Give the bastards an inch

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
33,592
Reaction score
63,482
the right to buy a damn beer (Prohibition)
Also, some Founders argued AGAINST having a list of enumerated rights. They worried that in the future, SOME people would argue (as they do NOW) that any right NOT listed does not exist. They argued that the gov't does not GIVE rights, the people already had them by default. It appears they were right.
 

SteveC

Village Elder
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
10,083
Reaction score
21,392
But they CAN be taken away, for a reason. Like if you deserve it.

Freedom, life, can both be taken away legally as punishment - after trial and conviction, a person can be imprisoned or executed, depending on the crime. Crazy people can be locked in the nuthouse if they are dangerous.

We have rights, but they are not absolute. They CAN be taken away.
That is 100$% correct. The problem, as I understand it is, they are being taken away without DUE PROCESS. And, that is unconstitutional. And, others (specifically Sanctuary bullshit) are being enacted against constitutional laws, therefore THEY are unconstitutional and by definition - illegal.

Politics aside... I am very glad to see a conservative SCOTUS. Those assholes tend to be more constitutionally aware. We have strayed too far away over the last several decades. It maytake another few decades to undo the madness.

Prediction: Upon reaching SCOTUS, all the Red Flag and gun ban laws (sic) will be oeverturned. And, Sanctuary states/cites will be struck down.

How long is the question. Certainly not before the 2020 elections -- that's sad.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
33,592
Reaction score
63,482
That is 100$% correct. The problem, as I understand it is, they are being taken away without DUE PROCESS. And, that is unconstitutional. And, others (specifically Sanctuary bullshit) are being enacted against constitutional laws, therefore THEY are unconstitutional and by definition - illegal.

Politics aside... I am very glad to see a conservative SCOTUS. Those assholes tend to be more constitutionally aware. We have strayed too far away over the last several decades. It maytake another few decades to undo the madness.

Prediction: Upon reaching SCOTUS, all the Red Flag and gun ban laws (sic) will be oeverturned. And, Sanctuary states/cites will be struck down.

How long is the question. Certainly not before the 2020 elections -- that's sad.
I mostly agree. However...

Some red flags ... SOME of them need to stay. If a person has a documented history of violence, or is batshit crazy, or is a convicted felon, then as the Seinfeld Soup Nazi would say, "No gun for you!".
 

SteveC

Village Elder
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
10,083
Reaction score
21,392
I mostly agree. However...

Some red flags ... SOME of them need to stay. If a person has a documented history of violence, or is batshit crazy, or is a convicted felon, then as the Seinfeld Soup Nazi would say, "No gun for you!".
Nope.... not without a hearing, a mental health evaluation and an opportunity for the person to provide a reasonable defense against the accusers. Just because someone says, "Steve G is fucking crazy, let's take his guns", is not DUE PROCESS. It's illegal.

Convicted felons already cannot own/possess firearms. But we all know how well that law works.

I'm all for keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. But, we have to do it corretly, legally and without a violation of rights.

Remember the premise of our legal system... better to let 100 guilty men free, then to convict one innocent man.
 

CB91710

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
935
Reaction score
1,469
I mostly agree. However...

Some red flags ... SOME of them need to stay. If a person has a documented history of violence, or is batshit crazy, or is a convicted felon, then as the Seinfeld Soup Nazi would say, "No gun for you!".
Exactly, and that's what due process is about.
The problem is when rights are stripped pro-actively based on an accusation that has not been proven in court.
And even when you get to court, we have the best justice system money can buy.
I make a good living and live comfortably, but I do not have the financial resources to defend myself against a false accusation of any kind. I pay for insurance that will cover my legal defense should I be involved in a justified self-defense shooting.
My former boss was on the hook for $20k in legal fees every time his batshit crazy ex-wife would report a false allegation and obtain a TRO... then the day of the hearing to make the TRO permanent, she'd fail to appear and drop the claim... but he had already taken his guns to the local PD for storage, and had to pay his attorney, AND had to appear in court.... while she would simply walk away, only to do it again in 6 months.
And this was before the current "red flag" laws.

California passed Red Flag laws a couple of years ago, and last year, the legislature failed to pass a bill that would make a false report under those laws a felony.
 

cybermgk

Singin' the body lectric
Premium Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
14,180
Reaction score
19,551
sure as shit, a bill has been introduced in Virginia which would not only ban, but confiscate, an extraordinarily broadly-defined range of "assault weapons." Yep- owning a standard 9mm with a 13-round stack will make you a felon.

I note with amusement the all-too-familiar inclusion in the definition of purely cosmetic features.

https://spectator.org/gun-confiscation- ... -virginia/
Atleast, here in Illinois, we have had a LONG time of antig politicoes, so we have organized against. Virginia needs to fdo that. CALL your state reps and Senators. If you can file an appearence against, do so, ORGANIZE. The other side is definately organized.

Then bring litigation against these bills, if made to law, blocking them as they expressly go against not only The Constitution, but, keu SCOTUS rulings.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
33,592
Reaction score
63,482
Nope.... not without a hearing, a mental health evaluation and an opportunity for the person to provide a reasonable defense against the accusers. Just because someone says, "Steve G is fucking crazy, let's take his guns", is not DUE PROCESS. It's illegal.

Convicted felons already cannot own/possess firearms. But we all know how well that law works.

I'm all for keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. But, we have to do it corretly, legally and without a violation of rights.

Remember the premise of our legal system... better to let 100 guilty men free, then to convict one innocent man.
Of COURSE with a hearing and due process!
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
33,592
Reaction score
63,482
Exactly, and that's what due process is about.
The problem is when rights are stripped pro-actively based on an accusation that has not been proven in court.
And even when you get to court, we have the best justice system money can buy.
I make a good living and live comfortably, but I do not have the financial resources to defend myself against a false accusation of any kind. I pay for insurance that will cover my legal defense should I be involved in a justified self-defense shooting.
My former boss was on the hook for $20k in legal fees every time his batshit crazy ex-wife would report a false allegation and obtain a TRO... then the day of the hearing to make the TRO permanent, she'd fail to appear and drop the claim... but he had already taken his guns to the local PD for storage, and had to pay his attorney, AND had to appear in court.... while she would simply walk away, only to do it again in 6 months.
And this was before the current "red flag" laws.

California passed Red Flag laws a couple of years ago, and last year, the legislature failed to pass a bill that would make a false report under those laws a felony.
False reports should have been included, with HARSH penalties
 

SteveC

Village Elder
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
10,083
Reaction score
21,392
Here in PA, we got Pittsburgh's red flag laws struck down by the State Courts. Now, the Firearms Owner Lobby are going after the red flag bill authors for crimes against the people. I hope they all get convicted and spend 10 years getting buttfucked in prison.

Hey, at least they will all be in a gun-free zone.
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
20,648
Reaction score
24,939
Here in PA, we got Pittsburgh's red flag laws struck down by the State Courts. Now, the Firearms Owner Lobby are going after the red flag bill authors for crimes against the people. I hope they all get convicted and spend 10 years getting buttfucked in prison.

Hey, at least they will all be in a gun-free zone.
Dollars to donuts says that the group that was pushing this sort of thing is another one of those Out of State, "Non-profit", nanny-state advocacy groups. Basically, Antifa, without the ski goggles. F those idiots.
 

SteveC

Village Elder
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
10,083
Reaction score
21,392
Dollars to donuts says that the group that was pushing this sort of thing is another one of those Out of State, "Non-profit", nanny-state advocacy groups. Basically, Antifa, without the ski goggles. F those idiots.
That lunacy was sponsored by a new entry in the 2020 election race.
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
7,676
Reaction score
17,254
But they CAN be taken away, for a reason. Like if you deserve it.

Freedom, life, can both be taken away legally as punishment - after trial and conviction, a person can be imprisoned or executed, depending on the crime. Crazy people can be locked in the nuthouse if they are dangerous.

We have rights, but they are not absolute. They CAN be taken away.
Yep. Felonies are a good example. None of this 'let the prisoners vote' crap. They've already displayed their poor judgement!
 

cybermgk

Singin' the body lectric
Premium Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
14,180
Reaction score
19,551
I mostly agree. However...

Some red flags ... SOME of them need to stay. If a person has a documented history of violence, or is batshit crazy, or is a convicted felon, then as the Seinfeld Soup Nazi would say, "No gun for you!".
Red flags against ownership, are not Red Flag Laws.

Current Red Flag Laws as it pertains to gun ownership, ar like all other Ex-Parte processes. They remove a person's right's, even if only temporarily, without COMPLETE Due Process. By definition, the right is being stripped without the accused having any part, let alone a defense. They also are and will be abused, much like Temporary restraining orders already are (which is now part of most contested Divorces and custody proceedings, as a 'strategy').

Here in Chicaganois, we knew a Red Flag Law was going to pass. Additionally, we knew the then "Republican" Gov would have to sign it, to even remotely keep in the race for re-election. Dems had the numbers (Even though we have quite a few Dem State Reps and Senators from 2A friendly rural areas, that don't vote 'party line' on such bills. So, we gave them a choice of a hotly contested bill of their own, or work with Repulicans AND our Pro-2A activist groups to make a law that was the least infringing as possible.

And we accomplished such, with a short, guarenteed max time from ex parte to hearing to make permanant, ability for 'accused' to transfer firearms to friends and families and NOT only LEOs, only temporary suspension of or stupid license, er FOID card, and only after the actual hearing, and found 'guilty'. A much higher burdon of proof for a both temporary and pemanant suspension of rights (JUST under reasonable doubt), a VERY limited group who can actually ask for a red flag on a person, and a lot of other protections for the gun owner..

Even so, it can still be abused, and still tramples on rights, temporarily because of someone's 'say so'.

Other versions in other states are much worse though, with low preponderance of evidence levels of proof, no provisions in the law for getting back confiscated firearms when proven 'innocent', spiteful neighbors able to start one, etc. etc.,

And, yes, I understand, if there is someone who truly might be a menace/danger to society, and the argument that if we know that, why wait until the crime. But, ask yourself this. If the person is such a danger, why do these laws ONLY take away their firearms or ability to buy one legally? If they are such a menace or danger, whay are we not writing the laws to incarcerate them, or lock them in a psyche ward for treatment?
 

Dun Ringill

Shall not be infringed
Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
7,676
Reaction score
17,254
That is 100$% correct. The problem, as I understand it is, they are being taken away without DUE PROCESS. And, that is unconstitutional. And, others (specifically Sanctuary bullshit) are being enacted against constitutional laws, therefore THEY are unconstitutional and by definition - illegal.

Politics aside... I am very glad to see a conservative SCOTUS. Those assholes tend to be more constitutionally aware. We have strayed too far away over the last several decades. It maytake another few decades to undo the madness.

Prediction: Upon reaching SCOTUS, all the Red Flag and gun ban laws (sic) will be oeverturned. And, Sanctuary states/cites will be struck down.

How long is the question. Certainly not before the 2020 elections -- that's sad.
Due process is a VERY BIG KEY!
 




Top