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.
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."
~ Sam Houston
“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”
~ Sam Adams
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.'
Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-04-19 at 19:38.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.
Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee
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.
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.
Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-04-19 at 22:28.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.
Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee
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.
Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-05-19 at 12:17.
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.
Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee
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.
Last edited by Esq.; 03-05-19 at 15:19.
The truth can only offend those who live a lie.
Bookmarks