Family filed civil suit under Indiana's Red Flag law.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...558747311.html
Thanks pstk5088 for the heads up on this.
Family filed civil suit under Indiana's Red Flag law.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...558747311.html
Thanks pstk5088 for the heads up on this.
"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
Really interesting. I don't see how it can hold up in court, and if it did I don't know why the red flag law would be part of it. That is my major issue with red flag laws- we already have laws that deal with demented and violent people. Maybe the red flag laws make it more streamlined to address them, but the inherent legal structure is there.
Now this interpretation of the Red Flag law is interesting. It seems that any level of culpability would have some kind of legal exposure under existing laws, unless there is something explicitly in the red flag law saying that people have to act. I haven't heard of any 'requirement to report under penalty' in any of these laws. I'm guessing that the laws would be a lot less unpopular if for every shooter that gets caught, people are being hauled before a court about what they knew and when.
Here's hoping that it gets thrown out quick. Let's see if this kind of culpability ends up in newer versions.
Why stop at gun violence? Why not child molesters? Why not hold your cell phone company culpable for letting phones work at highway speeds? Let G-ma drive and she kills someone, off you go. Hell, why do cars have to go faster than the speed limit- the car makers could fight that?
I might watch "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" tonight for a preview of what is to come.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
This pretty much turns centuries of jurisprudence upside down. I imagine that's the goal of what seems to be a blatantly politically-motivated, politically-oriented lawsuit. Turn the populace into mandatory snitches under penalty of law. East Germany would be so proud!The lawsuit comes after the shooting death of former Judge Tracy Edward Page, who was killed in a brutal shooting last year. Page’s brother Paul and his husband Kevin Swanson filed the lawsuit in Lake County circuit court on Thursday, demanding that the family of Bill Landske, the gunman in the slaying, be held accountable for his actions under the state’s “Red Flag” law.
That law allows police to take guns from owners if their behavior becomes dangerous or raises “red flags,” and the suit alleges that the law should have been applied to Landske.
“The family of Bill Landske knew that he was dangerous, they knew he was demented and untethered, and they knew he was prone to outbursts of rage-filled profanity,” attorney Ken Allen said.
I also question ordinary standing here. I'm not even sure if the brother has standing for a loss of consortium claim - historically that was only for husband-wife, though now in some jurisdictions it can also be for parent-child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_consortium
I don't see any obvious way that the brother's husband (so stated) would have standing. Maybe that's also a goal of this novel suit.
this shit is getting out of hand! Wonder what the FBI has to do with a State Red Flag Law?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-ma...-antifa-reportRemarks against Antifa prompt FBI seizure of former Marine’s weapons under Oregon’s ‘red flag’ law: reports
Last edited by platoonDaddy; 09-01-19 at 10:01.
Now is the time to stop having friends.
???? Why would you take someone’s gun if they said they would use them in self-defense? I thought the FBI investigated violations of the law (in criminal cases). Seems like a very bad direction for the FBI. He committed no crimes.
In the Parkland shooting, the subject said he would kill shooting up a school and they took no action. Here the guy said he would act in self-defense and they take his gun and commit him for psychiatric evaluation. Self defense is a mental instability
Last edited by platoonDaddy; 09-01-19 at 11:22. Reason: Screwed up, wanted to edit original msg
They think the Bill of Rights is a punch card....
Say you’ll defend yourself, get your 2A punch. He is barred attending other rallies, 1A punched. Committed for 20 days, 5A punched. Who knows when he’ll get his property back, 4A punched. Pretty efficient.
The FBI getting into state crimes is a bit concerning.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
It’s a soup sandwich brothers. Nothing short of a soup sandwich. I wish I had to time to sit down and create a roadmap that captures all these violations of common sense and our freedom from all over the country, for a couple of reasons. One just to chart their progress because there’s probably something to glean from that besides the obvious, and secondly to use it as a wake up call to individuals who for whatever reason cannot see ”the writing on the wall” (Dan. 5:5, which is probably far more analogous to our time than we think.). Where’s 26_Inf when you need him...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"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
Let’s just go for it and have a Department of Pre-Crime and start doing constant checks of social media, finances, credit, arms owned, recent arms purchased, publications owned, publications purchased and start issuing Social Credit. If a person gets below a certain level they are more stringently surveilled and past that they are given a pre-emptive mental health screening and curtilage of all properties owned, inhabited, or acquainted are searched.
If it just saves one life...
Bookmarks