I am not, I am asking what lesson he will learn because I don't see how red flag laws would have an effect on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by glocktogo
Red flag laws take away guns, right?
If he doesn't own guns because he has a security detail what lesson did he learn?
I doubt he would go to court because he has nothing to defend, so it sounds like a waste of resources.
If I am missing something please explain, what I am not seeing.
So if it can happen to Schumer, people who might otherwise support the law may realize it could happen to anyone and that the law itself is arbitrary and doesn't really solve the problem. And if Schumer is inconvenienced in any way, well he never worried much about inconveniencing others.Quote:
Originally Posted by .45fan
This. Eff this third-rate Joe Pesci impersonator and all who look like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteyrAUG
Exactly this. "Red Flag" laws only affect those who own firearms. Dangerous people threatening violence or calling for violence that don't own firearms are not affected at all. The law is discriminatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by .45fan
Look at the first three words of your reply, please define "it"?Quote:
Originally Posted by SteyrAUG
I am not trying to argue I just do not see the it that folks think will happen to Schumer.
Unless I am mistaken GOA will file their claim, the secret court decides yes or no, if yes the take Schumer's guns (which he probably doesn't own) and it is done. An embarrassing headline maybe but other than that, do we honestly believe anybody will change their mind if he is given this red flag treatment?
We here all agree the law is stupid, I personally think it is unconstitutional, but it basically doesn't apply to him if he doesn't own guns. It just looks like wasted resources is all I'm saying.
Something like a restraining order might be more appropriate, since that could actually apply to him.
Because of red flag laws we have seen someone die in Maryland, the wrong person (right name wrong person) get their guns taken away in FL, the cop in CO, the crossing guard in MA, so if anyone thinks the law is good with those existing examples, why would applying it to a non gun owner change their mind?
I think it is a great idea because it establishes precedence. A supreme court justice stated Schumer made threatening statements against the court. Will NY ignore the request and facilitate a lawsuit by a later victim (of the law)? Will they dismiss it out of hand because they don't "think" he owns a firearm without even asking him? Will they take his word for it or search his residence? If we don't expose these laws for the bullshit they are whenever an opportunity is presented, we are fools.
Why do this? Because starring and feathering crooked, a-hole politicians isn't considered acceptable any more.
If someone is red flagged, how do the cops determine if they have guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by MistWolf
Good questionQuote:
Originally Posted by MegademiC
Being a "prohibited person" under federal law or some state laws affects the ability of people around you to possess or own guns in some cases. I don't know the NY laws on point but it would be fun to see Schumer get prohibited person status and then lose his security detail because no one can bring guns anywhere near him. Or just get more turnover in security because of added hassles and legal exposure for them. Or maybe have him and his security detail arrested in another state for violating that state's laws on prohibition, based on the "red flag" order.Quote:
Originally Posted by .45fan
He's the biggest scumbag in a big pile of scum, and any way the laws and rules he supports can be used against him should be done mercilessly.