United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Devildoc]

Red Flag laws are a product of the Good Idea Fairy, whereby the intent rapidly diverged from the practice and delivery.

There has long been processes, with due process, whereby people with malintent or psychiatric issues have had weapons confiscated for their, or their loved ones, good. But they got a lawyer, the courts put the onus on the system to prove, and they ate the costs. Red Flag laws do none of this. Red Flag laws have become politicized and weaponized and have diverged from their intent.

 

[Marauder06]

To the first part of your reply.

These are civil, not criminal proceedings; that's not a lack of due process or legality in the property being removed.

My understanding of the vast majority of these orders is that the person in question willingly surrenders the weapons.

AFAIK, due process still attaches in civil proceedings. Regardless, arbitrarily being deprived of property by the State seems to me to be a pretty clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Cookie_]

@amlove21 and @Marauder06

On the due process argument, both of you are missing that the courts have long agreed that emergency orders do not violate the 14th Ammendment.

Think of restraining orders, civil commitments for mental health, and even removing children from a home in emergency situations.

All of those happen before a court case. The way those don't violate the 14th is that they are legally required to have that court case at the earliest possible time so as to not deny the rights of the respondent. This is why (here in CO) the court case for an ERPO has to happen within 14 days.

Civil forfeiture isn't a comparable argument here either. It's not the cops taking my property because "I might have done a crime" and then being able to keep it even if I'm not charged with anything.

They legally have to give the weapons back, let the respondent transfer them to a friend/family member, or allow the respondent to sell them.
The police do not get to make that decision; if the respondent has 50 gun and 30k rounds of ammo he/she wants to keep, the police legally have to store that.

But they got a lawyer, the courts put the onus on the system to prove, and they ate the costs. Red Flag laws do none of this. Red Flag laws have become politicized and weaponized and have diverged from their intent.

This is literally how the system works in my state.

 

[RackMaster]

Sorry to derail this conversation on red flag law's but this absolutely disgusts me. This information that has come to light in the past week was requested a year ago. They tried to make the Superintendent that had his notes released last week as the fall guy. And now Trudeau's hand picked RCMP Commissioner is going to take it. And people will still vote for these assholes in charge.

As the dressing down unfolded, Scanlan said Lucki "informed us of the pressures and conversation with (Public Safety) Minister (Bill) Blair, which we clearly understood was related to the upcoming passing of the gun legislation." "I remember a feeling of disgust as I realized this was the catalyst for the conversation and perhaps a justification for what you were saying about us." Scanlan's letter is part of the evidence provided to a public inquiry into the April 18-19, 2020, mass shooting. According to Scanlan, who was the strategic communications director at the time of the shootings, Lucki had come on the line incensed that the Halifax staff hadn't released the gun details, suggesting they had let down surviving children whose parents were killed in Portapique, N.S. "It was appalling, inappropriate, unprofessional and extremely belittling," Scanlan wrote. "To have anyone in the RCMP say we let the boys down. There is nothing that makes that acceptable, especially that it was said by the person, who by rank, is at the top of our organization."

RCMP official: Lucki claimed direct pressure from federal minister to name guns

 

[amlove21]

@Cookie_ I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience.

Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress.

The heavy lift of your position is the 4th, not the 14th. While due process and the reasonable expectation of privacy/equal protection are *also* violated in red flag laws, the question still needs to answer the 4th's simple and clear standard.

Most notably, the "stop and frisk" policy was deemed unconstitutional for this reason. Saying, "It's an emergency! This is a high crime area! We are stopping everyone we think looks nefarious and frisking them!" doesn't nullify the 4th; the same applies to red flag laws.

The 4th states-

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Your position, in light of the 4th, isn't tenable. Remember- the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments aren't a list of *what citizens can do*; it's a plain and clear list of things the Government (State) *is absolutely not allowed to do*. It's why there are directive words- shall not, will not, without, etc. The founders wrote the documents as a warning- not as a permission slip. "You, as the State, are not allowed to all this crap. We, the Citizens, have these inalienable Rights. And if you push us too hard- let me direct your attention to the Second Amendment, which will make all things pretty clear."

Can you help me understand how a team of police taking (as always, behind the threat of violence) your personal property "without probable cause, a warrant, or supported by Oath or affirmation" does *not* violate the 4th Amendment?

 

[Cookie_]

@Cookie_ I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience.

Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress.

The heavy lift of your position is the 4th, not the 14th. While due process and the reasonable expectation of privacy/equal protection are *also* violated in red flag laws, the question still needs to answer the 4th's simple and clear standard.

Most notably, the "stop and frisk" policy was deemed unconstitutional for this reason. Saying, "It's an emergency! This is a high crime area! We are stopping everyone we think looks nefarious and frisking them!" doesn't nullify the 4th; the same applies to red flag laws.

The 4th states-

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Your position, in light of the 4th, isn't tenable. Remember- the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments aren't a list of *what citizens can do*; it's a plain and clear list of things the Government (State) *is absolutely not allowed to do*. It's why there are directive words- shall not, will not, without, etc. The founders wrote the documents as a warning- not as a permission slip. "You, as the State, are not allowed to all this crap. We, the Citizens, have these inalienable Rights. And if you push us too hard- let me direct your attention to the Second Amendment, which will make all things pretty clear."

Can you help me understand how a team of police taking (as always, behind the threat of violence) your personal property "without probable cause, a warrant, or supported by Oath or affirmation" does *not* violate the 4th Amendment?

I think the argument on 4th amendment grounds may hold more weight than 14th; I'm surprised I haven't seen more writing on that actually.

As I stated in my previous post; the courts have routinely ruled that the 14th does not apply in emergency situations, as long as the respondent is granted a trial "at speediest opportunity". If that's something you don't agree with I fully understand, but to say it's violating the 14th doesn't hold up in application.

As to the fourth, I hate to bring up civil forfeiture (because it's bullshit) but that's been ruled not to violate the 4th; I imagine any challenges to red flag laws would be defeated on that ground. I want to make it clear that I'm not supporting civil forfeiture laws, but if we're talking about things with legal standing that doesn't mean we personally agree with it.

I'd say the other thing that seperates this between stop/frisk laws is the level of evidence required to conduct, as in what is "unreasonable suspicion".

That's the key phrase in the 4th that found stop/frisk illegal. Police can't just grab someone off the street and pat them down, but they can if they're running from the scene of a shooting.

I'd say the other part of the 4th that would get challenged would be "probable cause".

In most instances where red flag laws are applied, those people would either be;

Taken to a hospital, forcefully commited, or just left in crisis

Or (as probably would have happened with my buddy)

Charged with making terroristic threats/intimidation and arrested.

 

[Cookie_]

Having talked about this for a few days and looking at out states do things, I'll lay out what I'd personally like to see the laws look like, as some states (such as @Marauder06 mentioned about NY) are very expansive at the risk of personal liberties.

---

Only LEOs should be able to actually file a ERPO (Florida law)

Families cannot file themselves directly, must go through local PD (CO/NY allow direct filing, FL does this method)

People found filing multiple reports should be charged with false filings (I can't find this on the books anywhere, but it should be in writing)

A temp ERPO lasts no more than 14 days (CO law)

Court case for ERPO must occur in 14 days; respondent must be provided legal representation at state cost (CO law)

A full ERPO of 364 days must allow for earlier compliance, through mental health/other requirements set by court (FL law)

A ERPO cannot be extended more than once, i.e. 364 ERPO extended another 364 days (FL law)

Respondent's personal property must be stored at government cost; any lost property use be replaced at 3x market value (CO law first part, second part is what I'd like to see to prevent "lost" property")

Respondent has right to give property to friend/family authorized to have weapons (CO law)

Respondent DOES NOT have to undergo background check to recieve property back (CO law currently requires that; this is bullshit)

Police MAY NOT execute search warrant/charge respondent with crime unrelated to the terms of the ERPO (As NY law currently allows)

If respondent refuses to comply with temporary ERPO, respondent is entitled to immedate court proceeding in regards to ERPO (I can't find this as a law anywhere, but this absolutely should be to address the concerns raised)

Edit to add-

I don't have an answer for what to do if someone refuses to respond to a final ERPO (you had the court case and were ordered to turn over weapons)

I think that's going to have to vary on what your state says about threats/mental crisis.
Is what caused the ERPO something that rises to the level of a crime/forced medical stay? Something lesser?

It feels like the ERPO shouldn't be a low standard, but more of a "hey, your threats rise to the level of criminal charges, but we're going the civil route instead while we get you help/let you cool off" not "you said some mean things so we want your guns, but if you don't give them to us we're gonna charge you with (felony/misdemeanor/fines)."

 

[amlove21]

Snip

Thanks for the response- I understand what you're saying.

Having talked about this for a few days and looking at out states do things, I'll lay out what I'd personally like to see the laws look like, as some states (such as @Marauder06 mentioned about NY) are very expansive at the risk of personal liberties.

I'll do the same, for funsies. Granted, mine is a lot shorter; I only had to read 27 words.

All red flag laws are infringements on the 2nd. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Benjamin Franklin.

Nothing follows.

 

[Cookie_]

Cool. Every single right has limitations.

The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s.

The founders routinely used restrictive laws on gun rights.

Hell, gun laws were a lot more restrictive in the past than they are now. I think its a good thing we've opened our laws up as much as we have.

If people spent half as much of their political energy on other things (not directed at anyone on the board) as they did on the 2A, the country would be in a much better place as far as freedom goes.

 

[amlove21]

Cool. Every single right has limitations.

The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s.

The founders routinely used restrictive laws on gun rights.

Hell, gun laws were a lot more restrictive in the past than they are now. I think its a good thing we've opened our laws up as much as we have.

If people spent half as much of their political energy on other things (not directed at anyone on the board) as they did on the 2A, the country would be in a much better place as far as freedom goes.

Thank you for your opinion. I understand what you're saying.

 

[Marauder06]

Cool. Every single right has limitations.

The reading of infringement you're using did not exist until the NRA split in the 60s.

The founders routinely used restrictive laws on gun rights.

Hell, gun laws were a lot more restrictive in the past than they are now. I think its a good thing we've opened our laws up as much as we have.

If people spent half as much of their political energy on other things (not directed at anyone on the board) as they did on the 2A, the country would be in a much better place as far as freedom goes.

That's the one that ultimately guarantees all of the rest brother, going all the way back to the foundation of our country.

 

[Cookie_]

That's the one that ultimately guarantees all of the rest brother, going all the way back to the foundation of our country.

And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2 has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A.
That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.

Also, gonna disagree that it's what guarantees the others.

Access to legal weapons isn't what determines an uprising against an oppressive government, speech is. There's no revolution without convincing others to join in; hence why it's always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments.

 

[amlove21]

And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2 has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A.
That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.

Also, gonna disagree that it's what guarantees the others.

Access to legal weapons isn't what determines an uprising against an oppressive government, speech is. There's no revolution without convincing others to join in; hence why it's always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments.

That's an interesting take. I tend to agree with a cohort of historians and scholars that disagree with you, but I am in no means an authority so you can take that for what you will. Don't know if it's worth the salt or the pennies.

I believe there are more than 10 examples of governments disarming the population then committing genocide.

Most notably (and the easiest way to avoid Godwin's Law) would be to examine the Armenian genocide; the Ottomans (modern day Turkey) slaughtered 600k-1.5M Armenians after they were "expelled" from the empire. The first thing the government did was disarm the population in 1915. I urge you to use the search engine of your choice and learn a little about that event, and others where atrocities were committed shortly following disarming the people.

If you want something a little more apropos to the conversation (American results of disarmament)- consider the massacre in Wounded Knee, 1890. The American government sought to disarm the Lakota Sioux “for their own safety and protection at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation." Immediately after the Sioux turned in their weapons peacefully, the 7th Cav slaughtered 297 Sioux. 200 were women and children.

A couple interesting quotes for the group-
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”

 

[Muppet]

@Cookie_ I feel like we are talking past each other a bit; I'll own it. Thanks for your patience.

Calling something "an emergency" does not nullify the 14th or any amendment for that matter. Granted, the last 2+ years have made people forget that fact; I digress.

The heavy lift of your position is the 4th, not the 14th. While due process and the reasonable expectation of privacy/equal protection are *also* violated in red flag laws, the question still needs to answer the 4th's simple and clear standard.

Most notably, the "stop and frisk" policy was deemed unconstitutional for this reason. Saying, "It's an emergency! This is a high crime area! We are stopping everyone we think looks nefarious and frisking them!" doesn't nullify the 4th; the same applies to red flag laws.

The 4th states-

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Your position, in light of the 4th, isn't tenable. Remember- the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments aren't a list of *what citizens can do*; it's a plain and clear list of things the Government (State) *is absolutely not allowed to do*. It's why there are directive words- shall not, will not, without, etc. The founders wrote the documents as a warning- not as a permission slip. "You, as the State, are not allowed to all this crap. We, the Citizens, have these inalienable Rights. And if you push us too hard- let me direct your attention to the Second Amendment, which will make all things pretty clear."

Can you help me understand how a team of police taking (as always, behind the threat of violence) your personal property "without probable cause, a warrant, or supported by Oath or affirmation" does *not* violate the 4th Amendment?

Brother, I think you're one of the "constitutional experts" that some folks have been speaking on. Lol.

Again, my passive-aggressive attitude again. BTW, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

 

[amlove21]

Brother, I think you're one of the "constitutional experts" that some folks have been speaking on. Lol.

Again, my passive-aggressive attitude again. BTW, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

Bahahahha nope! The only thing I want less than being regarded as some sort of Internet forum ‘expert’ on an issue is to be considered highly emotional, contrarian, and intransigent when discussing issues!!

I don’t know if it’s as important to agree with me as it is to learn something from each other. And I perceive that to be happening, so that’s cool.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled show.

 

[Cookie_]

That's an interesting take. I tend to agree with a cohort of historians and scholars that disagree with you, but I am in no means an authority so you can take that for what you will. Don't know if it's worth the salt or the pennies.

I believe there are more than 10 examples of governments disarming the population then committing genocide.

Most notably (and the easiest way to avoid Godwin's Law) would be to examine the Armenian genocide; the Ottomans (modern day Turkey) slaughtered 600k-1.5M Armenians after they were "expelled" from the empire. The first thing the government did was disarm the population in 1915. I urge you to use the search engine of your choice and learn a little about that event, and others where atrocities were committed shortly following disarming the people.

If you want something a little more apropos to the conversation (American results of disarmament)- consider the massacre in Wounded Knee, 1890. The American government sought to disarm the Lakota Sioux “for their own safety and protection at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation." Immediately after the Sioux turned in their weapons peacefully, the 7th Cav slaughtered 297 Sioux. 200 were women and children.

A couple interesting quotes for the group-
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."

“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”

The deportation of Armenian politicians, community leaders, and "intellectuals" occurred prior to mass disarmament. They went for those able to use speech prior to the weapons.
The disarmament was "turn in weapons and accept deportation or be killed". There were a number of attempts to resist put down prior to the population at large accepting deportation. I think it's important for context that it was not widely known that the deportations were intended to be death marches; resistance would have continued longer if it was known the options were death or death.

Same thing in Germany, since the whole basis for the plan was the Armenian Genocide.
They arrested communist, social Democrat, and Jewish leaders prior to going for weapons.

That description of Wounded Knee is also missing important context.
It's widely understood from contemporary sources and eye witness accounts that a deaf Lakota man did not understand the command US troops were giving him. Two troops attempted to forcefully take his rifle from behind, causing it to discharge. 4-5 other Lakota then fired at the troops, which led to the incident.

It could be argued that the massacre may have played out differently had the Lakota still had weapons, but a Wounded Knee was never an intended extermination like the other examples.

---

I understand the concerns regarding the government having a monopoly on violence.
Despite what it may seem because I'm not a "all laws are infringement" person, I'm not anti-gun. I'm definitely more pro-gun than the vast majority of dems and moderates. I have on more than one occasion served as an instructor/trainer/advocate for minority/progressive groups. It's ironic, but(in my opinion) the people most concerned about the government taking their arms are also the people least likely to be the first groups targeted.
It'll be the leftists(anarcho/commie/actual socialists), anti-authoritarians/anti-fascists, and minorities first.

I'm more concerned about speech because that seems to be the way it starts more in our modern times, and speech is a much easier thing to get people to agree to limit in this country, as (on a broad scale) freedom of speech for both political party only extends to speech that party seems to support.

 

[Dame]

Way to go, dumbasses.
Misfire: California AG publishes names and addresses of judges and police on gun website

And... tells everyone who is in law enforcement.

 

[Devildoc]

Way to go, dumbasses.
Misfire: California AG publishes names and addresses of judges and police on gun website

And... tells everyone who is in law enforcement.

I wonder if that includes UC. I smell a lawsuit.

 

[Marauder06]

And it's always had limits. There is not a single right that is guaranteed; that's the price for living in a society. Even hunter-gather tribes have/had acceptable ways of living that would limit what we consider "freedom".
If it's truly believed that your access to a firearm is what "guarantees" your rights, then the only acceptable thing is to do as @Diamondback 2/2 has referenced and just ignore all laws regarding the 2A.
That's the only principled option for that viewpoint.

Also, gonna disagree that it's what guarantees the others.

Access to legal weapons isn't what determines an uprising against an oppressive government, speech is. There's no revolution without convincing others to join in; hence why it's always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments.

That's a ridiculous assessment of my position on rights in general, and 2A in particular. Neither you, nor anyone on this board, have ever heard me make a claim such as the one you just outlined. It's reductio ad absurdum and unworthy of the kind of discussion I thought you were seeking.

In our Republic all rights are bound. The problem with 2A rights arises from a disagreement over what makes a restriction reasonable and what starts making it an infringement. That's the discourse I'm interested in having.

When you said "there is not a single right that is guaranteed," I think you meant "absolute." If you think none of our rights are guaranteed, then we probably need to have a completely different discussion.

You left an important part of your last statement: "...always the first thing attacked or controlled by governments," being, "with the use or threat of coercive force." Disagree all you want, but political violence is what founded our country. We did not printing-press and town-crier our way to freedom. Speech is necessary but insufficient in the face of repressive tyranny, then now and always. Fortunately I do not think we live in a repressive tyranny. But we need to jealously guard our rights so it doesn't become that way.

You can try to talk someone out of depriving you of life, liberty, and property; sometimes that may work. But when it doesn't, you need to be able to secure it, dare I say guarantee it, by lethal force. It's an important part of the "three boxes of liberty" triad that has served us well since our founding.

 

[Cookie_]

When you said "there is not a single right that is guaranteed," I think you meant "absolute." If you think none of our rights are guaranteed, then we probably need to have a completely different discussion.

This was my line of thinking. Colloquially the two are commonly used interchangeably, and I should have clarified that on the board.

I also should have been more specific that my statement regarding firearms was not intended to be directed specifically at you, but people with the mindset of the right being absolute.

Apologies for that. Sometimes the way things are written seem clear to us when (as in this case) that's not how they are received.