SCOTUS accepts Red Flag case

[M29since14]

The notion that there is essentially no punishment for willful false accusations seems true enough to me, any provisions in law notwithstanding. I have an extremely hard time envisioning an elected prosecutor bringing charges against an “emotionally distressed” girlfriend/soon-to-be-ex-wife who makes such an accusation and it is later proven to have no merit. You lawyers, tell me realistically, would you prosecute such a case? And how? In addition to being “mechanically absurd,” it likely would be political suicide.

If I were king, red flag laws, like no-knock searches, would not exist here. There is no benefit to these concepts that outweigh the extraordinary danger they present to personal liberty - and safety. Not a lawyer. JMHO.

 

[Bozz10mm]

It doesn't make sense that anyone, maybe someone you've angered, girl friend, boy friend, ex wife, brother, sister, neighbor, etc., can just call up anonymously and claim you have firearms and are a danger to society. It is the equivalent of swatting. Do they send a SWAT team to confiscate your firearms at 3 am with a no-knock entry?

Or does a sheriff show up one morning, knock on the door, and politely say that someone has filed a complaint and would you please give him all your guns?

There is no due process. Warrant issued without probable cause. Then you play hell getting your property back when the accusations are proved unfounded.

 

[JDinAZ]

I will just leave this here. As to not go on a Pro 2A rant as i am known to do. Will just say, per the Cornerstone Supreme Court Precedent there should be zero guns laws. Federal, State, or otherwise.

Marbury v. Madison Case Summary: What You Need to Know

Marbury v Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, February 1803

see opinion pg 138 halfway down on left in margin

"An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a Law"

PDF Link
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005137/usrep005137.pdf

In short summary with broader wording

 

[stansdds]

I will just leave this here. As to not go on a Pro 2A rant as i am known to do. Will just say, per the Cornerstone Supreme Court Precedent there should be zero guns laws. Federal, State, or otherwise.

Marbury v. Madison Case Summary: What You Need to Know

Marbury v Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, February 1803

see opinion pg 138 halfway down on left in margin

"An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a Law"

PDF Link
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005137/usrep005137.pdf

In short summary with broader wording

I would agree, but that was in a time well before the constitution became a "living, dynamic, and evolving" document.

 

[JDinAZ]

I would agree, but that was in a time well before the constitution became a "living, dynamic, and evolving" document.

i have noticed that direction also. sure has tried to take its toll on american freedoms and constitutional rights.

which is why we the people need to get the basis and principals re-solidified as intended. original intent is paramount to the republic. our unconstitutional loss, of some 2a rights, has been questionable, to say the least.

 

[CA Escapee]

My main objection to Red Flag Laws is that there is no criminal penalty for making false accusations. My son's mother liked to call Internal Affairs with "The Accusation of the Month". All nine IA investigations were total bovine manure.

Maybe there's no criminal penalty where you live, but there is in Colorado. There's a case that's already settled here in Colorado where a woman tried to play the Red Flag card on a cop who shot and killed her son in the commission of a crime.

In CO the person filing the report has to be related to the the dangerous person or in a relationship with them. The woman claimed that she and the cop were in a relationship because of the police investigation of the crime her son committed. The case was tossed and she was prosecuted for her efforts.

A side note: The woman has a history of misinterpreting laws and has lost plenty of court cases in the past.

 

[Bob T]

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??

Maybe You are crazy and need to have Your collection confiscated.

 

[two-bit cowboy]

I've read and pondered the OP's link and all of your thoughts all evening.

I can't make this square peg fit into the round hole of the Second or the Fourth Amendment.

No warrant. The police officers clearly stole the man's property.

I'm finding it hard to believe this arrived to waste the time of our Supreme Court justices.

Every thread needs at least one photo.

It's too bad Lew Horton went out of business this year. They could have initiated a "4th Amendment Issue" to pair with this 1989 "2nd Amendment Issue" Chiefs Special.

Slàinte mhòr

 

[jtcarm]

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.

So how exactly are red flag laws going to stop a HS student, who isn’t old enough to own a gun?

And yes, they do have less rights, because under the law they have not reached majority.