Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Kamala Harris is proposing a new kind of 'red flag' law to take guns away from racist

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,743

    Default

    isn't "red" flag a racist term
    The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers."
    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Well not only that but it sure is being used a lot for nothing but trolling purposes that is a fact. from one that even admits is racist. Why? is one like that even around? trolling like that is bad for not only this site but so many threads have been ruined by it as well.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    113,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buster View Post
    isn't "red" flag a racist term
    I know it's sexist!
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    “As a general rule, the earlier you recognize someone is trying to kill you, the better off you’ll be.”

    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    4,794

    Default



    The word, Edom, means red.

    Maybe such laws will rid the planet of those evil antichrists!


  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    8,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingsX View Post


    Red Flag = Red Army

    Now...there is some truth to carefully consider.
    ***

    Even the bravest of us rarely has the courage for what he really knows. - Nietzsche

    ***

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    4,794

    Default



    The enforcement problems
    with gun-grabbing 'red flag' laws
    are even worse than you think




    Donald Kilmer **

    " Everyone is debating "red flag" laws like they're some new thing, but California has had variations of them for decades. We call them domestic violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, workplace restraining orders, elder abuse restraining orders, mental health seizures and prohibition orders, and, more recently, gun violence restraining orders.

    They're all meant to disarm dangerous people - but they're all fundamentally flawed.

    None of these red flag laws would have prevented recent mass shootings. And in my 23 years practicing law in the heart of Silicon Valley, I have litigated dozens of these cases. I've seen firsthand the practical enforcement problems that emerge in real-life cases.

    These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. Thats fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You'll get your "full due process" hearing, but not until later.

    And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the "red flag" order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges.

    The initial temporary orders are usually "self-executing." That means you might get served with a court order that tells you to take your guns and surrender them to the police or a local dealer within the next 24 to 48 hours.

    You are, of course, expected to comply. But since you cannot legally possess guns upon being served with the order, how are you supposed to transport your guns to surrender them? Perhaps you could just call the police and tell them you were served with a "red flag" order - marking you a "dangerous and volatile" person (even if you're not) - and ask them to come pick up your guns.

    That kind of situation is ripe for danger. In one situation in Baltimore, police ended up shooting a man when they came to collect his guns under a "red flag" law.

    Or perhaps you could take your guns to a local gun dealer and ask them to store them for you - that is, if you can find one that's willing. In my experience, storage will cost you about $200 per month for a couple of guns. And that might be the best deal you can get. Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.

    In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial "offer" of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.

    Experienced counsel to defend you in a "due process" hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.

    To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.

    As a practical matter, if the government's interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.

    Think that's a fantasy?

    Ask Lori Rodriguez, a plaintiff in a case that has been kicking around the California and federal courts for six years. The Ninth Circuit Court recently invented a new exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court approved the police seizing Rodriguez's firearm which was owned, registered, and locked in a gun safe, from her, while the police were at the home seizing firearms from a different family member.

    Even if you win, the judge isn't going to just hand your guns back to you at the end of the hearing. It's probably a good idea to "lawyer up" just to go through the process of recovering your guns, so you don't go to jail or prison for accidentally breaking an obscure firearm law or regulation. You wouldn't want to set off a red flag. "

    ** Donald Kilmer is a law professor and practicing attorney who has litigated dozens of restraining order matters, defended against state and federal gun charges, and prosecuted several Second Amendment public interest cases.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...than-you-think



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Nice of you to Spam the entire board. Hope that makes you pleased and fuzzy inside. Others not so much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •