Sen. Lindsey Graham is drafting 'red flag' gun confiscation bill. Every right has its limit say Grah

This is a classic case of "prior restraint" and the courts have consistently ruled against it. You cannot arrest someone for something that you believe the MIGHT(!) do! Yet each of these statutes has the same characteristic, I can say I THINK you will do thus and such and BAM there it goes. In my county, Teller, here in Colorado at least our sherrif has convinced the county comnmissioners to declare us a "2nd Amendment sanctuary county". Several sherrifs have said the same thing; They value the lives of their deputies more than to send them to enforce a B.S. law!
 
The Hock said:
This is a classic case of "prior restraint" and the courts have consistently ruled against it. You cannot arrest someone for something that you believe the MIGHT(!) do! Yet each of these statutes has the same characteristic, I can say I THINK you will do thus and such and BAM there it goes. In my county, Teller, here in Colorado at least our sherrif has convinced the county comnmissioners to declare us a "2nd Amendment sanctuary county". Several sherrifs have said the same thing; They value the lives of their deputies more than to send them to enforce a B.S. law!
Click to expand...


There are about 13-16 states that have a version of these Unconstitutional laws and counting. Wait until Graham start bribing these states to pass ERPO's. What is shocking is that places like CA and IL has had this law for years and no one took them to court? Where in hell is the NRA or even the GOA?


I don't believe in these sanctuary states, counties or cities. It's surrendering our rights and confirms it can be done with out a fight in the state or nationwide under the law of the Constitution. They are very divisive tactics and will not help America as a whole. We need to come together and fight back, not retreat to a special zone. This is no different than Fascist Democrats making free speech zones within college campuses. This is teaching them we can do this anywhere in the US! It's non sense. Fight!
 
GOA is trying to fight (just like they were with the ******** bumpstock ban), but they're getting blocked by the Supreme Court refusing to hear their cases by dishonest vote counts...Because we ALL know that Darth Bader Ginsberg has been dead for months...But they are hiding it, and letting her "vote" count, when there is no vote. She's dead, or if not, completely unable to function (vegetative state) and perform her judiciary responsibilities, therefore by law, without proof of life, she should be relieved of her judicial duties (unseated), and Trump should appoint Amy Coney Barrett his next SC Justice.
 
WVRifleman said:
There are about 13-16 states that have a version of these Unconstitutional laws and counting. Wait until Graham start bribing these states to pass ERPO's. What is shocking is that places like CA and IL has had this law for years and no one took them to court? Where in hell is the NRA or even the GOA?


I don't believe in these sanctuary states, counties or cities. It's surrendering our rights and confirms it can be done with out a fight in the state or nationwide under the law of the Constitution. They are very divisive tactics and will not help America as a whole. We need to come together and fight back, not retreat to a special zone. This is no different than Fascist Democrats making free speech zones within college campuses. This is teaching them we can do this anywhere in the US! It's non sense. Fight!
Click to expand...

I live in Rhode Island, a sanctuary State, of corruption. I think that we have more political whores here in Rhode Island than there are in Washington DC!!! Our governor, Gina Raimondo, declared this state a sanctuary city; she's one of Hillary's supporters!! What has recently happened is that there are numerous "rural" towns that do not support the concept of "sanctuary cities" and have declared their townships as 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities. These cities support the 2nd amendment and the right to carry!! This "is" something that ought to really catch on, however the concept is not being administered in areas where responsible gun owners can get this concept put in place.

What I am finding is that if we publicly push back the anti's do not know how to handle being pushed back! I live in a rural town in south-western Rhode Island. We had a politician "try" to get a town ordinance passed where a land owner had to have at least 300 yards from their neighbor's property before that land owner could discharge a firearm! The neighbor/politician decided that the noise disturbed her children and her pets! The area that I live in is very conservative, it held up the ratification of the U.S. Constitution for two years in its days. I think that every Swamp-Yankee came out of the woodwork to protest the introduction of that ordinance; everyone here owns and values their ability to defend their homes and property. Our state's 2nd Amendment Coalition showed up in numbers, the ordinance proposal was tabled, it has never surfaced since.

Rhode Island just introduced the red-flag laws, that "already" were on the books; but, we know how that goes. I was in LE, I felt that it was a good law to have on the books and still do because of the many situations that we had to deal with and the angry/crazy people who we had to deal with. We had one PTSD veteran who was well trained, very aggressive and did not like his wife and police officers at all. After one of his displays of anger toward his wife, with the kids in the car, an affidavit and arrest warrant was obtained and we had to arrest him. Imagine the pucker factor when we had to go to the house to arrest him, we took AK's with 75 round drum magazines, a couple of sawed off shotguns and a few hand grenades from the house. And....that's one of many incidents of this nature that I can remember. During my tenure we also removed axes, machetes, cavalry swords, katanas, a few shovels, and sometimes the keys to the family car during domestics and acts of rage. I believe that law enforcement does red flag laws to disarm individuals who ought not to have firearms, unfortunately with these laws comes the ability for them to be misused/abused as well. I don't think anyone on this forum or any 2nd Amendment supporter is in disagreement with LE being able to disarm a person who ought not to have a firearm. If the red flag laws are used for what they were designed for I consider them good laws and worth having on the books; however, with the "anti' movement in this country I can see where they can be abused and used to disarm the country. And....just another attempt to dilute the 2nd amendment protections.
 
Alibiiv said:
I live in Rhode Island, a sanctuary State, of corruption. I think that we have more political whores here in Rhode Island than there are in Washington DC!!! Our governor, Gina Raimondo, declared this state a sanctuary city; she's one of Hillary's supporters!! What has recently happened is that there are numerous "rural" towns that do not support the concept of "sanctuary cities" and have declared their townships as 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities. These cities support the 2nd amendment and the right to carry!! This "is" something that ought to really catch on, however the concept is not being administered in areas where responsible gun owners can get this concept put in place.

What I am finding is that if we publicly push back the anti's do not know how to handle being pushed back! I live in a rural town in south-western Rhode Island. We had a politician "try" to get a town ordinance passed where a land owner had to have at least 300 yards from their neighbor's property before that land owner could discharge a firearm! The neighbor/politician decided that the noise disturbed her children and her pets! The area that I live in is very conservative, it held up the ratification of the U.S. Constitution for two years in its days. I think that every Swamp-Yankee came out of the woodwork to protest the introduction of that ordinance; everyone here owns and values their ability to defend their homes and property. Our state's 2nd Amendment Coalition showed up in numbers, the ordinance proposal was tabled, it has never surfaced since.

Rhode Island just introduced the red-flag laws, that "already" were on the books; but, we know how that goes. I was in LE, I felt that it was a good law to have on the books and still do because of the many situations that we had to deal with and the angry/crazy people who we had to deal with. We had one PTSD veteran who was well trained, very aggressive and did not like his wife and police officers at all. After one of his displays of anger toward his wife, with the kids in the car, an affidavit and arrest warrant was obtained and we had to arrest him. Imagine the pucker factor when we had to go to the house to arrest him, we took AK's with 75 round drum magazines, a couple of sawed off shotguns and a few hand grenades from the house. And....that's one of many incidents of this nature that I can remember. During my tenure we also removed axes, machetes, cavalry swords, katanas, a few shovels, and sometimes the keys to the family car during domestics and acts of rage. I believe that law enforcement does red flag laws to disarm individuals who ought not to have firearms, unfortunately with these laws comes the ability for them to be misused/abused as well. I don't think anyone on this forum or any 2nd Amendment supporter is in disagreement with LE being able to disarm a person who ought not to have a firearm. If the red flag laws are used for what they were designed for I consider them good laws and worth having on the books; however, with the "anti' movement in this country I can see where they can be abused and used to disarm the country. And....just another attempt to dilute the 2nd amendment protections.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying but if you are threatening some one the police could already take action before red flag laws. That is intent to action and enhances the probable cause, Red Flag laws unconstitutionally goes beyond that. And now shovels are weapons? WOW!

So, just getting angry is now grounds of total disarmament? You don't see a problem with this? That is scary!

"Extreme risk protection orders" / ERPO'S / red flag LAWS are a suspension of the Second Amendment without due process, without probable cause, and, in fact, without any crime at all. They are not Constitutional when they ignore the 1st, 2nd, 4th 5th 6th 8th 9th and 14th Amendments. The courts have not heard these laws yet, unbelievably.
The 9th Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. "The 10th Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
"So it's enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn't even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights."

As a LEO you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, Supporting and enforcing these Red Flag laws are not doing that.

I'd rather live in Dangerous freedom then peaceful slavery.

The Red Flag laws are back door confiscation laws and that is plain to see.

Wake up folks!
 
WVRifleman said:
I understand what you are saying but if you are threatening some one the police could already take action before red flag laws. That is intent to action and enhances the probable cause, Red Flag laws unconstitutionally goes beyond that. And now shovels are weapons? WOW!

So, just getting angry is now grounds of total disarmament? You don't see a problem with this? That is scary!

"Extreme risk protection orders" / ERPO'S / red flag LAWS are a suspension of the Second Amendment without due process, without probable cause, and, in fact, without any crime at all. They are not Constitutional when they ignore the 1st, 2nd, 4th 5th 6th 8th 9th and 14th Amendments. The courts have not heard these laws yet, unbelievably.
The 9th Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. "The 10th Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
"So it's enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn't even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights."

As a LEO you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, Supporting and enforcing these Red Flag laws are not doing that.

I'd rather live in Dangerous freedom then peaceful slavery.

The Red Flag laws are back door confiscation laws and that is plain to see.

Wake up folks!
Click to expand...

"I understand what you are saying but if you are threatening some one the police could already take action before red flag laws. That is intent to action and enhances the probable cause, Red Flag laws unconstitutionally goes beyond that. And now shovels are weapons? WOW! " No.....that's not correct and not what I am saying. LE cannot take action to disarm anyone unless there is (at minimum) a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a person is hurting someone or planning to hurt someone. The only time that law enforcement can go outside the scope/guarantees/perimeters of the U.S. Constitution are in cases where "exigent circumstances" are present. And.....even then exigent circumstances fall within the purvue/guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. By this what I am writing here is that if special circumstances, such as issues of public safety, Miranda and the 4th Amendment guarantees are abrogated; yet, these circumstances still fall within the purvues and protections of the U.S. Constitution. Thus meaning LE cannot go overboard while exercising exigent circumstances and going on a fishing expedition; PERIOD!! I understand the U.S. Constitution, I understand its protections (pro/con) and do not either want or need an lecture on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th or 10th amendments. Nor do I intend to get in to a debate about the U.S. Constitution on this forum.

I knew that I was going to catch some flack with this posting when I wrote it! The point about the axes, shovels and machetes from crazy/angry people was making a point that not always are these laws used just for firearms, nothing more.; to read more than that into it, in my opinion, is extreme. Next I took an oath to to "Protect and to Serve" the citizens of the town that I worked in. And yes we do take firearms (and other weapons like axes, shovels and car keys) from people who are crazy and angry or angry acting crazy; that's what LE does to protect its citizens. This posting has nothing to do with 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments, it only has to do with red flag laws and nothing else! What I have written is that red flag laws do serve a purpose (other than to circumvent the 2nd amendment), they can help protect people in certain circumstances; and, something that you forgot before this attack is that I also see the propensity for the red flag laws to be abused by the anti's. I am a total supporter of the 2nd amendment, and I feel that every legal citizen who is entitled to AND...trained to carry/own a firearm ought to have and utilize that right.

An element of some of the guns laws and gun legislation is the fact that there are extremists (as well as political whores) on both sides of this fence. As a result neither side can sanely accomplish passing laws to protect the innocents' rights as guaranteed by 2nd amendment; and, at the same time pass laws to prohibit/punish people who should not have firearms and prevent them from owning them or having them in their possession. If I accepted our argument/position, for me that would be like condoning the crazy/angry high school student, or the crazy/angry postal service employee owning a firearm; that's not going to happen. Radicalism is radicalism (left or right) it's still radicalism and it is both destructive and obstructive in its nature. Being "non-judgemental" and "objective" goes a long ways both here in this forum, and within our society today.
 
Alibiiv said:
"I understand what you are saying but if you are threatening some one the police could already take action before red flag laws. That is intent to action and enhances the probable cause, Red Flag laws unconstitutionally goes beyond that. And now shovels are weapons? WOW! " No.....that's not correct and not what I am saying. LE cannot take action to disarm anyone unless there is (at minimum) a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a person is hurting someone or planning to hurt someone. The only time that law enforcement can go outside the scope/guarantees/perimeters of the U.S. Constitution are in cases where "exigent circumstances" are present. And.....even then exigent circumstances fall within the purvue/guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. By this what I am writing here is that if special circumstances, such as issues of public safety, Miranda and the 4th Amendment guarantees are abrogated; yet, these circumstances still fall within the purvues and protections of the U.S. Constitution. Thus meaning LE cannot go overboard while exercising exigent circumstances and going on a fishing expedition; PERIOD!! I understand the U.S. Constitution, I understand its protections (pro/con) and do not either want or need an lecture on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th or 10th amendments. Nor do I intend to get in to a debate about the U.S. Constitution on this forum.

I knew that I was going to catch some flack with this posting when I wrote it! The point about the axes, shovels and machetes from crazy/angry people was making a point that not always are these laws used just for firearms, nothing more.; to read more than that into it, in my opinion, is extreme. Next I took an oath to to "Protect and to Serve" the citizens of the town that I worked in. And yes we do take firearms (and other weapons like axes, shovels and car keys) from people who are crazy and angry or angry acting crazy; that's what LE does to protect its citizens. This posting has nothing to do with 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments, it only has to do with red flag laws and nothing else! What I have written is that red flag laws do serve a purpose (other than to circumvent the 2nd amendment), they can help protect people in certain circumstances; and, something that you forgot before this attack is that I also see the propensity for the red flag laws to be abused by the anti's. I am a total supporter of the 2nd amendment, and I feel that every legal citizen who is entitled to AND...trained to carry/own a firearm ought to have and utilize that right.

An element of some of the guns laws and gun legislation is the fact that there are extremists (as well as political whores) on both sides of this fence. As a result neither side can sanely accomplish passing laws to protect the innocents' rights as guaranteed by 2nd amendment; and, at the same time pass laws to prohibit/punish people who should not have firearms and prevent them from owning them or having them in their possession. If I accepted our argument/position, for me that would be like condoning the crazy/angry high school student, or the crazy/angry postal service employee owning a firearm; that's not going to happen. Radicalism is radicalism (left or right) it's still radicalism and it is both destructive and obstructive in its nature. Being "non-judgemental" and "objective" goes a long ways both here in this forum, and within our society today.
Click to expand...


That's funny, you're advocating taking rights away from someone when there WAS NEVER A CRIME TO BEGIN WITH. How can you justify that abuse of power then claiming it's not? There is not a BUT at the end of the 2nd Amendment.

Due process doesn't mean anything at all when there were never a crime in the first place. It's a joke. The talking points are ridiculous about strong "due process". No crime, no probable cause, no charge and no right to take firearms away from a law abiding citizen just because some one FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE that some one in their family or neighborhood have guns. Not to mention, in many states you have no right to counsel. You have to pay a lawyer yourself, if you can afford one to get your guns back. That's not due process for poorer folks. That's why many of these in states already claim they have destroyed guns afterwards, and claiming vindication when folks can't afford a lawyer to get their rights back. This is outrageous anyone thinking this is acceptable in America.

We already have Laws in place to adjudicate Mentally ill people from owning guns. But that's too hard. We need where Joe Blow can disarm you because you got angry.

You are nuts of you don't think the Govt is not trying to disarm Americans.These laws don't target Criminals, they target law abiding citizens who NEVER BROKE A LAW..This Law is the real life "Minority Report" and it's dead wrong and will not work!

We are not guilty until proven innocent in America. And to tell me you don't want to get into the Constitutional debate over this is intellectually dishonest to think it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of these laws when they have everything to do it. It is NOT RADICAL TO BELIEVE IN OUR CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT.

Both parties are wanting your guns. And they will KILL YOU to get them. Ask the man that was Killed in MD that committed no crime, no accusation of a crime, no probable cause of a crime and no charge of a crime. SOMEONE called for a ERPO's / Red Flag Law Enforcement because SOMEONE, we don't know who because you are NOT entitled to know the person who was in fear of a gun owner just because he was a gun owner.

BTW,
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms by people who have been formally and involuntarily committed to mental health or drug treatment by a court, mental health board, or other legal commission.

That means a person who may be a danger to themselves or others by being mentally unstable is found that way via adjudication not some fear of street cop or nosy anti-gun neighbor.

 
WVRifleman said:
That's funny, you're advocating taking rights away from someone when there WAS NEVER A CRIME TO BEGIN WITH. How can you justify that abuse of power then claiming it's not? There is not a BUT at the end of the 2nd Amendment.

Due process doesn't mean anything at all when there were never a crime in the first place. It's a joke. The talking points are ridiculous about strong "due process". No crime, no probable cause, no charge and no right to take firearms away from a law abiding citizen just because some one FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE that some one in their family or neighborhood have guns. Not to mention, in many states you have no right to counsel. You have to pay a lawyer yourself, if you can afford one to get your guns back. That's not due process for poorer folks. That's why many of these in states already claim they have destroyed guns afterwards, and claiming vindication when folks can't afford a lawyer to get their rights back. This is outrageous anyone thinking this is acceptable in America.

We already have Laws in place to adjudicate Mentally ill people from owning guns. But that's too hard. We need where Joe Blow can disarm you because you got angry.

You are nuts of you don't think the Govt is not trying to disarm Americans.These laws don't target Criminals, they target law abiding citizens who NEVER BROKE A LAW..This Law is the real life "Minority Report" and it's dead wrong and will not work!

We are not guilty until proven innocent in America. And to tell me you don't want to get into the Constitutional debate over this is intellectually dishonest to think it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of these laws when they have everything to do it. It is NOT RADICAL TO BELIEVE IN OUR CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT.

Both parties are wanting your guns. And they will KILL YOU to get them. Ask the man that was Killed in MD that committed no crime, no accusation of a crime, no probable cause of a crime and no charge of a crime. SOMEONE called for a ERPO's / Red Flag Law Enforcement because SOMEONE, we don't know who because you are NOT entitled to know the person who was in fear of a gun owner just because he was a gun owner.

BTW,
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms by people who have been formally and involuntarily committed to mental health or drug treatment by a court, mental health board, or other legal commission.

That means a person who may be a danger to themselves or others by being mentally unstable is found that way via adjudication not some fear of street cop or nosy anti-gun neighbor.
Click to expand...

"No crime, no probable cause, no charge and no right to take firearms away from a law abiding citizen just because some one FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE that some one in their family or neighborhood have guns. Not to mention, in many states you have no right to counsel." What do you call a situation where you have a 15 year old boy, who has some personal/social issues with this fellow school mates, has told a friend that he has a gun and is planning on coming to school to get even? Essentially it is hearsay, from a student, there's been no crime committed and where is your probable cause? Everyone has the right to counsel in every state in this nation, everyone.

As for, "We already have Laws in place to adjudicate Mentally ill people from owning guns. But that's too hard. We need where Joe Blow can disarm you because you got angry." In the original post I wrote, "Rhode Island just introduced the red-flag laws, that "already" were on the books; but, we know how that goes." What I have written here essentially is what you have also written. I feel that no matter what I write you are going to try to over trump me. I too am frightened to witness what is going on within this country, and fear that it is being taken over by radical, left wing liberals whose only goals are to diminish and destroy the U.S. Constitution by using the Constitution and it guarantees against itself. We don't only have 2nd amendment issues in our country. You're worried about gun control, I'm really worried about where our social security system and our MediCare system are going when we have 4000 people a day coming in to this country looking to get a piece of those pies without contributing to it. And.....currently have politicians (political whores) supporting that point of view for votes. This country is in trouble, by the time people wake up the ship will have left the dock and it will be too late! I'm done here, you are entitled your opinions and I am entitled to mine; and, we can agree to disagree. I'm going back to the "Reloading Forum;):rolleyes:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

jbs2014
Red Flag fail
Replies
0
Views
769
jbs2014
jbs2014
C
Colorado red flag law passes
4 5 6
Replies
80
Views
6K
Deleted member 107796
D
338 dude
Red flag laws being proposed in Tennessee
Replies
7
Views
1K
338 dude
338 dude
WVRifleman
MD 'murders' a gun owner over "Red Flag" law, no crime was even alleged
Replies
7
Views
1K
CUTTER1
C
S
Every Gun Owner should read this
3 4 5
Replies
56
Views
6K
jonseim
J

Recent Posts

Top