There Isn’t Enough Due Process to Make Red Flag Laws Tolerable

Red flag law due process

Bigstock

By Rachel Malone

Red Flag with due process” means, “let’s have a law where people’s guns can be taken away because a judge decides they are likely to commit a crime in the future — even though they haven’t committed any crime yet. And we’ll call it due process because the person gets to know that this is happening and gets to go to court and defend himself against the ‘thought crime‘ charge.”

No matter how much procedural due process you add in (i.e., give notice, let the accused have an attorney, hear charges against him, and defend himself in court), red flag laws still lacks substantial due process (i.e. it’s wrong to have guns taken away based on a future prediction).

No person should have to go to court to defend himself against a “thought crime” charge.

If a person is truly determined to be a danger to himself or society (and there had better be a high bar for that — i.e. actual violent crimes committed) — then remove him from society. Take him off the streets. All the tools to do that are already in place.

Simply taking a gun away from a person who is truly dangerous is not going to stop him from carrying out evil plans. And lowering the bar for people’s guns being confiscated (i.e. “take the guns from someone whom we think is going to commit a future crime”) is likely to hurt innocent victims.

It’s likely to disarm the vulnerable. And it’s likely to disarm minorities.

With all the criminal justice reform discussion, it should not be difficult for people to understand that minorities will be disproportionately harmed by legislation like red flag laws — no matter how much “due process” you try to include.

This is why we must stop “red flag” law proposals.

 

Rachel Malone is Texas Director for Gun Owners of America.

comments

  1. avatar Stokeslawyer says:

    Remember folks, there is a political party that will openly say that they think ALL members of the NRA are terrorists, and ALL Trump supporters/voters/donors are Racists and Nazis. The same political party advocates for gun control.

    More than half the judges in the country belong to said party.

    What reasonable judge would think twice about taking guns away from a Racist Nazi Terrorist?

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Exactly!! The Red Flag Laws WILL be used to harass gun owners, forcing us to spend our treasure defending ourselves even when there is not even an accusation of a crime.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      I guess it’s time for us “racist nazi terrorist” to do what our forefathers did and give them a reason to consider us terrorists to their tyranny.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        I should probably clarify that I mean fight tyranny. No matter what happens in the legal battles, it will never be enough. For every inch we get, they will take a mile. We will always be on the defensive side. It’s past time to step up our offensive game.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The only way a “Red Flag” law could possibly work is to provide an accused individual with the full due-process rights contained in mental-competency proceedings. In competency-hearings individuals have the full protection of the law and have legal representation. Competency must be formally challenged and then proved in court before a person’s freedom can be taken from them. Doing this will prevent some bratty, pissed-off 15 year-old from getting her step-dad killed in a 5AM SWAT raid.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I have friends on S.W.A.T. The hour between 3:00am – 4:00am is the optimum strike hour, as it’s the timeframe when people are most likely deep asleep.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          …not all of us…

    4. avatar Bruce Hollander says:

      I have seen an article saying 66% of red flag orders are granted in about 3 minuets. This blows me away.

  2. avatar Donttreadonme says:

    It starts with red flag laws to remove guns, then it goes to red flag laws because they predict they’re going to commit A crime, regardless of the tools used. It’s a very dangerous path that must be fought against relentlessly.

    1. avatar Dani in WA says:

      Then it’s Red Flag laws triggered by a Google algorithm…

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And coming soon thereafter: Red Flag laws for “hate speech”, where “hate speech” will include advocating to end “sacred” institutions, such as buying votes (welfare) and murdering babies in the womb (abortion).

        Clarification:
        Democrats will scream that people who advocate ending welfare are evil of the first order — essentially accomplices to murder — because ending welfare will be directly responsible for countless welfare recipients starving to death or dying of exposure when they become homeless. Similarly, Democrats will scream that people who advocate the end of murdering babies in the womb (abortion) are evil of the first order because forcing women to carry babies to full term and deliver said babies is resurrecting the evil, heinous institution of slavery.

  3. avatar OregonExpatriate says:

    Red flag laws…now there’s a great weapon for your crazy ex to use!

  4. avatar Curmudgeon says:

    If you honestly think that red flag laws are a good idea, shouldn’t I report you as being mentally unstable and have you committed to an asylum against your will?.. That’s called no due process, and it’s extremely dangerous. Yet my take makes more sense than what is being suggested by anti-gunners because I have actual evidence that you ARE in fact psychotic based on your opinion. I still wouldn’t support such an action, because it’s not a slippery slope, it’s a volcanic landslide.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Well said, no matter how idiotic we think the other side is, one of us believes in actual freedom, and the other believes in the illusion of it. All we can do is show (by force if needed, as our forefathers did) them the difference.

  5. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Once we establish that a person can have property confiscated and prohibited because of some perceived probability of committing a crime, we have declared the innocent to be guilty. Worse, we cloud that reversal of the Constitution with some virtuous sounding words like ‘due process’.

    Later, we will feed big data into algorithms that will predict which of us should forced through that ‘due process’.

    This must be stopped. Will do my part.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    This is a Fox News Poll. It says we are losing. Not by a little but by a lot:
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-most-back-gun-restrictions-after-shootings-trump-ratings-down

    If our side does not get off its ass and work the problem of violent people using guns to commit mass murder, or kill their wives or whatever, we are going to lose these Second Amendment rights.

    All these years of fighting the wrong way, of letting the anti-gun side keep the focus on guns instead of human behavior. It is probably too late to undue the damage of all that incompetence.

    1. avatar Miss Chief Sensor says:

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Obvious McObvierson, cousin of Caption Obvious

    2. avatar Joatmon says:

      I’m pretty sure you’re correct but the problem is, it’s to late. My opinion.
      I think it’s going to reach a boiling point in the not to distant future. It’s close now.
      It will come down to politicians, both sides, going for confiscation of all guns.
      Some will fold and turn in their guns, others will fight.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      The problem is the only real way to actually stop this kind of crime is to harden targets. But nobody right or left is willing to do that. Red flag laws/background checks won’t stop them all. Gun bans won’t stop them all either. You could enforce both extremely strictly nationwide and we’d still have another “mass shooting.” If everywhere, there was a high ratio of armed people, both private and professional, body armor was prevalent, and had secure points of entry and exit, along with everyone being trained in knowing their job, casualty rates would drop extensively and the shooters would be neutralized quickly…. Then the trend of mass shootings would taper off, and those deranged enough to do this would start using suicide bombings and primitive chemical weapons.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Sorry what you say and want will never happen. The last people on earth (The Greed Monger Republicans) only spend billions only on the Military for wars of rape , pillage and conquest. The citizens and their children are always considered expendable.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          No it won’t ever happen. But the rest of your post is downright stupid. You’re a stupid person who worships at the alter of Europe. Europe, the continent that perfected wars of pillage and conquest. You’re a fool who knows nothing.

        2. avatar Baldwin says:

          @Vlad…Facts matter.
          “…Republicans) only spend billions only on the Military for wars of rape , pillage and conquest.”

          WW1: Democratic president.
          WW2: Democratic president.
          Korean War: Democratic president.
          Vietnam War: Democratic President. Ended by Republican president.
          vs.
          Cold War: Ended by Republican president.
          Gulf War: Republican president
          GWOT: Republican president/Democratic president/Republican president.

        3. avatar HP says:

          @VladTepes

          Soon, Comrade, soon. The bourgeois will come about and embrace our virtues. The Hammer and Sickle will rise above the White House, and the time will be upon us for full gun confiscation. Those who oppose will be dealt with. Communism and a country ruled by the wisdom of mighty progressive leaders – an idea who’s time has come, again. I’m sure you agree, as you’re a smart man.

        4. avatar Dani in WA says:

          “The Greed Monger Republicans” are the last people on earth?

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Baldy, you say:

        “Vietnam War: Democratic President. Ended by Republican president.”

        Amazing, I had no idea President Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican. And let me correct the last sentence for you:

        “Surrendered by Republican president.”

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          Points taken….but. LBJ was the one that went “all in” in Vietnam. And there was no way there was going to be a neat, honorable end to the shit-bucket that was the Vietnam war. Nixon (yeah, he had other issues) did the right thing and pulled the plug on an unsalvageable mess.
          [Vietnam Vets: You served with distinction and honor. The blame lies above your paygrade.]

        2. avatar Hank says:

          Miner you have very little knowledge about how Vietnam ended. Try reading a history book. Nixon has Vietnam won. Yes, WON. The democrat controlled congress with Ford as president in 75’ cut the presidents ability to enforce the peace accord by resuming the all out bombing campaign of the North, which was devastatingly effective against the North. Hanoi knew the politics of the US well and simply waited until weaker people were in charge and decided to test their luck with an invasion. They didn’t even expect it would work. But then when they knew the US planes weren’t coming, they knew the south was theirs.

    4. avatar B.D. says:

      I remember all the polls that said hillary was winning too…

      Dont you understand why they do that stuff? The polls are not accurate, but their intentions are, and they mean to draw in more support to their narrative, or in other words – attract viewers and increase ratings.

      One day you will figure out how the media is operating.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        That’s a FOX news poll. It’s not a CNN poll.

        There was also a FOX viewer poll done for Republicans that shows they are increasingly in favor of taxing the rich for socialism.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          again… it doesn’t matter who put the poll out. Who was polled? When? What is left out? This is the problem with the media driven narrative behind said polls. None are factual. All represent their target audience for their purpose. In this one… it’s to gather more support.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Chief, it is a bit cute how you think there is a real difference between FOX and CNN.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          The rich should pay more in taxes, they have profited the most from the society built by our parents and grandparents.

          The idea that billionaires like Trump should get a free ride is hilarious.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Miner But Never a 49er — The rich already pay their “fair” share. The rich already pay the vast majority of the taxes. Whether you believe this or not doesn’t even enter into it, and there literally zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — that exists to support any belief to the contrary, so don’t even bother trying to argue.

    5. avatar Reason says:

      Same fox poll showing Trump loosing by double digits to all the Dem canidates in head to head match ups? The one reported in the”News” thismorning.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Well, they did poll Democrats too. They polled everyone. That’s what a poll is for.

    6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Sorry but your Republican Gods were the ones that continue to stab all gun owners in the back. They are the ones that prevented Obama from instituting a full blown National Health Care Medicare for all plan like the Europeans have had for decades. Without affordable mental health care the nut cases are left to run lose and slaughter millions of people and the Republicans will not spend a penny to stop it, nor will they spend a penny to guard schools either. The military gets billions to conduct more wars of rape , pillage and conquest but there is not a penny left for protecting our own children. The military industrial complex that of all people a Republican President Eisenhower warned us about in the 50’s has bankrupted the country and earned us the hatred of the entire world including our WWII Allies.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        @Vlad…You hear Europe calling do you? We decided we didn’t want to be Europe anymore. We even made it all formal…Declaration, War of Independence, Constitution. Europe is still there if you want it. You could emigrate there if you wanted, if they let you. You might try a go-fund-me for your ticket. You could become a proper little subject.
        Or, you could do something constructive and become a part of the solution to the issues you make such terrible points for. Get an education. Learn how unique we are in world history. And why American values of liberty, fairness and personal accountability matter.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        protecting your own children? Why would the governments pennies be needed for that? Shouldn’t that start with you? Pretty sure you are free to establish your own wealth and provide for your family yourself… then again… you criticize the people in the military as if “your side” would use them any different? Pretty sure every government you support uses the military against it’s own people. Dumbass.

        I just love your posts Vlad… you have all the answers from behind the keyboard. If it was you running the country, everyone would be millionaires and cancer free.

      3. avatar Anymouse says:

        Obamacare was passed without a single Republican Representative ‘s or Senator’s vote. They could have put whatever they wanted into it. If you don’t like the results, blame Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Dems.

    7. avatar ScottMc says:

      Never forget that FOX is now run by the Murdock boys. I never did consider it either “fair and balanced” or particularly conservative, just the best of a bad lot.

      You really need to see the actual poll with all of the details, bumps, and warts, not the reporter’s summary, to properly interpret it.

    8. avatar SoCalJack says:

      @Enuf,
      I’d have to agree with you. The polls create a “perception” leading to reality. Looking across the board, social and news media, Antis and POTG, the Antis have increased offensive efforts while the POTG have maintained a defensive vocal “…shall not be infringed”. We are loosing because our strategy is stale.

      We must be on the offensive, not wait for the NRA to get thier shit together, we must be proactive in social media and locally even if you live in what is currently a free state, not rest on our laurels, less time “preaching to the choir”, and more time engaging moderates in rational conversation to bring in new shooters. Push yourselves and others to join multiple Gun rights groups, state and national, we must show our strength in membership numbers. United we stand…and fight.

    9. avatar Mark Webb says:

      What a maroon!

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Mark,

        Quick bit of trivia…do you know where that comes from (who said it) and why? The answer’s kinda funny…

        1. avatar Dani in WA says:

          I have to go with, *ahem*, “B.B.”

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Yep, Dani. Because it was taboo at the time to use the word “moron” in a childrens cartoon. So the Looney Tunes (Warner Brothers) producers got around it by changing the pronunciation.

  7. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    No judge or magistrate is going to say no to a Red Flag request EVER.

    There is too much downside to saying no if the person goes all wackadoodle.

    If the judge or magistrate says “Yes, go get the persons firearms” there really is no downside for the judge or magistrate. “Can’t be too careful” they will say or similar. If the firearms owner resists in any way they’ll say “see! wackadoodle”

    Judges and magistrates will not give a single ‘eff’ that the requester is a vindictive psycho Ex whatever.

    They are going to CYA no matter what.

    `just sayin

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      You speak truth!!
      Had not thought of that, but it rings solidly true.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      Except that the “can’t be to careful” mentality is a direct infringement on our rights in these situations. So that very mentality could easily come back to bite them in the ass as it has many times when they start taking from innocents. Even better, is when the people who pushed for all these “red flag laws” start getting their privacy invaded and rights taken away because of it, start to complain about them and realize they dun fucked up.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        They don’t care. They infringe daily.

        Your point sounds good in theory, but observably, in practice, what you say simply does not matter.

  8. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    How did Tim Allan say it in the movie 🎥Galaxy Quest…”Never give up !!! Never Surrrender !!!”

    1. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Minority Report – Shoot to defend your 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, Amendment Rights against a Tyrannical Govt of Socialist Shitbags.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      You’d do it for Randolph Scott!

  9. avatar Thomas Redwine Hartshorn says:

    I still don’t get it? Here is a law that is completely ILLEGAL because it is in direct conflict with the Constitution, specifically the 1st, 2nd,4th,6th,14th and maybe other Amendments and nobody is addressing the fact the State of Florida has passed a law that is violating my Constitutional Rights. Nobody is being arrested. Nobody is being fired or chastised for violating my rights, nor is anyone being arrested by the FBI for passing illegal laws on the citizens of this and other states.
    Why is that? Is there any commenters on here from the FBI or LEO that can explain why they are not arresting these politicians for passing laws in direct conflict with the Constifution? Is this NOT breaking the law ????

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Temples of the Syrinx…

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Man, I got a real rush from your comment!

        They even credited I Ayn Rand on that album, they believed her BS.

        Of course, she ended up on Social Security and Medicare, she was a parasite by her own definition, hilarious.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I didn’t know one could ‘opt out’.

          So trying to get her money back that she was forced to give to the government makes her a parasite?

        2. avatar Dani in WA says:

          “Man, I got a real rush from your comment!”

          LoL!

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote——————-Why is that? Is there any commenters on here from the FBI or LEO that can explain why they are not arresting these politicians for passing laws in direct conflict with the Constifution? Is this NOT breaking the law ????————-quote

      The Constitution has been ignored as though it never existed since it was first written down. History has proven that Public Opinion influences what the courts rule on even when it is in direct violation of the Constitution going back as far as the Dred Scott decision as well as all the other unconstitutional laws passed before Dred Scott and after Dred Scott. Voter suppression of minorities , laws prohibiting inter racial marriage, laws prohibiting blacks from sitting with whites on a bus or drinking from the same fountain. The list is endless including anti-gun laws. First the Supreme Court said only military guns were protected by the constitution and then when public opinion turned against weapons of mass destruction they reversed course and began banning any gun that even was remotely like a military weapon. Yeah sure tell me about your non existent Constitutional Rights.

      The government is not prohibited from doing anything to you and in the early 30’s Hitler studied the U.S. discriminatory laws against minorities which often included forced sterilization of completely innocent people. Hitler copied all the American criminal laws and then went even further because he could as a dictator. Thank the American Government for making the Holocaust possible as they taught Hitler how to do it and everything he needed to know as to how to get away with it. America was full blown Nazi before even Hitler was. And Herr Drumpf and his fanatical followers today would build gas chambers today if Herr Drumpf ever seized power as well as destroy the freedom of the press which Herr Drumpf so passionately hates in true Hitlerite fashion.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Thinking about it. Isn’t violation of the constitution a civil offense? Since it is not criminal, can law enforcement arrest politicians for civil violations? I do not actually know.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It doesn’t matter. Legislators are immune from civil suits arising from their legislative activities. They can only be arrested for corruption in office, i.e., taking bribes.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        All those unconstitutional laws that they passed and you pointed out. They are not still the law, vlad. They have been struck down because they were unconstitutional and just illegal.

        Gun laws that do not pass constitutional muster will also be struck down. Protecting human and civil rights is an on going battle that will never end. By pushing for those unconstitutional laws as you do you come down on the same side as the folks that thought Dredd Scott was a good ruling.

        You and the kkk trying to suppress human and civil rights, vlad. You fascists stick together.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          jwm

          Your a real hoot. There are literally hundreds of anti-gun laws on the books that were sanctioned by the courts. In Massachusetts the female Attorney General on her own volition overnight outlawed all assault rifles without any law even being passed. She claimed she was re-interpreting a former law over 20 years old. She herself changed the law in one day and the corrupt anti-gun courts upheld the constitutionality of that law and that is only one instance of hundreds of anti-gun laws passed and later sanctioned by the courts.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          vlad. The courts upheld a lot of laws that were wrong. You pointed out a bunch of them yourself. And yet those laws are gone now.

          I know you fascists love you some laws suppressing human and civil rights. But we have a system here. And it will throw you brown shirts under the bus.

  10. avatar TweetyRex says:

    The second time someone gets a DWI, they obviously can’t control their dangerous impulses and need to be committed to a mental institution….. for life. There, now we have a problem, and we have a solution. How does that sound?

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      Third, this is America. We do shit with 3 strikes.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Haven’t you heard? They closed the mental institutions. That’s why there are so many homeless in the streets, because their are no facilities that can deal with their needs, and no will to spend the money to do something about it. Just wash the shit off the sidewalks and go about your day.

      In California, on your third DUI, you don’t go to the nuthouse, you go to jail for up to six months, 16 months to four years if you hurt someone. Kill someone and you are looking at felony time in prison.

  11. avatar MarkED says:

    They need to give the person that is being flagged ability to seek recourse and damages, for wrongful removal of rights, including any and all law enforcement, judges, witnesses, and all parties direct and indirect in removal of personal property, currently all laws protect even people who make FALSE accusations. That is intolerable. Damages should be as will all violation of personal rights 3-5 times actual value and court cost legal fees and punitive damages SHOULD BE MANDATORY. IF gun grabbers were really about protecting lives these few stipulations should NOT be a issue!

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote———————– Damages should be as will all violation of personal rights 3-5 times actual value and court cost legal fees and punitive damages SHOULD BE MANDATORY.————————quote

      As a young man on May 4th 1970 I quickly learned the State always supports the people that protect the people in power and when your on the wrong end of their guns there never is any compensation even when you are proved correct. The last thing the Republicans would ever agree to is any monetary compensation to anyone but their own greedy corrupt selves. History has proven this over and over again. The Storm Troopers are always declared in the right.

      1. avatar Broke_It says:

        Are you insinuating being there or just being alive when this was a newsworthy event?

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Almost always. There are notable exceptions but they generally require wealth, power, and or fame as a minimum starting point, from there you have to draw a straight flush.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        You were a young man in 1970, vlad? In other posts you’ve said that you were a young man in the 50’s. Your age and experience changes from comment to comment.

        But that’s just a troll being a troll.

    2. avatar Docduracoat says:

      My wife has already threatened me with a red flag complaint to agree to her divorce terms.
      It would cost me thousands to get my guns back.
      The fact that there are no penalties for making a knowingly false accusation is a feature, not a big

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        First, check the red flag law in your state. If you are not living together, she may not have standing. And anyway, at least currently though there are efforts to extend the period, the loss of guns lasts no more than a year (renewable), but your guns must be returned at the end of the suspension.
        Second, she could file a DV restraining order, and you would be best off hiring a lawyer experienced in such matters, because your gun rights are at stake. Yes it will cost. But you could sue for malicious prosecution if you successfully defend the claim. The vast majority of attorneys will give the same advice: don’t go there.
        Third, there are penalties for filing a false report, because in every state the report has to be filed under penalty of perjury. And the claim must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. On the other hand, the DA will rarely prosecute a perjury action since it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      2. avatar Dani in WA says:

        Keep a record of such statements. That’s blackmail.

  12. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    They’ll be knocking on everyone’s door on January 22, 2021. Take advantage of the ammo sales while they last. Matter of fact I would recommend spending on ammo instead of firearms if you already own one. How many paper weights can you use anyway. Once the last bullet is sold it will mark the end of the last free society on earth.
    Enjoy them while you can.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Yes, the future does look dismal, and depressing. Perhaps it actually will be. Perhaps it will also be extremely violent. Wouldn’t be the first time.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Mack, you are absolutely correct. I already have all the guns I’ll ever need, so I spent the last three years funneling all my “gun” money into ammo stockpiling after our AB63 (the infamous ammo background check law) in CA was passed, which took effect last month. Stocked up bigly to last me years. Now that I have guns and ammo, the money is diverted into more frequent range time and training classes.

      You never know if/when ammo will no longer be easily available due to catastrophe or manmade laws.

  13. avatar Dog of War says:

    This entire situation is just another example of why making your own ‘Ghost Guns’ are permeable to something documented on an Form 4473 at your local gun store. Well… preferable at least if you’re skilled enough to know how to build it right.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote———————This entire situation is just another example of why making your own ‘Ghost Guns’ are permeable to something documented on an Form 4473 at your local gun store. Well… preferable at least if you’re skilled enough to know how to build it right.—————————–quote

      The only thing a nut case is skilled enough to do is break the law and end up in prison, and then loses all ones financial assets and his job. Ghost guns are a fantasy of the Far Right because sooner or later someone will find out you made one and turn you in and you may not even survive the sudden attack with out warning when law enforcement come for you. No one is going to care or put up a stink about some nut case that got gunned down by law enforcement because he had made a prohibited dangerous weapon and is then roasted alive. Waco style assaults make excellent entertainment for law abiding citizens on the 6:00 news much as the Branch Davidians did when law enforcement roasted them alive on National TV for all to watch. It reminded one of the cheering crowds at the Roman Coliseum 2,500 years ago. The public loved it then and still loves it today.

      We live in a brave new world with cameras watching your every move 24 hours around the clock and computers also tracking your every move even if you never leave your house. Freedom is a thing now long extinct in the 21st Century. You exist only at the mercy and pleasure of the Government and they govern your life from birth to death. Anyone who does not accept that fact lives in a fantasy world of the past.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        “You exist only at the mercy and pleasure of the Government and they govern your life from birth to death. Anyone who does not accept that fact lives…” for freedom. For liberty. For our basic human rights written in our Constitution. To preserve our hard won Republic.

      2. avatar Dog of War says:

        Blah, blah, blah. More BS from out ‘favorite’ member of the lunatic left. That said I always find it really amusing that psychos like you always believe that your opinions are shared most of America, let alone are shared by local, state, or even federal law enforcement.

  14. avatar Will Drider says:

    I like NASCAR and NHRA Drag Racing. I really hate drivers in the fast lane driving below the posted spid limit. It pisses me off when I see a guy eating a buger, using a cell phone and driving at the same time. Don’t get me started with the ladies doing a complete “makeover” in the vanity mirror while going 70 MPH and swaying through lanes.

    Guess I should go to the State Police and turn in my Drivers License. Ya never know, I might have to defensively drive while avoiding them while flipping the Bird.

  15. avatar Shire-man says:

    Massive goal post movement by the police state.
    Red flag, take guns, crimes still committed.
    So if you deemed the person dangerous why did you let him remain free?
    We have to “do something.”
    Just taking the guns isn’t enough.
    I know! We’ll just lock the person up until evidence can be gathered proving there is no threat.
    This will be the biggest piece of the liberty pie lost since the Patriot Act.

  16. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    quote———————-No matter how much procedural due process you add in (i.e., give notice, let the accused have an attorney, hear charges against him, and defend himself in court), red flag laws still lacks substantial due process (i.e. it’s wrong to have guns taken away based on a future prediction).

    No person should have to go to court to defend himself against a “thought crime” charge.———————-quote

    BULLSHIT

    Just another article written to fire up the paranoia of the Far Right who see conspiracies and big government hiding behind every tree and bush.

    In Ohio they raided a home and arrested a kid that had posted threats on the internet and seized his guns and thousands of rounds of ammo and Ohio does not have a red flag law so there was no due process at all. Here is a case when a red flag law properly written might actually have been an asset to the rights of the kid depending on how the law was written and how serious the threats really were.

    Generally speaking law enforcement looks for hard evidence such as the nut case beating up and threatening his wife that is evident from they physical bruises and other physical damage inflicted on the wife. Internet threats which Far Right Storm Trooper racist Nazi’s are so found of using are often used as solid evidence that law enforcement has yet another Racist Far Right Maniac with an assault rifle on the loose.

    And lets face facts even the Far Right cannot lie their way out of. If indeed law enforcement makes an honest mistake and does take someones guns he can always go through the courts and get them back but if law enforcement does not move in when they feel there is a dangerous threat to a wife or the community and a mass murder takes place there is nothing they can to to bring the dead back to life. In other words having the Red Flag law outweighs all the disadvantages of not having a red flag law. Even a retarded Moron can understand this but there is no reasoning with the paranoia of the far right who still thinks the Moon landing was a hoax and the Sandy Hook massacre never happened and was just a Left Wing conspiracy. You cannot reason with the lunatics of the Far Right. And what is most chilling is that the Far Right Lunatics are the very group who scream loudest for the right to own weapons of mass destruction i.e. the assault rifle because without the assault rifle they can no longer threaten the civilized population , threaten the government or carry out mass murder so easily.

    1. avatar Dog of War says:

      The TL:DR of literately every post from Vlad Tepes: ‘HURR DURR FAR RIGHT HURR DURR! HURR DURR ORANGE MAN BAD!’

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      @ Vlad…”If indeed law enforcement makes an honest mistake…” This is me ROFLMAO. We are citizens, not subjects! The government must prove us guilty, not we must prove our innocence. This is called, wait for it…due process. AND due process PRECEDES any sanctions.
      Come on Vlad…improve your game. You make it too easy and I’m feeling bad for picking on the weak. Naw, just kidding! I’m enjoying this more than I should. Just go. Please.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote———[email protected] Vlad…”If indeed law enforcement makes an honest mistake…” This is me ROFLMAO. We are citizens, not subjects! The government must prove us guilty, not we must prove our innocence. This is called, wait for it…due process. AND due process PRECEDES any sanctions.
        Come on Vlad…improve your game. You make it too easy and I’m feeling bad for picking on the weak. Naw, just kidding! I’m enjoying this more than I should. Just go. Please.————————-quote

        Recite all your blather to the grieving families of the dead who could have and probably would have been saved by red flag laws. I would think even a mentally challenged person like yourself would have heard the old axiom , “better safe than sorry” but then again arguing with the mentally ill is an exercise in futility.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      vlad. where are you on the spectrum? Does your case worker know about this unhealthy obsession you have with abusing people? Would they take away your computer rights if they knew?

    4. avatar Hank says:

      Everyone’s racist and everyone’s a Nazi vlad. Even you. Just accept it, and you’ll find comfort and peace.

  17. avatar George Washington says:

    RED FLAG LAWS MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS….. NO MATTER THE COST!
    THIS IS ANOTHER BLATANT INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!

    THE PENALTY FOR A FALSE RED FLAG REPORT SHOULD BE A FELONY…… BUT THEY ONLY WANT IT TO BE A MISDEMEANOR….
    ONLY A MISDEMEANOR FOR VIOLATING SOMEONE’S GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES??????

    THIS FACT IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DEFACTO GOVERNMENT SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION….. WHICH ALSO MEANS THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INFILTRATED BY THE ENEMY….

    NOW WHAT WILL AMERICANS DO ABOUT IT????????
    TO BE OR NOT TO BE….. THAT IS THE QUESTION!!!!!

  18. avatar TFred says:

    The author is on the right track, and even walks right up to the line, but does not connect the dots for the critical point. Credit to her for writing the article though, I hadn’t thought of it either, until I did.

    Here’s the point:

    A “Due Process Red Flag Law” is an OXYMORON. It CANNOT exist, by the very definition of the terms.

    Due Process is a feature of our judicial system, which is BUILT on the foundation of “innocent until proven guilty.” Red Flag Laws are BUILT on the foundation of “you might be guilty in the future, so we’re going to take away SOME of your personal property until you can convince us that you aren’t going to be guilty in the future.”

    These are 100% INCOMPATIBLE states of being. There can NEVER be a “Due Process Red Flag Law.”

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      If we consider you enough of a threat to take away your property, we really ought to have enough insight about your actions to prosecute you for an actual crime and lock you away from society. If we don’t feel you’ve committed a crime, and we don’t feel right about locking you up, then we have absolutely NO right to deprive you of your constitutionally protected property.

      This probably does mean that occasionally a terrible person who showed signs beforehand will do something awful – it’s miserable to have to admit it, but it’s also (alas) par for the course when it comes to the human condition.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        Yep.

        If you’re too dangerous to be walking around WITH a gun, then you’re also too dangerous to be walking around WITHOUT a gun.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Should be a meme. Put that text on photos from the truck killings and mass stabbings and suicide bombings and….

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote—————————–Due Process is a feature of our judicial system, which is BUILT on the foundation of “innocent until proven guilty.” Red Flag Laws are BUILT on the foundation of “you might be guilty in the future, so we’re going to take away SOME of your personal property until you can convince us that you aren’t going to be guilty in the future.————–quote

      When people have their jaws broken and have their guts stamped almost out there have been cases where the guns were not taken from them i.e. because of no red flag laws.

      When internet nut cases have threatened mass murder on line and nothing was done as was the case this past week not once but twice then red flag laws should have stopped them immediately. In Ohio law enforcement this week said fuck the lack of Red Flag laws and guess what? They took the guys guns anyway and his ammo and threw him in jail so your argument against red flag laws shows that even without legal red flag laws that law enforcement can and sometimes do do as they please. Now what is your argument against red flag laws because its just a validation that law enforcement will now be forced to do what they should have been doing all along.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        “Now what is your argument against red flag laws…”

        The posted article, as well as my comment, and many other comments on this post, quite clearly articulate the answer to your question.

        Nothing in your rant changes all the valid reasons that have been provided here and in countless other forums.

      2. avatar joeSmith says:

        So, you are saying the government just does what it wants regardless of the laws. Sounds like a good reason to never give up your second amendment right to bear arms.

      3. avatar Cary B says:

        To Vlad:
        I would like to see if you can comprehend and answer some questions for me, pretty please.
        If someone has intent to kill others, how exactly will this red flag legislation stop it? So you bust in and remove the firearms, at least the ones you know about, due to a perceived propensity for violence, posts on social media, a report from a concerned family member or friend, etc.. So precisely WHAT have you done to curtail this intent to kill? For those who did not have the intent and were the victims of false accusation, you not only violated their civil rights, but you likely ruined their lives, their careers and their financial security. The socioeconomic cost is great, and you have accomplished a net of zero. Ok, let’s say that the person actually does have intent to cause harm or death upon others. You entered their home, removed the inanimate objects that could never harm a soul without human interaction, but you did NOTHING to get to the root cause of WHY this person is intent on harming or killing others. You took his known firearms, what about the ones you don’t know about? And if they don’t have any, what will prevent them from procuring more to carry out their deed? Or from finding other types of weapons to use? You did not deal with the actual threat, which is the human who wants to kill/harm. No one wants to hear this logic, because the end game is pushing towards disarmament of the American public. Red flag should be a 4-alarm wakeup for the American citizen, because it sets a very dangerous precedent. This type of legislation shows that we no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but we have a faction of tyrants filling positions at a steady pace who are driven to make the governing office more powerful than the very people it is supposed to answer to. In recent news there is a story of a red flag action carried out against a man that is solid proof that it is just useless to stop a raving psycho from carrying out their plans to kill. The authorities went into his home and removed two firearms after a call from his mother that he was dangerous and threatening. So the man ordered some parts and built two more firearms, so she called and again the police took those from him. Well, he ended up using a Samurai sword to cut his mother to pieces and stuff her remains into a trash bin. Tell me again how this unconstitutional form of legislation is ever going to work to stop humans from killing each other? People have been murdering each other for thousands of years, long before the gun was even invented. There are thousands of ways to kill someone besides using a firearm. Until we start putting energy, time and funding into helping PEOPLE, we will never see a reduction in this tragic problem.
        https://gunowners.org/red-flag-failure-police-take-guns-from-illinois-man-kills-mother-with-samurai-sword/

  19. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    We must first understand the Bill of Rights are a list of the preclusions that the government has a duty to not infringe upon as the founders conceived of them,before a discussion of the government infringing on them can take place

    Red Flag or in Orwellian speak Gun Violence Restraining Orders is the total destruction of all rights,thus complete subversion of the Constitution both federal and state.
    Just a quick count that I can think of off the top,it violates the 2nd.4 th. 5th.6 th. 14 th. and most likely a few other amendments to the Constitution.
    The founders would be ashamed that their progeny would be willing to hand over to a out of control government,that they pledged their lives fortune and sacred honor to secure for the future generations,Freedom and Liberty.

    We delegated to Congress the following Enumerated Powers over the Country at Large:

    Article I, § 8, clauses 1-16 delegate to Congress the powers:

    (1) To lay certain taxes;

    (2) To pay the debts of the United States;

    (3) To declare war and make rules of warfare, to raise and support armies and a navy and to make rules governing the military forces; to call forth the militia for certain purposes, and to make rules governing the militia;

    (4) To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    (5) To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization;

    (6) To establish uniform Laws on Bankruptcies;

    (7) To coin money and regulate the value thereof;

    (8) To fix the standard of Weights and Measures;

    (9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting;

    (10) To establish post offices and post roads;

    (11) To issue patents and copyrights;

    (12) To create courts inferior to the supreme court; and

    (13) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Laws of Nations.

    Other provisions of Our Constitution delegate to Congress powers over the Country at Large to make laws regarding:

    (14) An enumeration of the population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3);

    (15) Elections of Senators & Representatives (Art. I, §4, cl. 1) and their pay (Art. I, § 6);

    (16) After 1808, to prohibit importation of slaves (Art. I, § 9, cl. 1); 2

    (17) After 1808, to restrict migration (immigration) to these United States (Art. I, §9, cl. 1);

    (18) A restricted power to suspend Writs of Habeas Corpus (Art. I, §9, cl. 2);

    (19) To revise and control imposts or duties on imports or exports which may be laid by States (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2 &3)

    (20) A restricted power to declare the punishment of Treason (Art. III, §3, cl. 2);

    (21) Implementation of the Full Faith and Credit clause (Art. IV, §1); and,

    (22) Procedures for amendments to The Constitution (Art. V).

    90% of what occurs in congress is out side of the Constitution and thus extra Constitutional and not within the preview of congress to legislate,thus un Costitutional.

    The words of one particular founder seem appropriate.

    Mr./Dr. Ben Franklin was asked on exiting Constitution hall.

    What Sort of Government Have You Given Us Dr. Franklin?

    Benjamin Franklin is purported to have replied to the above question with “a Republic madam, if you can keep it.”

    We have done a rather poor job of keeping the hard fought and won Republic,Not democracy,if we are speaking of giving up our fundamental right of due process. Something else Dr. Franklin said seems appropriate,
    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote:——————————Red Flag or in Orwellian speak Gun Violence Restraining Orders is the total destruction of all rights,thus complete subversion of the Constitution both federal and state.——————quote

      Sorry gazing out from your balcony with rose colored sun glasses on ignores reality and public opinion which rules not the constitution. History has always been that way with the courts.

      Failing to stop nut cases before they commit mass murder is going to be sanctioned by the courts constitution or no constitution just as most gun ban laws are also upheld by the courts. History has already proven it many times over and over.

      You might as well call it what it is COMMON SENSE THAT EVEN A MENTALLY CHALLENGED PERSON COULD COMPREHEND.

      It must be remembered the Constitution was written in a time long since past and in a country much different than we have today. We do not have 3 million people we have 330 million people and we have weapons of mass destruction the founding fathers could not have imaged would ever exist. If the founding fathers were to come back from the grave they would sanction such laws in a heart beat. And lets face facts since even they made a mockery of their own constitutional laws when they were alive do you think they would not again do so in the present days. That is historic reality like it or not.

      You imagine the founding fathers as immaculate and perfect gods but they were as corrupt, as criminal and as nefarious as any of today’s politicians and if alive today would be no different from the politicians of today, probably even far worse, just look at the racist crimes they committed when they were alive.

  20. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Once a person has had their 2nd amendment right revoked by so.e red flag law, how does that right get restored? That person has to spend more money and time petitioning to have that right restored?

    Insanity.

  21. avatar enuf says:

    blah blah blah … red flag bad … blah blah blah … it’s all a conspiracy … blah blah blah … socialists are coming … blah blah blah …

    You people are going to lose all of us our Second Amendment Rights. Unless you get a fucking clue and start doing something to prevent violence the public mood will continue to shift and we will fucking lose.

    A Fox News poll says 67% of Americans favor a new Assault Weapon Ban. That poll found that even Republicans are equally split now, with some new gun control proposals at 56% positive among Republicans.

    This is your fault for thinking you were fighting to make gun laws go away or be more friendly to law abiding people. Guess what, you missed the point. What creates those bad laws is the violence. If you do not work the violence problem the demand for bad gun laws only grows.

    Every time some piece of shit shoots a woman who had a restraining order, we lose.

    Every time a known nut case kills people, we lose.

    And you all want to do jack shit about it.

    1. avatar Ms Chief Sensor says:

      Obvious troll is too obvious.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Bullshit. Check Fox News or click the link in an earlier post up above this one. The situation is very real.

        You want to help protect gun rights? Then get the NRA-ILA and other groups and politicians to go to work on laws to get dangerous nut jobs into jails and psych wards. I’ve been writing to them about this for years.

        Or do you deny that it us the law abiding gun owners who come under attack every time one of these defective violent crackpots does a mass shooting?

        It is obvious, the violence causes attacks on our rights. If we want to protect our rights we have to work on the violence problem.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Hey look someone who believes in polls 😂

  22. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The next obvious extension of the Demoncrat game plan will be to combine ‘red flag’ laws with the ‘terrorist watch list’ ban on firearms purchases. If you find yourself on the super secret government list of people not approved for firearms purchases, why on earth would they let you keep the firearms that you already own? I mean, you’re a potential terrorist, right?

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The Terrorist Watch List was a bad idea because it is chock full of bad intel and sound-alike names. I mean there have been well known politicians stopped from boarding airplanes. And then getting a mistake corrected was all but impossible. Even though a lot of work has been done to fix it, it’s still far from trustworthy information. Even the ACLU came out against applying the Terrorist Watch List to the NICS.

  23. avatar Truckman says:

    no way like here in Fl.the only way you can lose your right to own besides breaking the law is if the Courts agree to baker act you and that is to send to be evaluated by more than one DR. to see if you are a danger to yourself or somebody else or if you just don’t have enough mental capacity to be responsible enough to take care of yourself then your guns are turned over to a family member to take care of also you lose your driving privlage

  24. avatar " keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    A judge’s decision to take away someone’s Second Amendment Right may very well make”That Guy”. Due Process= Lawyers, Lawyers = money. Well I’ll be damned, back to that ole blind justice sees green,thing again. No really it’s more bullsht on the poor, the more wealthy go to physc’s and sht and get all better. Also this is a better gunm grab scam then that domestic violence gunm grab law.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Possum!!

  25. avatar Johnny Cash says:

    One thing to remember is in many ways these Due Process-less laws already exist. In Arizona where I live, a hand written complaint is all I need to take before a judge who, based on that alone will decide to issue an Order of Protection (relationship restraining order) or Injunction Against Harrassment (non-relationship restraining order), in which if the requestor asks, can include removing firearms by the police, as well as prohibiting them from being at specified locations, such as their own home. Additionally, there is a similar process for “mental health orders”.

    All of these are served and followed through on before the one being served has any opportunity to defend themselves. In cases of these “restraining orders”, the one who has been served has 10 business days to show to court to contest it, or the order stands for a year. Violating it results in criminal charges.

    This has become a favorite method for causing trouble in divorces, causing issues at places of work and even police have not found themselves immune to this Legal process absent Due Process.

    Red flag laws would just make this already existing process more prevalent and abusive.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ….terrible in concept…horrible in implementation…

  26. avatar Reno1947 says:

    Its going to be a bloodbath

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email