll use the same court process above to adjudicate the nominees.
Ding!
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:35 pm to Jjdoc
Any person who is legitimately dangerous enough to be subjected to this shouldn’t be free at all. I’m not advocating locking up people just pointing out how illogical all this is..
First there is the obvious violation of our most basic principle of innocent til proven guilty, the right to bear arms and against illegal search and seizure.
Second this puts what the cops think could be a dangerous person in an almost certain to be heated confrontation with police, despite them not having committed a crime. That’s dangerous for all involved or even near by.
Third if we are gonna say someone is so dangerous their rights don’t matter and we are willing to risk injury to them or others to take their guns, how can we allow them access to a car, a knife, gasoline, harsh chemicals, heavy objects, animals or other humans? Just doesn’t make sense.
First there is the obvious violation of our most basic principle of innocent til proven guilty, the right to bear arms and against illegal search and seizure.
Second this puts what the cops think could be a dangerous person in an almost certain to be heated confrontation with police, despite them not having committed a crime. That’s dangerous for all involved or even near by.
Third if we are gonna say someone is so dangerous their rights don’t matter and we are willing to risk injury to them or others to take their guns, how can we allow them access to a car, a knife, gasoline, harsh chemicals, heavy objects, animals or other humans? Just doesn’t make sense.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:37 pm to Jjdoc
This stuff already happens in every single state; it's just under the guise of arrest warrants, etc. They do the exact same thing already.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:39 pm to arcalades
BS... If you have an arrest warrant you've already been accused of a crime by your Rulers.
No crime needed for Red Flag Laws.
No crime needed for Red Flag Laws.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:53 pm to Jjdoc
While I’m not opposed to some sort of revoking of this right with cause- I sure hate secret courts and guilt until proven innocent.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 10:19 pm to OnTheGeaux
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. The reality of this topic is over your head so you'd be better off just to shut up and listen.
S... If you have an arrest warrant you've already been accused of a crime by your Rulers.
No crime needed for Red Flag Laws.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 11:10 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Let me tell you something about my four years as a prosecutor...
In that time I sent many an arrest order over to a judge for signature. I never had one declined or even got a call asking what it was about.
Why? Because I was a federal prosecutor. The judge was busy, usually in the middle of something else. And he or she, because he or she knows the prosecutors, assumed I am doing my job properly.
Want to know something even better?
I never saw a request for a wiretap declined.
Only once did a judge ask to speak to me about one of my orders and that was to let a woman out of prison (she was about to die).
Posted on 8/8/19 at 12:15 am to arcalades
Wrong. You said arrest warrants equal red flag laws.
Pretty simple to understand a simpleton.
Pretty simple to understand a simpleton.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Example of why gun-control still has as much support as it does, too many poorly educated and short-sighted individuals.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 3:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
frick you. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around.
FISA would never be abused, right? Right??!
FISA would never be abused, right? Right??!
Posted on 8/8/19 at 5:12 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
non-invasive
What in the actual frick are you talking about? Non-invasive to whom?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News