The 2nd amendment
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Yeah, it's weird that the Framers put an amendment restricting the individual right of gun ownership in a bill full of amendments that all explicitly restrict the federal government...
He’s an incredible tool.
Lexington Greens...."The shot heard round the world." Better to have a gun in your hand than a whole British Empire allegedly there to protect your interests.
Since all of this talk about red flag laws started, I began looking at these laws that some states have put in place. These laws are not just unconstitutional based on a person's 2A rights, but they violate other rights that we have established in this country as core rights of being human beings. Some states do not allow someone to face their accuser in a court hearing, do not allow them representation, and do not even allow them to mount a defense or submit an answer before judgement is given. These are completely different than search and seizure warrants. They do not have to have any evidence or proof or even a suspicion that a crime HAS occurred. This is all happening based on someone thinking that a future crime COULD occur. How has ANY state allowed these laws to be put in place.
I don't absolutely disagree with the premise of Red Flag laws. Getting guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable is admirable. That said, I do think they've been written way to loosely to be considered constitutional. There is zero accountability to the accuser, zero defense mechanisms for the accused, zero requirements for any hard evidence or and in most cases there's not even firm standards that the accuser must achieve in order to successfully petition this action. Its the epitome of assumed guilty simply because someone says so.
What if the accuser is family/close friends/coworkers/exes who’ve witnessed the problems firsthand and reported them?
Asking for a "friend?"
I/DBros thought about posting some smart-assed response, but suddenly fear and common sense told us NFW!
It's strange how people with Eric Swalwell's viewpoint completely disregard this idiot was a career violent criminal with a long and well known history. How about we try protecting the public by keeping people like this idiot locked up behind bars? They keep telling us that drug dealers commit non-violent crimes and should not be behind bars, yet a large percentage of violent crimes are a direct result of the illegal drug market. It's like common sense is only prevalent in a shrinking minority of the country.
Bearcat, he actually illustrates the stupidity of his argument. The politicians/doggoders won't keep us safe while keeping habitual criminals in jail (this is a great example as was the guy in California earlier this week) yet the one equalizing factor most people have is they are armed. Does a moron like him really believe that criminals will also obey new guns laws, when the ones on the books now aren't even enforced?
Amazing how stupid they think the average American is in flyover country or areas outside any liberal run urban shithole.
Can we cut the bullshit that Swallwell is interested in cutting the bullshit?
This. Red flag laws could be written to provide due process protections.
The ones I’ve seen so far mostly don’t.
We thought the FISA courts would operate in a fair and impartial manner, pretty evident now that is not true. Like the FISA court, this would be underfunded and poorly managed, and any attempt to insure "due process" would just add another layer of administrative cost and burden that would be a rubber stamp process.
I will never trust any President, Congress, or Governmental agency to insure we have proper "due process" protections. More and more governmental agencies do not follow Federal Law, such as efforts made at the local governmental levels to not follow the law when it comes to ICE and "sanctuary" cities.
I would feel different if we had a good track record in this country of actually following, enforcing, and and fairly applying our laws. Seems we are moving in the opposite direction.
My thoughts on a first step in dealing with what ills us is here:
https://oklahomastate.forums.rivals...would-you-do-as-philanthropic-endeavor.84889/
I was very open to red flag laws at first, but my concern is this...
1. Like any other sketchy governmental intrusion (Patriot Act, FISA) it will be staffed by permanent bureaucratic (deep state if you will) government employees, who can and will eventually abuse the power we stupidly give them. People will wind up on that list for political reasons at some point, under some administration and that's about as obvious as Epstein getting whacked in prison was.
2. It gives a foothold for expanded definitions and authority over our 2A rights - which we know will happen because nothing we do regarding gun laws will ever prevent all mass shootings. There will always be something to point to and justify pushing for the next "common sense" encroachment into "shall not be infringed."
3. It should be a states rights issue, as should most things. If California, Illinois or New York want to do something like this at the state level, I still think it's unConstitutional, but whatever - it shouldn't affect Oklahoma.
4. Do we not already have mechanisms for spotting these lunatics and reporting them? It seems like there were several opportunities along the way for most if not all of them to be committed to a psychiatric institution and at minimum receive a moratorium on their gun rights. The Dayton guy and the Parkland guy slipped through so many cracks it's mind boggling. Couldn't we tighten up existing protocol? What do red flag laws do that simply enforcing current means of getting these guys in the system wouldn't do if properly executed?
This. The parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI a month prior to his rampage.
Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on the policy perspective of whether or not such red flag laws are even advisable.
My statement was more of a legal one that they could be done in a constitutional manner, not an endorsement of the idea in general.
Mega: My vision of a constitutional red flag law would be along the lines of our present Emergency Order of Detention for people that are a danger to themselves. Same due protection rights. Basically an EOD would include temporary seizure of firearms until a hearing establishing permanency could be held. At that hearing, the individual would have right to counsel and appointed counsel at state expense if they couldn't afford one (like they do in mental health and parental rights termination proceedings).
OKState1: I'm on record here way back when the FISA courts and Patriot Act were passed as being against those expansions of governmental authority.
And just to add that the burden of proof is on the government. The person doesn't have to disprove they are a threat. Pretty much what I've been advocating all along as well.
Sounds good in theory. Man it would have to be so transparent though. And the lists of people would need to be subject to public oversight and review. And it would have to be unexpandable. Maybe a built in expiration date and would require new legislation to renew.
Even then it makes me itchy.
I get it. Again, you’re looking at it from a policy perspective while I’m just looking at it from a legal/constitutional perspective without advocating one way or the other on the policy side.
Long story made short here: As most everyone here knows, current state law allows for the emergency detention of those people who are a danger to themselves or others. It happens all the time. Somebody calls 911 because they believe another person is suicidal, for example. The cops go out and assess. Sometimes they take the person into protective custody.
The person is entitled to a court hearing if they are held for longer than 72 hours. Seems like nobody has a problem with this.
We sort of already have a system in place to deal with this. When a person is in protective custody, they are separated from their firearms. If they are deemed to not be a threat, they are released and go home to their guns.
What I’m missing here is why we would need an additional law to take the guns into protective custody. If a person is suicidal or homicidal, we already have that covered.
So what am I missing here?
Those laws didn't prevent the most recent shootings, so we clearly need another more ambiguous and less restrictive law to separate guns from their rightful owners.
Red Flag Laws = Guilty until Proven Innocent
Someone says you're crazy and now you have to give up your guns, hire a lawyer and prove you're sane and not a danger. I call bullshit.
Someone says you're crazy and now you have to give up your guns, hire a lawyer and prove you're sane and not a danger. I call bullshit.
I agree but at the same time agree we need to find a way to address mental illness that is both Constitutional and fair to all. It is a very complex issue that does not have a simple solution.
If you’re accused and do end up in court who pays for your legal fees? The government unfortunately has a bottomless well of money, private citizens no so much. Wouldn’t take long to break someone financially especially if they had to appeal a bull crap order to surrender their weapons.
I've got a great lawyer. A decorated Captian in the National Guard, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. His units job is to go out and find IED's. He's also a super nice person but he's still going to charge me $250 bucks an hour and that's a good rate for a good attorney. One of these red flag deals could wreck a person of average means.
BTW if anyone needs a good attorney he's in Skiatook.
Similar threads
