Our State Support ~ Red Flag Law *

[RedBull]

Well said sir .

 

[Mr Brown]

Yes, they do. And should. Under specific circumstances.....

 

[bussassin417]

Open carry in the USA

from Wikipedia, click here.

I live in a permissive (allowed) open carry state with local restriction. I can openly carry my firearm in a holster or sling without requiring a permit. Local restrictions prohibit open carry in state or federal government buildings without a permit.

My state also allows unrestricted concealed carry. I do not need a permit to conceal carry my firearm.

I also am not required to register my firearms with any law authority or agency while in my state.

Some local businesses, stores, restaurants prohibit firearms on their premises. Open or conceal carry with/without a permit is prohibited on those premises. If a firearm is seen, then the establishment requests you to leave; you must comply. Otherwise authorities can be called, authorities request you to leave before you are charged with a crime.

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

"A red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[2][3]

Such orders are known as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (ERPO) in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont; as "Risk Protection Orders" in Florida; as "Gun Violence Restraining Orders" in California; as "risk warrants" in Connecticut; and as "Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm" in Indiana.[4]"

info from Wikipedia, click here.

Here in the US, 85% of registered voters support these laws that allow temporary removal of firearms from individuals that have be judge as a danger to him/herself or others.

The US is a democracy. Majority vote wins. Red flag is a law. The law has different names in different states.

If firearms are removed temporarily for safety concerns, the owner has a hearing to protest/disprove those safety concerns and have their firearms returned.

As a firearm owner, I support the red flag law; in any name.

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

In re: “If firearms are removed temporarily for safety concerns, the owner has a hearing to protest/disprove those safety concerns and have their firearms returned.”

At this hearing the accused should have proper legal representation and the ‘prosecution’ for lack of a better word, should have to prove their allegations, not the other way around. If the burden of proof is not met the order would be rescinded and the weapons returned. Of course the accused should be prepared to state his case to deflect or disprove the allegations. Similar rules apply for standard restraining orders usually obtained ‘ex parte’ which just means with no proof, or statement from or notice to, the respondent. These orders are very temporary and if not ‘answered’ or responded to within a short time period (varies) the restrictions sought can be granted for one to three years, for example. In those cases like criminal cases the burden of proof is on the person (or state) bringing the accusations or charges.

Many gun owners have firearms that the guvment knows about and some they don’t know about, mostly to guard against the possibility of unreasonable search and seizure, and for laws like red flag laws.

 

[bussassin417]

‘prosecution’ for lack of a better word, should have to prove their allegations

"A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question."

info from Wikipedia, click here.

A judge makes the determination to issue an order to temporary remove a firearm(s). The judge's decision is based on statements (legal affidavits) and the actions of the firearm(s) owner.

Makes sense to me.

If someone falsely accused me of being a danger to myself or others, then somehow the judge doesn't clearly see the deception and issues a order to temporary remove my firearm(s); I would comply with the order. It's the law; no matter if I agree with it or not. I know there will be a hearing, where statements/evidence/testimony is presented, and I afforded the opportunity to state the truth.

That's due process.

Defendants aren't present during the grand jury hearing to indict them. Why would someone expect to be present when a judge issues an order to temporarily remove their firearm(s) ? If there is not a good case, the people and judge don't indict. Same here with red flag, if the judge doesn't see the danger then no order.

The US Constitution is flawed. There are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution; because its flawed. Article II (not second amendment) still hasn't been ratified; and probably never will be because to provides a true voice/representation for the people. It was and continues to be the United Companies of America.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms to secure a free state. ie - be armed for another revolutionary war

Every government has flaws. Unless you live on a island, all by yourself; a government cannot please all the people all the time.

We are human. We all have flaws, character defects and misgivings. I do my best to show respect, care and compassion when dealing with others. People do it for me; I have the responsibility to do it toward others.

* if all life were respected; there would be less violence, period.

 

[Bailey9r]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee a hearing, a trial or anything. .

check out the sixth amendment It will help you sleep at night
This is exactly what Rep Gowdy was referring to when asking what other rights can be taken without a hearing.

 

[Mr Brown]

As with so many of the "hot button issues" we see discussed these days, things are far more complicated than a for/against argument. To reduce this to a simple 'yes I'm for or no I'm against' statement makes for good soundbites but terrible policy. Abortion, police violence, gun owners rights, gun violence (yes those are distinct and different problems), the death penalty, immigration, abortion, the list goes on. These are complicated issues which require serious discussion and understanding to resolve, something in which our elected leadership has no interest in participating.

 

[Mr Brown]

check out the sixth amendment It will help you sleep at night
This is exactly what Rep Gowdy was referring to when asking what other rights can be taken without a hearing.

Specifically in regards to criminal proceedings, it does, and even then, not in all cases. Everything else is covered by due process, which is whatever society says it is. The right to life of a suspect is abridged by a police officer who deems them a threat and neutralizes that threat, and that is acceptable, as it should be. The person wasn't a criminal, hadn't been chargeed or convicted, there is no trial. The due process took a split second, but we as a society accept that in most cases.

 

[Bailey9r]

The US is a democracy. Majority vote wins.

.

Is this your statement or A Wikiopine, because the US is most definitely NOT a democracy Sir. If it was we could hold a vote to split Bill Gates' and George Soros' Billions among us.
This is why some of us put our right hand on our heart and say "...and to the Republic for which it stands".

 

[RedBull]

This is why some of us
put our right hand on our heart and say
" . . . and to the Republic for which it stands " .

 

[Bailey9r]

Look guys I'm just giving food for thought and listening to your opine but I am not here to ruffle feathers so I'm moving on to the next thread.
I understand your liking this cause you feel it could save lives, just understand I don't because it can cost too much and already has and as stated we had enough laws in place also I don't like laws that are put in because of ginned up fake staged events.
I'm not saying which are and which aren't BUT when the same actors are in Aurora wind up in Sandy hook and survivors of this last shooting say they barly survived Las Vegas I mean what are the odds really? I was waiting for David Camera Hogg to ride by on his bicycle. SMH
Anyway cheers and I hope you are right and only good comes from them but i kinda doubt it.

 

[Bailey9r]

Haha you go Red!!!

 

[Mr Brown]

Look guys I'm just giving food for thought and listening to your opine but I am not here to ruffle feathers so I'm moving on to the next thread.
I understand your liking this cause you feel it could save lives, just understand I don't because it can cost too much and already has and as stated we had enough laws in place also I don't like laws that are put in because of ginned up fake staged events.
I'm not saying which are and which aren't BUT when the same actors are in Aurora wind up in Sandy hook and survivors of this last shooting say they barly survived Las Vegas I mean what are the odds really? I was waiting for David Camera Hogg to ride by on his bicycle. SMH
Anyway cheers and I hope you are right and only good comes from them but i kinda doubt it.

Your world view is seriously distorted. I'm all for discussion and back and forth, but you have demonstrated an inability to separate fact from fiction. If it is inconcievable to you that people in the Los Angeles area who are country music fans would attend a concert a few hours away, then as I inferred before, any further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. If human lives are nothing more to you than a calculation of financial benefit, any further discussion is pointless. If you think the gun lobby has any interest in anything other than revenue generation, further definition is unnecessary. I hope that you are able to see past this one day, until then I'll suggest that you look at sources which don't simply repeat a specific narrative at the expense of all others.

 

[Mr Brown]

Is this your statement or A Wikiopine, because the US is most definitely NOT a democracy Sir. If it was we could hold a vote to split Bill Gates' and George Soros' Billions among us.
This is why some of us put our right hand on our heart and say "...and to the Republic for which it stands".

Democracy is a political theory not an economic one. And yes, the U.S. is a democracy, a representative one.

 

[bussassin417]

US is most definitely NOT a democracy

the Republic for which it stands

"Frequently, politicians, and many ordinary Americans, refer to the United States as a democracy. Others find this aggravating because, unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do – and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic. Happily, both are right!"

Republic - "... rather than having representatives vote on laws and other actions, each citizen gets to vote – and the majority decides it."

Democracy - "... democratic representation, the rule of law, and constitutional protections ...”

I vote directly on proposed local and state laws. The votes are counted, majority wins. Local and state laws are passed, amended or removed. I vote directly to elect local, district and state representatives. These representatives meet with other representatives to propose, protect, defend my state and national constitutional protections. My voice is heard when my elected representative casts a vote.

Both are correct.

I do my best to communicate; common respect and understanding. Division, discourse and disrespect are harmful to humanity. I do my best not to perpetuate injustice, fear and maliciousness.

I'm not worried about someone misusing the red flag law to remove my weapons. Truth prevails. I'm not a threat to myself or others.

My weapons are for what I believe to be their intended purpose, "... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..." against tyranny and oppression; whether foreign or domestic.

 

[ogre]

constitutional republic. anyway, just because some bobohead says some poop about you doesn't mean you're actually crazy. I agree, some people probably shouldn't have weapons, but, at the same time, I'm uncomfortable denying someone their rights without any due process at all. Then, the process to get all your stuff back is probably a giant pain in the ass, significantly more effort than was required to take your property I'd wager.

 

[Bigboy Busa2]

Trey Gowdy questioned someone in that office asking "Can you name another right under the constitution that can be denied without a hearing or remedy?" Of coarse the answer is NO.

Gowdy 2024. Ready to vote

 

[Bigboy Busa2]

Oh so they don't come take just your guns? They also get your Hayabusas? Okay got it now.

Whoa whoa lets dont get out of hand with this. Dont get personal with the hayabusa. Just take the guns and leave

 

[Mr Brown]

constitutional republic. anyway, just because some bobohead says some poop about you doesn't mean you're actually crazy. I agree, some people probably shouldn't have weapons, but, at the same time, I'm uncomfortable denying someone their rights without any due process at all. Then, the process to get all your stuff back is probably a giant pain in the ass, significantly more effort than was required to take your property I'd wager.

In this state, a licensed mental health professional is who determines one's mental state, using specific criteria laid out in the DSM-V.

 

[RedBull]