SCOTUS accepts Red Flag case

[LoboGunLeather]

Admin Edit-
Stick to the topic. Leave the Covid arguments and all other societal problems out of it.



/////////////////////////
original post:


SCOTUS Accepts Case Dealing With Warrantless Gun Seizures

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a writ of certiorari and will hear a case involving so-called "Red Flag" laws.

While the connection to 2A rights is clear, this case rises on 4A issues, specifically searches and seizures done under Red Flag court orders.

A case to keep an eye on.

 

[deadin]

This will be interesting to follow.
I can see the reasoning for such a law, but I also see many ways it can be abused.

 

[deadin]

Those red flag laws are easily abused and seem unconstitutional and wrong headed to me.

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

 

[Racer X]

It is an ugly Catch 22. You are innocent until you have actually committed a crime. Then its too late.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

It is an ugly Catch 22. You are innocent until you have actually committed a crime. Then its too late.

Absolutely true, but the alternative is the practice of prior restraint, another prohibition under that pesky old Constitution.

 

[Mrnurse]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??
__________________ If your taking away my 2nd and 4th rights ...YES. Boil the frog a little at a time. Im sick of it.

 

[WCCPHD]

Absolutely true, but the alternative is the practice of prior restraint, another prohibition under that pesky old Constitution.

The Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits possession of a firearm due to a domestic violence conviction is an ex post facto law expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. That pesky fact did not stop Congress from passing it in 1996 and the courts upholding it. Many federal law enforcement officers/agents and military personnel lost their jobs due to it.

 

[Mrnurse]

OH BTW I worked Psych VA and Civilian (RN/NP)Hospitals and have had a court order for 72 hr Observation on several Pts. Red flag laws are like those Used against Trump and others, Un- Constitutional. You can have people sent for Psych eval if they are exhibiting Classic Psych Signs.... a Evil violent person ( Absent of Signs/symptoms) in its-self is NOT a Psych issue, its a Violent evil person self generated.

 

[Injunbro]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

We can twist it the opposite direction just as easily: Are you saying because you think your neighbor is crazy he should be disarmed? Are you qualified to declare anyone crazy? I think anyone who lives in CA, NY, MA or any city are crazy... By the way there's no law saying it's illegal to be crazy, only to harm other people.

 

[message_board_expert]

A related read dealing with police abuse of the second amendment right: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-new...-americas-cherished-gun-rights-clash-cops-win

 

[smoothshooter]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Yes.

Or at least he has to do it in front of credible witnesses.
Besides, if he takes a shot at you, you can shoot back.
How would you like it if he filed a complaint ( falsely ) against you for threatening him, having YOUR GUNS seized, and then he kicks your door in some night and shoots YOU because he knows you have been disarmed?

 

[Sistema1927]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Yes. That is how a free society operates, or at least how it ought to operate. We don't deprive people of their rights just because they may harm you. Then again, one man's crazy may be another man's sanity.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Red flag laws (ERPO) are unconstitutional. They may give the police a tool to disarm an individual that might be planning a criminal act with a firearm but that still doesn't make them constitutional. It's that simple.

The SC isn't going to judge the usefulness of the law to LE, just how it squares with the constitution.

 

[vt_shooter]

It's a tough argument. We tell society not to take our guns because of the evil acts of crazy people, and instead demand that society control the crazy people. But how do you control the crazy people if there are no red flag laws of any kind? Just playing devils advocate, I am against red flag laws because of the immense potential of abuse. So how do we address the crazy people, e.g., the high school student who's made threats to do immense harm to fellow students, if we have no red flag laws? Maybe it should be easier to implement red flag laws against younger people since those are the ones that shoot up schools? But can it be argued they have less rights simply because of their age? I don't have any ideas that I'd want to defend.

 

[kbm6893]

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

No. He’s saying that due process must be given before a constitutional right is taken away. So if your crazy neighbor waves a gun or threatens to shoot you, then he would be arrested for menacing and the guns taken after he was arrested. If he is found innocent or the charges are dropped, the guns are returned.

Substitute any other right for the 2A and these laws would never get off the ground. Imagine your 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th amendment rights being taken away without due process because somebody made an accusation against you. Imagine those rights being taken without your day in court.

I get the reason for the laws. Fortunately, the crazy person usually commits an actual crime other than the opinion of the accuser that he is unstable. So arrest him for an actual crime and let due process follow. The way it is now, no judge is going to risk not issuing the order to remove the guns. He doesn’t want to be in the paper if something bad happens. So the guns are taken and 60 days later you have to spend thousands on a lawyer to get your legally purchased property back, all without ever being accused of a crime

 

[S-W4EVER]

+1. Well said, kbm6893.

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

Not exactly.

So you are saying I will have to wait for my crazy neighbor to take a shot at me before they can take his guns away??

Are you saying that your neighbors gun rights should be taken away before they commit any crime?

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

It is not a tough argument at all.

It's a tough argument. We tell society not to take our guns because of the evil acts of crazy people, and instead demand that society control the crazy people. But how do you control the crazy people if there are no red flag laws of any kind? Just playing devils advocate, I am against red flag laws because of the immense potential of abuse. So how do we address the crazy people, e.g., the high school student who's made threats to do immense harm to fellow students, if we have no red flag laws? Maybe it should be easier to implement red flag laws against younger people since those are the ones that shoot up schools? But can it be argued they have less rights simply because of their age? I don't have any ideas that I'd want to defend.

It is a totally bogus argument that you can deprive someone of their God given rights because you do not like them.

 

[mike from st pete]

Lost is the fact that laws are to be used as a way to punish those that ACCUTALLY break the law.
Laws do not prevent crime they give society a way to punish criminal behavior

 

[stansdds]

I am glad to hear that the SCOTUS is taking up this issue and doing it now rather than waiting. They may take up additional issues regarding the 2A as well as other issues involving the dilution of constitutional rights. I think some on the court see the handwriting on the wall regarding the future makeup of the court.

Virginia's ERPO law went into effect on July 1 of this year. I recently received an alert from the VCDL indicating that in the tiny city of Colonial Heights, two people had been reported to the police as having intentions of committing suicide. Instead of trying to get help to these two individuals, the police arrived and confiscated their firearms. I have news for the Colonial Heights PD, there is more than one way to commit suicide. Confiscating property in the absence of a crime is not an answer, it is a reaction driven by emotion and without logic or constitutional support.