|
-
11-19-2019, 09:20 AM #31
-
11-19-2019, 09:23 AM #32
Yes I sort of do for the same reason. If we know the streets have drunk drivers on a frequent basis due to arrest and crash statistics and testimonies from family members of alcoholics who drive cars on a regular basis, then we should perhaps do something proactive instead of reactive. At least in Canada, drunk driving is the #1 criminal cause of death. Police often release reports to the media (releasing the names of individuals charged but not yet convicted) and often times there's at least one or two people who got busted for blowing over the limit.
I am not too keen on them arresting or charging people for unrelated offenses, but I understand why they do.
I am cautious of police abusing their powers to initiate checkpoints. It shouldn't feel like they are harassing society or becoming a police state. They should be targeted toward high problem areas like around bars.
another topic: do you support apps like Google's Waze that notify traffic-goers of real-time DUI checkpoint locations on the map.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/6/18...ps-nypd-letter
-
11-19-2019, 09:30 AM #33
-
11-19-2019, 09:31 AM #34
Technically its a true statement though and red flag laws are extremely dangerous because its also an attack on the 1A as well as the 2A. We would actually be better off with a democrat in power because things like this would never pass. With a democrat in power at least we know what we're up against and there is a clear line in the sand on what we must do. But the cult of Trump has created a somewhat blindness among his supporters. For example Trump never should have got a pass for the bump stock ban. Banning a piece of plastic is literally insane, yet he did so appease the dems who hate him regardless? And anger his own supporters? Why? Totally bizarre. Shows me another agenda is a foot here.
-
11-19-2019, 09:32 AM #35
If their constitutional rights are violated then it is a false arrest. A righteous arrest does not violate the constitution at all. You need probably cause to make an arrest. If legitimate probably cause exists then it is not unconstitutional. Your knowledge of the constitution is bunk tranny
A novel
-
11-19-2019, 09:39 AM #36
You are right but my point is that the person hasn't had their day in court. You are following the protocol of police who don't necessarily have to abide by the law or it's legal procedures. How many people have gotten off of charges because they were innocent? Those people likely had their constitutional rights violated to be free from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. If the police had legit reasonable grounds, then there's no fault. But we know the police often do what benefits them instead of following principle and procedure.
-
11-19-2019, 09:44 AM #37
Once again you are wrong. Red flag laws there is no crime, people are getting their constitutional rights violated when there is no crime. In an arrest, there is a crime and there is probably cause to arrest that person based on that crime. It is then the responsibility if the court to prove guilt. Not the arrested parties job to prove their innocence. In red flag laws there is no crime and the burden of proof is on the gun owner
A novel
-
11-19-2019, 09:47 AM #38
Oh I completely agree. We have investigations and a suspicious post is grounds to start one. But that does not in itself meet the criteria necessary to confiscate a weapon. If there is more probable cause and they get a warrant which then reveals detailed plans of an imminent attack, then this is something that could be taken as evidence that the person was planning something. Depending on how detailed the plans are, it could be viewed as an attempt. But there is a long road from planning something to actually trying to carry it out. We can't let our legal system sink to thoughtcrime.
The constitution must be upheld.
I am all for stricter background checks, but red flag laws are unconstitutional imo.#TULSI2020!!
End wasteful foreign regime change wars, and promote a peaceful world!
Vote for Tulsi Gabbard and bring honor and integrity to the white house!
-
11-19-2019, 09:49 AM #39
-
11-19-2019, 09:58 AM #40
-
11-19-2019, 10:04 AM #41
If we're talking random check points I think they are far worse than a rational red flag law that requires some due process. In a random check there isn't even responsible suspicion, yet alone probable cause and you're getting searched.
I was recently fishing with my wife and we had a cooler, some game officer was coming around checking everyone's license (ok) - he then proceeded to tell me he was "going to look in my cooler" to see if I was above my limit. I told him no. He left. That's exactly how a random DUI checkpoint should also function.
-
11-19-2019, 10:08 AM #42
-
11-19-2019, 10:09 AM #43
-
11-19-2019, 11:43 AM #44
-
11-19-2019, 11:47 AM #45
-
11-19-2019, 11:48 AM #46
-
11-19-2019, 11:58 AM #47
-
11-19-2019, 12:00 PM #48
-
11-19-2019, 12:14 PM #49
-
11-19-2019, 12:21 PM #50
-
11-19-2019, 12:42 PM #51
-
11-19-2019, 12:44 PM #52
-
11-19-2019, 01:42 PM #53
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Posts: 9,579
- Rep Power: 0
Shooter in Florida with mental health issues, mouthing off etc. A cop tried to take him in. He got released. Went on to shoot a bunch of people in a school, and the cop on duty followed procedure and didn't go in alone - same cop, by the way. The legal response? Dismiss the cop.
That's mental health laws, but same sht really.
We've had the same issues in Australia: we fail to enforce the laws we already have, and so we respond by making new laws. Well, okay.
-
11-19-2019, 04:18 PM #54
-
11-19-2019, 04:20 PM #55
-
11-19-2019, 04:44 PM #56
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
- Posts: 16,907
- Rep Power: 52798
To answer the OP. Very temporary seizure of weapons may be a prudent measure in lieu of involuntary psychiatric incarceration.
However, it is the duty of the courts to PROVE that the person shouldn't have the weapon. Not for the person to prove they are safe with the weapon.
GF says you beat her... Judge issues protection order.
Period. Full stop. No due process.
Her still being "SCARED" is enough justification to renew it. She needs no proof of you doing anything. Judges are happy to issue them because "better safe than sorry".
If all that was involved was you not being able to bother her... No harm done. Protection order removes 2nd amendment rights though.Last edited by Austanian; 11-19-2019 at 04:49 PM.
Finance Degree - USAF INTEL - IIFYM - Injured Crew - KTM XCW300 - Single Track Trail Rider - NRA Supporter - Shunned from MFC - Libertarian - Pragmatist
B: 345, S 375, D 445
Trying to get your ideal outcome often leads to the passing up of practical alternatives that deny your adversaries theirs.
-
11-19-2019, 05:26 PM #57
-
11-19-2019, 11:14 PM #58
no, that's not how it works. The respondent is entitled to a HEARING and the judge will issue the order based on the words or actions of the RESPONDENT, not someone else. Red flag confiscations will not be granted based on gf's complaint alone. she would have to show texts or emails or a voicemail from respondent actually threatening her with deadly violence. and honestly, in those cases the dude SHOULD have his guns confiscated.
sorry man, youre making up how red flag laws are enforced and then getting mad about them
-
11-19-2019, 11:46 PM #59
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
- Posts: 16,907
- Rep Power: 52798
Protection orders are about as easy to get as it is to get a judge to agree to take a case to trial. You don't need to convince them that it did happen, just that it is possible it did. Judges don't care because theoretically stopping you from seeing someone that doesn't want to see you is not a big deal. The problem is that those orders are automatic red flag law issues and you lose your rights to fire arm ownership.
For those that don't know my mother filed false domestic violence charges against my dad. I was there 17 years old. I saw what happened. It went to trial. Not guilty verdict.
The protection order got renewed 3 more times for a year each. Point out that the trial showed he was not guilt did exactly jack chit. High priced lawyer didn't matter. Don't tell me that it was just one judge because 4 separate judges issues the order/continuance. They didn't give 2 fuks he was innocent and my mother was caught lying on the stand during the trial. "She didn't feel safe" was enough. It took her getting married and losing interest for the renewals to stop.
One bad break up is all it takes. So no Sandy I am not making chit up. My dad lost his gun rights for 4 years all because of a domestic violence claim that was defended.Last edited by Austanian; 11-19-2019 at 11:51 PM.
Finance Degree - USAF INTEL - IIFYM - Injured Crew - KTM XCW300 - Single Track Trail Rider - NRA Supporter - Shunned from MFC - Libertarian - Pragmatist
B: 345, S 375, D 445
Trying to get your ideal outcome often leads to the passing up of practical alternatives that deny your adversaries theirs.
-
11-20-2019, 12:05 AM #60
sorry to hear about all that bad sh*t, but all the red flag laws ive reviewed require documented evidence of threats of violence from the respondent - usually threats of GUN violence.
and i dont know what happened with your dad but there is a difference between domestic violence and threats of deadly violence. you could definitely get a not guilty verdict on domestic violence if no actual violence happened, and also get your guns taken away if there were threats of violence. i would be SHOCKED if his guns were confiscated absent any documented evidence of threats of violence.
so i doubt he lost his guns "because of a domestic violence claim." my best guess is he lost his guns because he made documented threats of violence. if he didnt, then that sucks and i dont agree with it.
thats the thing - you cant own guns and also make threats of gun violence against people. i agree with that. if you do, you lose your guns.
Bookmarks