|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 25, 2021, 02:43 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
Attempt to get 'Red Flag' laws for military
The Fox headline is 'Dems sneak radical gun grab into defense bill'.
Yeah it's Fox. Still, it shows the anti-gun folk are still out there. The story is here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...edgdhp&pc=U531 I'm no lawyer but I suspect it's easier to put restrictions on folks in the military than on regular civilians. Although the guest speaker says military folk have more rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) than civilians do in civilian courts. As an aside does anyone remember a law that says if you're involved in domestic violence you can't have access to firearms and what that means to the military? Heck, I could see a lot of loving spouses (I ALMOST said wives) filing domestic abuse charges against their spouses to keep them out of combat...now THAT'S a firearms loophole. |
September 25, 2021, 03:16 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
|
It might keep them out of combat, but would definitely not be career-enhancing.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case. |
September 25, 2021, 07:51 PM | #3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 7
|
Lautenberg ammendment
I think you are referring to the Lautenberg ammendment that forbids those convicted of domestic violence from handling firearms.
|
September 26, 2021, 05:00 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
They're ex-parte confiscation orders. Sorry for the Twitter link, but this guy found the actual legalese they snuck into the bill.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
September 26, 2021, 10:25 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
Quote:
Thank you Fireball_70. |
|
September 26, 2021, 11:25 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2021
Posts: 125
|
The desired effect is being realized. Patriots are leaving the military or not joining in the first place. Our youngest, high school football star, major college history major has decided to take a different career path. It’s his call and I am staying out of but under the circumstances, he’s made the right decision. The Afghan betrayal was the proverbial straw.
__________________
Disclaimer: All comments or opinions regarding firearms will be carefully worded based upon personal ownership with extensive use and are not intended to offend the reader. |
September 26, 2021, 12:18 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
The Lautenberg amendment (I forget what it was attached to..) is the only gun control law I know that was actually fair.
and, by "fair" I mean it screwed everyone equally. It turned EVERYONE who had EVER hat a MISDEMEANOR domestic violence conviction into a prohibited person. It completely ignored the principal of ex post facto in law, and it contained NO EXCEPTION or exemptions for police or military personnel. That law literally took thousands of cops off the street.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
September 26, 2021, 12:35 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2021
Posts: 125
|
NO ONE should lose a civil right over a misdemeanor. Losing a right is a serious measure and deserving of a full blown felony prosecution. It’s a slippery slope. The next step will be to disarm someone over a traffic ticket. Lautenberg is terrible law. Scores of fine young men who had an argument with their Dad over a missed football play or bad grade have been barred from Military service due to it.
__________________
Disclaimer: All comments or opinions regarding firearms will be carefully worded based upon personal ownership with extensive use and are not intended to offend the reader. |
September 26, 2021, 12:56 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,896
|
Quote:
|
|
September 26, 2021, 09:22 PM | #10 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
The text: Quote:
First, this is not an either/or proposition. The two paragraphs are connected by an "and," which means they both apply. The difference seems to be that, after the affected person has had an opportunity to be heard, paragraph (B) kicks in with 18 USC 922. So what's the difference? They don't tell us what part of 18 USC 922 they want to beat the poor schlemp over the head with, but we can probably assume that it's section (d)(8): Quote:
"(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or"
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|||
September 26, 2021, 11:23 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,896
|
Quote:
I don't think I have a problem with the NDAA language. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OTOH: Do legal remedies remain for the (wife/partner/husband/child) in exigent circumstances, where the party has either committed or threatened such egregious acts as to to put life in reasonable expectation of harm, . . . that immediate ex parte action still can be taken ? Would that we had the wisdom of Solomon then.... Last edited by mehavey; September 26, 2021 at 11:42 PM. |
|
September 27, 2021, 09:07 AM | #12 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I have the same problem with this language that I have with all the state-enacted "red flag" orders -- they are ex parte. The Fourth Amendment says:
Quote:
Quote:
In short, the process turns the concept of due process upside down and inside out. To me, red flag laws are just as bad as "civil asset forfeiture" laws (and, IMHO, the latter are nothing more than theft under color of law).
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
September 27, 2021, 12:52 PM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
My biggest issue with these laws is that there is forfeiture of assets /seizure of property (even if only temporary) and that DOES NOT protect anyone.
What is the underlying reason for seizing, or requiring the surrender of a person's firearms? Really, what is the reason? The action is only undertaken when someone is threatened, or feels threatened, so, bottom line, the reason is simply to prevent harm to the threatened party. Right??? BUT, taking the guns doesn't DO that. All is does is prevent the threatened party from being shot, with the guns that are seized. My point here is, that IF the threat is real, seizing the guns DOES NOT REMOVE THE THREAT. It only removes the guns. It doesn't remove the person who is the threat. You don't have to look very far, or very hard to find that the overwhelming number of people who are harmed, up to being killed, are not being SHOT. If the person is a credible threat the proper thing, and the ONLY thing that protects his intended victim(s) is locking up the person. And, not letting them out as long as they are a credible threat. Just taking away their guns and leaving them free to walk the streets, means they still have the means and the opportunity to commit harm. Take away the guns and they will simply choose an alternate tool. Knives, bricks, baseball bat, golf club, or even some chains, padlocks and a gallon of gasoline! ANYTHING on this earth that you can physically move has the potential to be used as a deadly weapon. IF the will is there, and the person is free to use it. If you don't lock up the PERSON who is the threat, you are not removing the threat, only reducing very slightly that person's choice of tools. Suppose you seize all their guns. Then the day after you do that, leaving the person (who is the threat) at liberty, that person goes out and illegally buys a gun from the criminal market and goes on a killing spree. What good did it do? Nada. My point is that the red flag laws are only "feel good" things with no real possible effect to prevent harm, and are a huge potential source of abuse, intentional or not. And then there is the whole issue of doing things contrary to established laws and legal principles. One of them being innocent, until PROVEN guilty.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
September 27, 2021, 04:38 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2021
Posts: 125
|
Either prosecute via due process or don’t prosecute via due process. Law based on what might happen is tyranny. Freedom is risky.
__________________
Disclaimer: All comments or opinions regarding firearms will be carefully worded based upon personal ownership with extensive use and are not intended to offend the reader. |
September 27, 2021, 05:02 PM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: March 11, 2012
Posts: 43
|
Lautenberg, attached in 1997 to the 1968 Gun Control Act. While the text may not be very palatable it has been tested many times in Federal Court and has not been overturned. Right now it is the wet dream of lawyers who want to litigate gun control laws and make lots of money doing it. The language as noted by many is not in keeping with our views of liberty as Americans. That and money are the feed for the lawyers. So far there have been a great many cases litigated and lost and Lautenberg has not been overturned.
|
September 27, 2021, 08:07 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,896
|
Quote:
that clear & present danger/exigent circumstances justify -- don't-be-an idiot -- removal of weapons. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...ve-it-n1269234 xin loi..... (The devil being in the details, nonetheless....) Last edited by mehavey; September 27, 2021 at 08:17 PM. |
|
September 27, 2021, 09:44 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
|
The lack of due process following an allegation against any US citizen has been described - the Red Flag Law process requiring firearms to be surrendered first assumes guilt until proven innocent.
In addition, two of the more egregious problems in the matter of Red Flag Laws are (depending on state) the broad range of individuals who can allege "dangerousness"; and the fact that whether the danger alleged is "clear and present" can depend significantly on the subjective paradigm of the accuser. In the state of Washington "Who Can Request the Order?" has been defined as a:
https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/erpo That is an extraordinarily broad array of individuals who could disagree with someone, or who could decide their behavior represents a concern, and who could register their concern with the State. A 'legal parent-child relationship' would include your spouse's parents. Mother-In-Law humor aside, how many reading this have ever politically disagreed with their In-Laws? It isn't difficult to conceive of ways Red Flag laws could be misused by someone who carries a grudge or otherwise wishes to register disapproval or other malevolent intent. The second bullet includes "all dating partners". How many reading this have ever broken up with a dating partner who may well have borne a grudge? There is no exemption or material defense against some malevolent person making a specious claim. (There are laws against lying to police, however, once the claim is made it remains within the system as de facto legitimate – requiring extraordinary efforts to remove it.) Moreover, laws against 'malevolent accusations' only apply to deliberate lies. What if the person making the claim is not “lying” per se, but expressing a genuine if misguided concern based on their opposing political opinions and beliefs? There are many opponents of gun rights who publicly express horror at the notion of American citizens owning “weapons of war”, and their concern regarding the ‘frightening desire’ of their fellow citizens to own such firearms. Consider Michael Moore or Shannon Watts. These gun control advocates use language describing “feeling terrorized” by American citizens owning such firearms. Anyone sharing these opinions who expresses concerns about a relative who may own such firearms representing 'a clear and present danger' may in fact not be lying from their perspective. From the point of view of someone who views anyone who owns such firearms as psychologically troubled and prima facie “dangerous to the public”, their politically-based opinions are genuine. There is no doubt that Red Flag Laws may allow legitimate concerns to be raised about risks to public safety. There is also no doubt IMHO that they potentially allow baseless allegations to be made that are intended to harass and disarm someone against whom they hold a grudge OR with whom they vehemently disagree politically. The Respondent must surrender their firearms and must then prove that they are NOT dangerous to the community.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case. |
September 27, 2021, 11:44 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I don't have links, but there was a case a couple of years ago in which a police officer shot and killed a young man who charged the officer with a knife. Body cam footage showed clearly that the officer retreated probably 75 or 100 feet, constantly telling the kid to drop the knife, before the kid finally charged and the cop shot him. So the bereaved mother proceeded to file a red flag complaint against the officer. I don't remember what state it was (Colorado, maybe?), but they had a shiny new red flag law, so mommy dearest used to. She claimed the officer was a threat to society, and in order to gain standing to file the complaint she lied and claimed that she had a child in common with the officer. And it took well over a year before the state got around to charging her with perjury. Found it. Here it is: https://fox2now.com/news/mom-uses-re...d-her-son-tmw/ https://www.rallyforourrights.com/br...ng-on-youtube/ This article says the cop told the kid to put the knife down 36 times, and he retreated 113 feet before shooting: https://collegian.com/2020/02/catego...rjury-charges/ And she's still scoffing at the law -- in general, not just the red flag law: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...cer/ar-AAMWFNJ
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
September 28, 2021, 01:24 PM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
I remember that case, in general. I don't know if her claim to having a "child in common" with the cop has yet been thrashed out in court, (is that claim the basis of her perjury charge??) but at the time the news made it public, it seemed that "child in common" was her opinion that since the cop shot her son, they had a "child in common" because of that.
I'm sure she believes that to be the case, but the rest of us think of it somewhat differently. Thanks for the update, seems she isn't "playing nice" in the court system, still...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
September 28, 2021, 05:18 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2021
Posts: 125
|
The Red Flag provisions are just the start of this legislative travesty. Read it. Any so-called Republican who would vote for it is a fraud. None of us or our rights are safe with these cowards.
__________________
Disclaimer: All comments or opinions regarding firearms will be carefully worded based upon personal ownership with extensive use and are not intended to offend the reader. |
September 28, 2021, 07:15 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,896
|
Quote:
Tell me exactly what you think it said. |
|
September 28, 2021, 07:46 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2021
Posts: 125
|
It’s best that I don’t. To do so will create trouble here and get me sanctioned. The Defense Authorization act is an abomination on numerous levels.
__________________
Disclaimer: All comments or opinions regarding firearms will be carefully worded based upon personal ownership with extensive use and are not intended to offend the reader. |
September 28, 2021, 08:42 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
September 28, 2021, 09:56 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
Also, that article isn’t a great example of why we need red flag laws. It’s a much better example of why states, law enforcement, judges, and other participants in the criminal justice system should follow existing federal and state laws. The suspect there should be a prohibited person in that he had an active restraining order. He was prohibited under both federal and Alabama laws. There were other laws that could have disarmed him. That article does smack of cops that were protecting a fellow cop though. Which is disturbing. And I’m a cop.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
September 28, 2021, 10:04 PM | #25 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Several years ago, in Connecticut, a state trooper who was going through a divorce ambushed his wife and her attorney as they arrived at the courthouse for the divorce hearing. I don't recall details, unfortunately. I think he was under a restraining order, but I'm not certain. I remember that the wife's attorney (a woman) was seriously wounded but survived. If I remember correctly, I believe the wife was killed.
There was another incident in which a man going through a divorce (or maybe it had been granted) had been barred from possessing firearms, but he got one anyway, and he ambushed and killed his ex-wife while she was attending a concert on the town green. These red flag laws are a joke. I agree with those who argue that if you can't be trusted to possess a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
|