Registration equals confiscation ... don’t ever doubt it for a minute.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/43...clare-national

I’ve said for years, and my father before me said it, “registration equals confiscation”. In the above link, it is made abundantly clear. While major Antigun / Anti 2A politicians have not made this comment in public, the above article is a revealation which is only startling in that our opposition was brazen enough to come out and state it. Typically we get the line from politicians saying, “we don’t want your guns”, but even that thinly veiled lie is giving way to a simple “screw you and your guns” type attitude.

Gun rights advocate John Lott Jr. said in an interview that aired Monday:

Quote:

---

a Democratic president would possibly declare a national emergency on gun violence in order to confiscate firearms.

"I'd see that [as] quite possible," Lott Jr., the author of "The War on Guns," told host Buck Sexton last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"You've seen California, New York, Chicago, and other places in the United States that have already used registration lists that they've had to identify people that owned guns to force them to have to turn them in, and get rid of them," he continued.

---

That's the only reason keeping me from filing to SBR one of my lowers.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This has been a known in my mind for years. The only question I have is where does this take us, what does this lead to? Are we going to end up disarmed or in a conflict?

I have believed this since the early 1990's. Before the Brady Law passed a lot of the old timers told their tales of how everyone knew that GCA 68 was de facto registration because a gun dealer has to surrender their 4473's to ATF if they go out of business. I know of one dealer who claimed he sent in a box of burnt 4473's upon liquidating his dealership. If that was true, I'm not sure if there were legal consequences for this since the guy left town shortly thereafter and I never heard from him again.

My dad and I had a "no buying from dealers" policy for a few years until we found out the hard way that private sellers often use the gun shows to unload their bubbafied or broke junk.

Really, the only salvation in the modern gun world is that there are just too dang many gun owners for them to have an easy time with a confiscation order.

To me the 2A is non negotiable. It’s not regulated and burdened with continuous restrictions, bills, safety legislation, background checks on top of back ground checks, or jumping through any bureaucratic hoops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prepare

To me the 2A is non negotiable. It’s not regulated and burdened with continuous restrictions, bills, safety legislation, background checks on top of back ground checks, or jumping through any bureaucratic hoops.

---

The government has a whole lot of people that will gladly kill you before they give up their pensions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveS

The government has a whole lot of people that will gladly kill you before they give up their pensions.

---

Of course.

The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

I don’t have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

With great power comes great responsibility. We’ve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.

And yet the proliferation of automobiles is multitudes more dangerous


No go bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We all agree some people should not have guns , felon's out on bond or parole ,drug dealers gang members with multiple arrests ,and don't forget those who come into our country illegally . Now when you are successful at taking their guns away let me know . I do agree people who are mentally unstable owning a gun but which mentally unstable Person are we going to let decide who they are? Ex wives / husbands ? Step child who is mad because they can't smoke pot in their room ? How about all those people with MAGA caps ? We all know they are unstable because the Democrats and media said so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

I don’t have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

With great power comes great responsibility. We’ve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.

---

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozarkpugs

We all agree some people should not have guns , felon's out on bond or parole ,drug dealers gang members with multiple arrests ,and don't forget those who come into our country illegally . Now when you are successful at taking their guns away let me know . I do agree people who are mentally unstable should not be owning a gun but which mentally unstable Person are we going to let decide who they are? Ex wives / husbands ? Step child who is mad because they can't smoke pot in their room ? How about all those people with MAGA caps ? We all know they are unstable because the Democrats and media said so.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

---

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

a group of people that want to seize power by all means, tell us what to eat and what not to. stop us from using airplane. and they want to take guns away.

But they have security around them 24/7 while the average American has what ? Now this is where the problem is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

I don’t have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

With great power comes great responsibility. We’ve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.

---

Until one of your crazy ex-gf's calls your local PD and says you're a danger to yourself. Then your stuff gets confiscated, WITHOUT due process. Red Flag laws are a crock o' shit. :sarcastic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobertTheTexan

Until one of your crazy ex-gf's calls your local PD and says you're a danger to yourself. Then your stuff gets confiscated, WITHOUT due process. Red Flag laws are a crock o' shit. :sarcastic:

---

I just want to attempt to offer an explanation of what actually constitutes due process, although I'm not sure that actual facts will sway anyone's opinion.

The red flag laws which, for example, Rubio, was championing do have due process built into them. Here is a link to the actual text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...te-bill/7/text

If you read the text, what the bill requires is that in essence, the petitioner(s) get a warrant to seize the weapon. Why they don't use the term warrant is beyond me. Perhaps because this is an administrative action? I don't know.

The 4th Amendment says: 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.

The first consideration is where does the warrant issue from? The courts, more specifically, judges.

A second consideration is that of probable cause, what is it? A working definition of probable cause: The totality of the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime (offense) has, is, or will be committed.

In the 'Rubio Bill' the elements to be considered in determining if PC exists are listed:

In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court may consider relevant evidence, such as—

“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;

“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;

“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;

“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order;

“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;

“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;

“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;

“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;

“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;

“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and

“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;

It has to be clearly understood that the decision to issue an 'extreme risk protection order' is reserved for a judge having jurisdiction. This is no different procedure than an officer getting an arrest or search warrant.

Furthermore, the 'Rubio Bill' gives the respondent the:

HEARING TO VACATE ORDER.—

“(i) IN GENERAL.—A respondent may request not less than 1 hearing to vacate an extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent.

“(ii) HEARING.—Not later than 30 days after the date on which a petitioner is notified of the request of the respondent to vacate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing on the request.

If folks don't understand that due process is upheld by the 'Rubio Bill' they either haven't read the bill, or don't understand the definition and application of due process.

The only thing this bill does is give family members, friends, etc. a formal avenue to enter the court system to petition for the removal of weapons from an unstable/threatening person. Plus, it gives law enforcement officers a responsibility and framework to operate within when they are apprised of such risks - thus eliminating the common lazy/incompetent popo answer 'it's a civil matter.'

I can get behind that 100%. Thanks for sharing.

It’s embaraasing and an affront that it isn’t a law already.

Domestic Violence Orders do pretty much the same thing here. The biggest problem I see is that your rights are suspended for at least 30 days and you’ll probably be paying an attorney $10K to get your guns back. Then the petitioner or their family or accomplices can sign a new complaint and you go thru it again.

There needs to be repercussions for signing a bogus complaint, at the very least a bond to cover legal costs for the person whose property is to be seized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunnar da Wolf

Domestic Violence Orders do pretty much the same thing here. The biggest problem I see is that your rights are suspended for at least 30 days and you’ll probably be paying an attorney $10K to get your guns back. Then the petitioner or their family or accomplices can sign a new complaint and you go thru it again.

There needs to be repercussions for signing a bogus complaint, at the very least a bond to cover legal costs for the person whose property is to be seized.

---

In many jurisdictions a protection from abuse order is (PFA) is given routinely when someone files for divorce, they generally aren't subjected to the same scrutiny that it would seem this 'Rubio Bill' suggests.

Most DV arrest laws are written so that a statement from the person alleging the violence establishes PC for arrest unless there is evidence contrary to that person's statement. The 'Rubio Bill' seems to address that with the hearing before the judge, versus the officer on the scene making the decision. In that respect the decision is likely going to be more cerebral, although judges may have biases.

I do think there needs to be some mechanism to keep the costs for someone defending against such a claim down. Likewise, the bill states that agencies have to have mechanisms to get the weapons returned when the extreme risk protection order expires, I'd like to see language saying with no administrative cost, and that the weapons have to be subjected to adequate protection so as to keep them from being damaged during storage.

As to have rights curtailed for up to 30 days without a hearing, I know this isn't a criminal matter, but generally, the right to a speedy trial is 60 days after preliminary unless the respondent waives. Ten days would be better, but up to 30 doesn't seem outrageous, especially since the person isn't in custody.

There is NO such thing as common sense restrictions or regulations (whatever name you/they call it) that is administered by government. Any compromise with emotional anti gun socialists is a loose loose proposition. When there's a mass shooting followed by emotional cries for "they need to do something" they will inevitably do something stupid and ineffectual that would have had no impact other than on law abiding citizens.

Name one crime that involved a gun that would have been prevented with any new law, bill, legislation, etc that the non law abiding could not easily circumvent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prepare

There is NO such thing as common sense restrictions or regulations (whatever name you/they call it) that is administered by government. Any compromise with emotional anti gun socialists is a loose loose proposition. When there's a mass shooting followed by emotional cries for "they need to do something" they will inevitably do something stupid and ineffectual that would have had no impact other than on law abiding citizens.

Name one crime that involved a gun that would have been prevented with any new law, bill, legislation, etc that the non law abiding could not easily circumvent.

---

I think that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is the best defense against crazies with guns. Taking reasonable actions to keep unstable folks from possessing firearms would also be helpful.

I view this more as a mental health issue than a gun issue. I don't agree that it will have a disparate impact on non-crazy law abiding citizens.

Look at it from this perspective - How many folks complained about the Parkland shooter? No doubt some of the folks they complained to wanted to do something, but didn't know what to do. In this respect I'm talking about law enforcement at the local level. What these 'red flag' laws establish is not only a way for folks to bring unstable folks to the attention of the appropriate authorities, they also establish a responsibility for law enforcement to act in such matters. It gives street level cops a roadmap to follow, if you would.

The issue that I struggle with in all this honestly is the fact that I am a traditional, law abiding, Conservative American. I support and always have, our military and law enforcement. But, I am also a student of history and the simple facts are that every time guns have been confiscated from people- often followed by genocide, the people doing the confiscating were doing it "pursuant to law" and they were wearing badges and uniforms. It's not really arguable among intelligent and educated people, it's just a fact.

I don't care who you are, what you are wearing or what "duly passed" law you claim you are enforcing. I'm not giving up my guns. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

In many jurisdictions a protection from abuse order is (PFA) is given routinely when someone files for divorce, they generally aren't subjected to the same scrutiny that it would seem this 'Rubio Bill

<<< well thought and eloquent discussion cropped for breavity>>>

As to have rights curtailed for up to 30 days without a hearing, I know this isn't a criminal matter, but generally, the right to a speedy trial is 60 days after preliminary unless the respondent waives. Ten days would be better, but up to 30 doesn't seem outrageous, especially since the person isn't in custody.

---

Judges sign Domestic Violence Orders and Peace Bonds here in WV now. I don’t know of a jurisdiction where you don’t have to go before a judge for a DVO. HOWEVER, I never saw a judge deny a petitioner. They are too afraid of the repercussions if they do and something happens. Screw the dude she’s mad at because she thinks he was cheating, he can go hire an attorney and in the case of a DVO try to get his kids, house and guns back at enormous personal expense.

The bottom line is we closed all the mental hospitals, handed the inmates a bottle of feel good pills and kicked them into the world. Now we hand out nervous pills like candy, everyone gets a participation trophy and no one is ever the loser. We need mental health reform to take these monsters out of the GenPop and warehouse them like the bad old days. Just taking away their guns doesn’t deprive them of the means to commit atrocities, it makes them become creative.

I don't think some of you guys understand what probable cause is. I don't think you understand what domestic violence is.

Probable cause is 51% likely that a person committed the act in question. That is it. Some of you have crazy exwives or exgirlfriends, think about some of the things they have said or done. Now think that whatever they allege only has to be slightly more likely than not that an event occurred. If there are two people and no witnesses, most jurisdictions are going to require the officer to play it better safe than sorry. Some officers are senior, and will be able to write a report justifying a lack of arrest or seizure of property based on a LACK OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, but there is nothing stating 51% needs to be physical evidence. As a police officer I have found multiple times where I have been forced to write a report to justify why I did NOT arrest a guy.

Moving onto the catch phrase of Domestic Violence, I will guess the majority of you have no idea what it encompasses. Do you know that it covers your exwife you divorced 20 years ago? Yup, she is as much a part of DV as your current wife is. Under the laws of plenty of states, DV includes room mates, which means if you slap a room mate on the back from 20 years ago and ask him where your money is that he stole when he ran off and left you paying all the rent, you are guilty of DV. Do you know that if you fought with, made threats, or similar activities your siblings, you are guilty of DV?

Do you know that DV "shelters" and advocates teach women to tell the police as soon as they come in contact with them, "I am the victim of verbal and emotional domestic violence". Tell me what the standards are for verbal violence? Tell me what the standards are for verbal violence... The terminology of DV is used as a generic catch all. I would ask Rubio and his team to define what they feel constitutes DV. I'll bet they don't mean a 12 year old breaking a plate because they are mad doing dishes.... but it is.

I would ask anyone reading this who the Constitution applies to. Forget the second amendment aspect, lets just think of it for what it is. Who does the Bill Of Rights apply to? The constitution? The first amendment? People do compare the second amendment to the 1700s to defend their desire to limit use, ownership, or access to firearms. The truth is in the 1700s children used firearms on a daily basis, and were expected to. The truth is that parenting was much more effective, and children had responsibilities back then. Does the 2A say "shall not be infringed" unless we allow crappy children to be raised? If so, I missed that part. God forbid we start placing blame where it actually lays. God forbid we take a functional look at society and the makeup of formal families and how they impact the development of a child. The fact that some ghetto goblin breeds with anyone she can and pops out felons like a Pez dispenser has no bearing on my constitutional rights.

The laws which are already on the books are already effective, though I would humbly submit that common sense sentencing is out the window. Here is an example I use when someone tells me they want justice, or the cops didn't do anything after someone was arrested. I had a guy stand up in court and confess that he tried to kill me (uniformed police officer) by swerving across multiple lanes of traffic, that he was in a vehicle he had personally stolen, that the meth in his pocket was his, and that he had an illegal weapon (knife) that he knew he should not have based on his probation limitations. He also was a two strike violent offender. What was his sentence by taking a plea? 18 months.... that is it. 18 months locked up, of which he was allowed to get out early if he had good time served.

There is NOT a need for additional laws. There is not a need to create committees and undertake large studies. Lady justice wearing a blindfold. She does not, and should not care about the color of skin, or whether someone was gay (victim or suspect). Justice should be effectively laid out and the laws of our great nation should be rewritten to be clear and concise. That includes the states. Stop making up new laws that will conflict with old laws. If you want weed or anything else to be legal, illegal, or legal under certain situations, spell it out and make it clear, and then make clear penalties as well.

Only through enforcing the laws we have do we do our citizens a service as the judicial system. Only though aiding the mentally ill do we find ways to actually help those who need it. Instead of closing down all the mental health centers, and asylums, build them and staff them with the systems and persons needed.

The laws will never be perfect, and as people, we will never be perfect either, but let us NEVER EVER FORGET that our founding fathers agreed it is NOT man who gave us our rights, and it is not man who takes them away. These rights were given to us by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

I don't think some of you guys understand what probable cause is. I don't think you understand what domestic violence is.

Probable cause is 51% likely that a person committed the act in question. That is it. Some of you have crazy exwives or exgirlfriends, think about some of the things they have said or done. Now think that whatever they allege only has to be slightly more likely than not that an event occurred. If there are two people and no witnesses, most jurisdictions are going to require the officer to play it better safe than sorry. Some officers are senior, and will be able to write a report justifying a lack of arrest or seizure of property based on a LACK OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, but there is nothing stating 51% needs to be physical evidence. As a police officer I have found multiple times where I have been forced to write a report to justify why I did NOT arrest a guy.

Moving onto the catch phrase of Domestic Violence, I will guess the majority of you have no idea what it encompasses. Do you know that it covers your exwife you divorced 20 years ago? Yup, she is as much a part of DV as your current wife is. Under the laws of plenty of states, DV includes room mates, which means if you slap a room mate on the back from 20 years ago and ask him where your money is that he stole when he ran off and left you paying all the rent, you are guilty of DV. Do you know that if you fought with, made threats, or similar activities your siblings, you are guilty of DV?

Do you know that DV "shelters" and advocates teach women to tell the police as soon as they come in contact with them, "I am the victim of verbal and emotional domestic violence". Tell me what the standards are for verbal violence? Tell me what the standards are for verbal violence... The terminology of DV is used as a generic catch all. I would ask Rubio and his team to define what they feel constitutes DV. I'll bet they don't mean a 12 year old breaking a plate because they are mad doing dishes.... but it is.

I would ask anyone reading this who the Constitution applies to. Forget the second amendment aspect, lets just think of it for what it is. Who does the Bill Of Rights apply to? The constitution? The first amendment? People do compare the second amendment to the 1700s to defend their desire to limit use, ownership, or access to firearms. The truth is in the 1700s children used firearms on a daily basis, and were expected to. The truth is that parenting was much more effective, and children had responsibilities back then. Does the 2A say "shall not be infringed" unless we allow crappy children to be raised? If so, I missed that part. God forbid we start placing blame where it actually lays. God forbid we take a functional look at society and the makeup of formal families and how they impact the development of a child. The fact that some ghetto goblin breeds with anyone she can and pops out felons like a Pez dispenser has no bearing on my constitutional rights.

The laws which are already on the books are already effective, though I would humbly submit that common sense sentencing is out the window. Here is an example I use when someone tells me they want justice, or the cops didn't do anything after someone was arrested. I had a guy stand up in court and confess that he tried to kill me (uniformed police officer) by swerving across multiple lanes of traffic, that he was in a vehicle he had personally stolen, that the meth in his pocket was his, and that he had an illegal weapon (knife) that he knew he should not have based on his probation limitations. He also was a two strike violent offender. What was his sentence by taking a plea? 18 months.... that is it. 18 months locked up, of which he was allowed to get out early if he had good time served.

There is NOT a need for additional laws. There is not a need to create committees and undertake large studies. Lady justice wearing a blindfold. She does not, and should not care about the color of skin, or whether someone was gay (victim or suspect). Justice should be effectively laid out and the laws of our great nation should be rewritten to be clear and concise. That includes the states. Stop making up new laws that will conflict with old laws. If you want weed or anything else to be legal, illegal, or legal under certain situations, spell it out and make it clear, and then make clear penalties as well.

Only through enforcing the laws we have do we do our citizens a service as the judicial system. Only though aiding the mentally ill do we find ways to actually help those who need it. Instead of closing down all the mental health centers, and asylums, build them and staff them with the systems and persons needed.

The laws will never be perfect, and as people, we will never be perfect either, but let us NEVER EVER FORGET that our founding fathers agreed it is NOT man who gave us our rights, and it is not man who takes them away. These rights were given to us by God.

---

As far as probable cause etc.. I'm an attorney, I get it....But honestly when you have the President of the United States, elected by Red State America, sitting next to Diane Feinstein when he goes on record and says, "Get the guns first, due process later".......I dont think people are unjustified in being a little skeptical!

Any one who supports registration, confiscation, or these red flag laws is spitting in the face of liberty and our founding principles and documents.

We have already seen nation states who take away property and liberty due to "mental illness." Not that I need an example, b/c property rights are natural rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

I don’t have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

With great power comes great responsibility. We’ve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.

---

So you'd have been good with us calling the PoPo on you when you were going off the deep end a couple months back?

You remember when you were all over the place like a addict without the bump, moving to Canada, turning in all your guys to the police for some honey pot?

That time? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RHINOWSO

So you'd have been good with us calling the PoPo on you when you were going off the deep end a couple months back?

You remember when you were all over the place like a addict without the bump, moving to Canada, turning in all your guys to the police for some honey pot?

That time? ;)

---

Lol. Why you gotta bring up old sh*t?

I honestly believe we will see more and more of these type laws. ANY thing that can be used to strip people of their rights. We all know that the end goal is disarming everyone but the government.

Heck of a post Stick

Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

I don’t have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

With great power comes great responsibility. We’ve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.


It’s always funny to see people justify others losing their rights without including themselves. The view is always best from our own ivory tower...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esq.

I don't care who you are, what you are wearing or what "duly passed" law you claim you are enforcing. I'm not giving up my guns. Period.

---

And this is already being played out. Here's grumpy old man who "likes to speak his mind," but "wouldn't hurt anybody" being hauled out in a body bag. Apparently, he wasn't going to give up his guns pursuant to a red flag gun confiscation order. I have no reason to believe the police acted improperly, but it was the man's final decision to not give up his guns, period.

---------

FERNDALE, Md. -- Two police officers ordered to remove firearms from a house on a "red flag" protective order fatally shot an armed man Monday morning in Ferndale, Maryland, police said. Anne Arundel County Police arrived at the house at 5:17 a.m. to remove guns from the home under a new law that temporarily allows for the seizure of firearms if a person shows "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others, CBS Baltimore reports.

A man, later identified by police as 61-year-old Gary Willis, answered his door with a gun in his hand, Anne Arundel County Police Sgt. Jacklyn Davis said. Sgt. Davis said the man put the gun down. But then, according to a police press release, Willis "became irate" when officers attempted to serve the order. Willis picked the weapon up again, "a fight ensued over the gun," and a shot was fired, Davis said. The first shot didn't strike anyone, but the officers then fatally shot the man, Sgt. Davis said.
Neither of the officers were injured. Their names weren't released.

It wasn't clear why the "red flag" order was issued. A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request from the Baltimore Sun to release protection order requests associated with the home, citing the law which states the orders are confidential unless a court rules otherwise.

Michele Willis, the man's niece, told The Baltimore Sun that one of her aunts requested the protective order against Willis, but she declined to say why. She said police stopped by the home to speak with her uncle Sunday night. He lived above the garage and several other family members also lived in the home. Those who were there during the shooting were being questioned by police Monday morning, The Sun reported.

Willis said her uncle "likes to speak his mind," but "wouldn't hurt anybody." "I'm just dumbfounded right now," she said. "They didn't need to do what they did."

Maryland is one of several states that passed "red flag" laws since the high school mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, earlier this year. Maryland's law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is more broad in that it allows certain health care providers to seek an order, in addition to family members and law enforcement.

First published on November 6, 2018 / 6:37 PM

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marylan...oot-armed-man/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

I just want to attempt to offer an explanation of what actually constitutes due process, although I'm not sure that actual facts will sway anyone's opinion.

The red flag laws which, for example, Rubio, was championing do have due process built into them. Here is a link to the actual text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...te-bill/7/text

If you read the text, what the bill requires is that in essence, the petitioner(s) get a warrant to seize the weapon. Why they don't use the term warrant is beyond me. Perhaps because this is an administrative action? I don't know.

The 4th Amendment says: 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.

The first consideration is where does the warrant issue from? The courts, more specifically, judges.

A second consideration is that of probable cause, what is it? A working definition of probable cause: The totality of the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime (offense) has, is, or will be committed.

In the 'Rubio Bill' the elements to be considered in determining if PC exists are listed:

In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court may consider relevant evidence, such as—

“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;

“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;

“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;

“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order;

“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;

“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;

“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;

“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;

“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;

“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and

“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;

It has to be clearly understood that the decision to issue an 'extreme risk protection order' is reserved for a judge having jurisdiction. This is no different procedure than an officer getting an arrest or search warrant.

Furthermore, the 'Rubio Bill' gives the respondent the:

HEARING TO VACATE ORDER.—

“(i) IN GENERAL.—A respondent may request not less than 1 hearing to vacate an extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent.

“(ii) HEARING.—Not later than 30 days after the date on which a petitioner is notified of the request of the respondent to vacate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing on the request.

If folks don't understand that due process is upheld by the 'Rubio Bill' they either haven't read the bill, or don't understand the definition and application of due process.

The only thing this bill does is give family members, friends, etc. a formal avenue to enter the court system to petition for the removal of weapons from an unstable/threatening person. Plus, it gives law enforcement officers a responsibility and framework to operate within when they are apprised of such risks - thus eliminating the common lazy/incompetent popo answer 'it's a civil matter.'

---

I take issue with your idea of Due Process in this specific situation. First of all, we're talking about a strictly administrative, non-criminal process being used to deny someone their constitutional rights. Second, we're using a law enforcement agency to accomplish it. So right off the bat we're setting up a conflict because an honest, reasonable question is "what crime have I committed, being charged with". The answer is "None, but we're seizing your property and you don't have a right to arms for defense until you prove you're not guilty of the crime you haven't committed and we're not charging you with."

Now if we use mental health as the standard for non-criminal Due Process, they have 72 hours. In that 72 hours they have to do a mental health evaluation and either request a court order to hold you further, or release you. That process doesn't cost the defendant anything. So why does the government think they should be allowed to deny someone Due Process and constitutional rights for 30 days, absent any evidence of a crime? Why isn't 72 hours reasonable? Why isn't requiring Due Process with appellant rights to redress a reasonable hurdle to increase that 72 hour detainer?

If we use DV EPO/TRO (I'm making a distinction between an EPO/TRO and a "permanent" PO/RO) as the standard, the basis for such is usually evidence of a crime. In Rubio's bill it makes room for a judge to issue an ERPO without any evidence of a crime. Why is that? Further, in most of those cases the accused has the option of an acquaintance, family member, attorney holding the firearms. I for one have no faith that my very expensive firearms will be properly cared for and not damaged by a LE agency.

I could go down the list of why this is a terrible idea, to include the fact that in many left leaning and even some right leaning jurisdictions, judges are rubber stamps for stuff like this. Keep in mind this is the bill authored by the right. There's no telling what concessions may be made in order to appease those in Congress who want even more restrictions and less Due Process. Not to mention the fact that laws like this should be the exclusive purview of the States, not the feds.

I can see how attractive such a tool might be to responding LEO's, but it's too wide open for abuse and financial lawfare, and it doesn't provide enough safeties to prevent the not-even-accused from losing their Constitutional Rights needlessly. I also believe it's a crutch for LE to not do as thorough a job as they should. Crazies like the Parkland shooter are almost always well within the ability of LE to articulate why they shouldn't be on the streets, much less in possession of firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glocktogo

I take issue with your idea of Due Process in this specific situation. First of all, we're talking about a strictly administrative, non-criminal process being used to deny someone their constitutional rights. Second, we're using a law enforcement agency to accomplish it. So right off the bat we're setting up a conflict because an honest, reasonable question is "what crime have I committed, being charged with". The answer is "None, but we're seizing your property and you don't have a right to arms for defense until you prove you're not guilty of the crime you haven't committed and we're not charging you with."

Now if we use mental health as the standard for non-criminal Due Process, they have 72 hours. In that 72 hours they have to do a mental health evaluation and either request a court order to hold you further, or release you. That process doesn't cost the defendant anything. So why does the government think they should be allowed to deny someone Due Process and constitutional rights for 30 days, absent any evidence of a crime? Why isn't 72 hours reasonable? Why isn't requiring Due Process with appellant rights to redress a reasonable hurdle to increase that 72 hour detainer?

If we use DV EPO/TRO (I'm making a distinction between an EPO/TRO and a "permanent" PO/RO) as the standard, the basis for such is usually evidence of a crime. In Rubio's bill it makes room for a judge to issue an ERPO without any evidence of a crime. Why is that? Further, in most of those cases the accused has the option of an acquaintance, family member, attorney holding the firearms. I for one have no faith that my very expensive firearms will be properly cared for and not damaged by a LE agency.

I could go down the list of why this is a terrible idea, to include the fact that in many left leaning and even some right leaning jurisdictions, judges are rubber stamps for stuff like this. Keep in mind this is the bill authored by the right. There's no telling what concessions may be made in order to appease those in Congress who want even more restrictions and less Due Process. Not to mention the fact that laws like this should be the exclusive purview of the States, not the feds.

I can see how attractive such a tool might be to responding LEO's, but it's too wide open for abuse and financial lawfare, and it doesn't provide enough safeties to prevent the not-even-accused from losing their Constitutional Rights needlessly. I also believe it's a crutch for LE to not do as thorough a job as they should. Crazies like the Parkland shooter are almost always well within the ability of LE to articulate why they shouldn't be on the streets, much less in possession of firearms.

---

You've made some great points. Especially in your second paragraph.

As for your last paragraph: I also believe it's a crutch for LE to not do as thorough a job as they should.

I pretty much stated that from another perspective - this gives LE a responsibility to do something, instead of handing it off to someone else. I've observed over the years that officers have many different motivations for entering law enforcement. Most officers are capable of overcoming their biases and acting evenhandedly, most not all; likewise most officers try to do their best, once again, most, not all.

The small subset of lazy officers, is probably not as large as the subset of well-meaning officers who wouldn't know what action to take if someone came to them and said 'my brother-in-law is talking about shooting (insert political party, religion or race).'

Combined, the subsets of lazy or biased officers, plus the well-meaning but ill-prepared officers give us a pretty good chance of inaction UNLESS 1) there is a path to follow; 2) there is a likelihood that the officer will be held accountable for their inaction.

Responsibilities that aren't assigned, often get overlooked. In a perfect world we would all do our duties as citizens and there would be no need for many of our laws and regulations. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

You've made some great points. Especially in your second paragraph.

As for your last paragraph: I also believe it's a crutch for LE to not do as thorough a job as they should.

I pretty much stated that from another perspective - this gives LE a responsibility to do something, instead of handing it off to someone else. I've observed over the years that officers have many different motivations for entering law enforcement. Most officers are capable of overcoming their biases and acting evenhandedly, most not all; likewise most officers try to do their best, once again, most, not all.

The small subset of lazy officers, is probably not as large as the subset of well-meaning officers who wouldn't know what action to take if someone came to them and said 'my brother-in-law is talking about shooting (insert political party, religion or race).'

Combined, the subsets of lazy or biased officers, plus the well-meaning but ill-prepared officers give us a pretty good chance of inaction UNLESS 1) there is a path to follow; 2) there is a likelihood that the officer will be held accountable for their inaction.

Responsibilities that aren't assigned, often get overlooked. In a perfect world we would all do our duties as citizens and there would be no need for many of our laws and regulations. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in.

---

I'd just like to stress that stating "LE" and not "LEO" was intentional on my part. I recognize that the majority of line officers do the job with heart. Most of the issues like Parkland are institutional. Even when you look all the way back to the shooting of Gabby Giffords, it was the agency as a whole that failed those citizens. If officers on the street are given support to do the job fairly and effectively, they most likely will do just that. If top brass only wants to posture, preen and deflect any responsibility for failures, officers will necessarily spend more time on CYA than proactive community policing.

I've seen it ebb and flow locally over the decades I've been observing, and that's just my personal opinion.

So the local LE was dispatched to the Parkland crazy residents 26 times and supposedly they couldn’t do anything. If we had red flag laws in place the guy becomes a official known crazy based on his history of behavior and speech and cannot but guns leagally. Red flagging mental cases becomes a bureaucratic process with certain behavior and speech profiles. Then somebody says something that a mental case said, it’s taken out of context and next thing you know they’re red flagged. Government likes blanket policy because of all the fairness crap. Red flag laws are another step down the slippery slope.

While there are interesting points about how compatible the ERPO can be with our current due process understanding, I feel we have skipped over common sense. And ridicule.

Common sense holds that someone who is an "Extreme Risk" with a firearm is also an extreme risk to the public without one. Following this logic the purpose is virtue signaling, ignorance, or the common anti-gun strategy of claiming firearms cause violence.

I suggest that extreme risk persons should have to move in to Rubio's neighborhood. And anyone else who thinks it's a good idea. Please tell me how much you would like to live next to these people, share the road with them, or maybe teach your kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd.K

While there are interesting points about how compatible the ERPO can be with our current due process understanding, I feel we have skipped over common sense. And ridicule.

Common sense holds that someone who is an "Extreme Risk" with a firearm is also an extreme risk to the public without one. Following this logic the purpose is virtue signaling, ignorance, or the common anti-gun strategy of claiming firearms cause violence.

I suggest that extreme risk persons should have to move in to Rubio's neighborhood. And anyone else who thinks it's a good idea. Please tell me how much you would like to live next to these people, share the road with them, or maybe teach your kids.

---

Good post!

Re-open/re-build state mental institutions and put the crazy people in there. You can also send non-violent addicts in for the year-long inpatient rehabilitation program it takes to reduce failure to below 50%. People with serious mental illness and non-compliance belong in supervised custodial care, not on the streets, bouncing between hospitals and jails because nobody knows what to do with them and they don't want to get sued for doing nothing, even if it's wrong.

Use the welfare money to fund the institutions - all of the above are sure to be on the dole.

Schizophrenic, unstable paraniods and violent sociopaths are not people you want your wife and kids to meet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joelski

Re-open/re-build state mental institutions and put the crazy people in there. You can also send non-violent addicts in for the year-long inpatient rehabilitation program it takes to reduce failure to below 50%. People with serious mental illness and non-compliance belong in supervised custodial care, not on the streets, bouncing between hospitals and jails because nobody knows what to do with them and they don't want to get sued for doing nothing, even if it's wrong.

Use the welfare money to fund the institutions - all of the above are sure to be on the dole.

Schizophrenic, unstable paraniods and violent sociopaths are not people you want your wife and kids to meet.

---

I agree, but neither are tweakers / meth maggots, and plenty of people are more at risk from them than they are from the mentally ill, or from people who could fall into a "risk" category because of words take the wrong way or a guy being pissed off at the world for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

the fact that some ghetto goblin breeds with anyone she can and pops out felons like a Pez dispenser has no bearing on my constitutional rights.

---

Haha, this is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while. I think the seriousness of the convo overshadowed that gem of a comment. Thank you Stick, I’ll be using this term going forward.

Also, thread consistency. Shall not infringe means just that. Someone inform our “overloads”, please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgizzard

Haha, this is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while. I think the seriousness of the convo overshadowed that gem of a comment. Thank you Stick, I’ll be using this term going forward.

---

It also suggests a variation on the theme, "walking Felon-flavored Pez dispenser." :) You know, just the kind who Ocrazio-Crackwhore will want for her personal Sturmtruppen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stickman

Moving onto the catch phrase of Domestic Violence, I will guess the majority of you have no idea what it encompasses. Do you know that it covers your exwife you divorced 20 years ago? Yup, she is as much a part of DV as your current wife is. Under the laws of plenty of states, DV includes room mates, which means if you slap a room mate on the back from 20 years ago and ask him where your money is that he stole when he ran off and left you paying all the rent, you are guilty of DV. Do you know that if you fought with, made threats, or similar activities your siblings, you are guilty of DV?

---

Stick, would you mind if I used your post #22 (with credit) as part of my next piece for Redstate? We have a bunch of Rubio/Graham-humping ERPO-fetishists over there despite it being a "pro-gun, Conservative" site and I think you have the PERFECT smackdown for them here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

Stick, would you mind if I used your post #22 (with credit) as part of my next piece for Redstate? We have a bunch of Rubio/Graham-humping ERPO-fetishists over there despite it being a "pro-gun, Conservative" site and I think you have the PERFECT smackdown for them here.

---

Feel free to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nocalsocal

That's the only reason keeping me from filing to SBR one of my lowers.

---

Ditto. I've yet to see an AR pistol I really like, but I'll go that route, BEFORE SBR.