Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Rune]

Which is due process you stupid SOB.

Not when the defendant isn't at the hearing, Dumbfuck.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Not when the defendant isn't at the hearing, Dumbfuck.

Well then Mr. Justice of the SCOTUS, then the court will strike down the laws as unconstitutional. Get back to me when they do.

 

[Rune]

Well then Mr. Justice of the SCOTUS, then the court will strike down the laws as unconstitutional. Get back to me when they do.

No man can be tried in abstensia in the United States.

Either you get it or you don't.

It is totally Unconstitutional, in fact it is a perfect example of legislating an end run around the Bill of Rights, an encroachment towards a Police State,

No one who cares about freedom and the Constitution can support this law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well then Mr. Justice of the SCOTUS, then the court will strike down the laws as unconstitutional. Get back to me when they do.

falling back to SCOTUS, a remarkable political establishment known for siding with majority sentiment instead of the constitution, is a last refuge of tyranny. It's a declaration of your belief that the people are just too stupid to know whats constitutional and whats not.........admittedly a position not without its merits...........but still reckless

 

[Eagle_Eye]

No man can be tried in abstensia in the United States.

Either you get it or you don't.

It is totally Unconstitutional, in fact it is a perfect example of legislating an end run around the Bill of Rights, an encroachment towards a Police State,

No one who cares about freedom and the Constitution can support this law.

It's not a trial you stupid mother fucker.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

falling back to SCOTUS, a remarkable political establishment known for siding with majority sentiment instead of the constitution, is a last refuge of tyranny. It's a declaration of your belief that the people are just too stupid to know whats constitutional and whats not.........admittedly a position not without its merits...........but still reckless

 

[Jarod]

Somebody hasn't read any of my posts for the time he has known me. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not trust them. Although I do study language and words, where they come from and how their meaning changes over time. When you learn languages it is often because stuff like that interests you.

You sure got the party lie down about what "Well regulated" used to mean.... Claiming "Well Regulated" used to mean "top notch" is still very funny to me every time I hear if, it it was "top notch" its because it was "well regulated".

 

[Into the Night]

The definition as provided by the courts-

No. The court does not define words.

-not the Constitution

The Constitution does not define words either.

or dictionary

Neither does it define words.

or government.

It does, but not the word you're looking for.

Whose definition and where do we find the definition of naturalization that includes immigration?

Okay. Let's go down through a series of questions. First, what is a citizen?

If you tell me to "go find it" that means you cannot provide any support for your claim.

I will answer your question, by asking you some leading questions. Apparently this concept is lost on you, so we will start at the beginning.

What is a citizen? Define 'citizen'. Feel free to reference any eytomological information you wish. No dictionaries allowed. You may also, of course, try to define it yourself.

So what is a 'citizen'? What makes one a 'citizen' of a town, a State, or a nation?

 

[Celticguy]

how do we know that the law isn't being followed? how do we know that there is actually sufficient showing to these shrinks to trigger the law report?

The mental health professional in the employ of VA Tech admitted in interviews that he had the asian lunatic as a patient and knew he was a danger to himself and others. But since he never reported it as required by law, he cleared the background check and bought the guns.
And he went unprosecuted.
This is not unique.

 

[Into the Night]

Almost everything about this post is wrong. In the language of the time "well regulated" meant top notch and highly proficient. Other words that changed meaning over time: awesome was not equivalent to "very good" back then, nor was "incredible"... there's tons of them, in this case it unfortunately makes ignorant people who don't understand that some meanings of words in language change over time think it means what they want it to mean rather than what it clearly states.

The first part is the reason the right exists, the second part is the right. At the time there was no standing army and the government was able to call up a militia, the citizens (every time "The People" is used in the constitution it means citizens) have a right to arms because the government has an army...

Written in today's language and today's meaning it would read more like this: The government has a highly trained and proficient standing army, which is necessary to its ability to function, therefore the right of the people to maintain arms that can be used to defend against that army shall not be infringed. Shall not is legalese for "not in any way"...

You have to remember that the founders had quite literally just finished fighting a war against a government that tried to take away their weapons. This right exists and was enumerated in the constitution to ensure that this would not happen again.

'Regulated' means to make 'regular' or consistent. This of course does not mean 'restricted' or 'controlled'. It simply means to make consistent.
Example: The federal government can regulate trade between States. That means it can require that when a State trades with another State, other States can get in on the fun. They too can trade with that State for the same things. It does NOT mean 'control'. The federal government cannot control or restrict what can be traded between States.

Another example: A State cannot charge a toll for shipping using a river that happens to pass through it and bound for another State, or restrict that shipping in any way. If it's accepted as shipping in the destination State, the intervening State must let it through unimpeded. This is because the federal government regulates navigable rivers. It does NOT allow the federal government to control or restrict shipping on that river.

Another example: Radio, by it's very nature, does not respect any political boundary. It is quite within the purview of the federal government to regulate standards for frequencies of radio stations, and to regulate them so they stay on that frequency and operate cooperatively. It does NOT give the federal government to control or restrict what a broadcast radio station can and cannot say or what music it's allowed to play.

Just about any problem with the federal government today can be traced back to redefining 'regulate' to mean 'control' or 'restrict'. It is turning a regulatory agency into an oligarchy. That is unconstitutional. The federal government had that power.

 

[Into the Night]

The mental health professional in the employ of VA Tech admitted in interviews that he had the asian lunatic as a patient and knew he was a danger to himself and others. But since he never reported it as required by law, he cleared the background check and bought the guns.
And he went unprosecuted.
This is not unique.

Then the prosecutor, and the State he works for, is liable for the murders and can be tried as such. The State government is charged with protecting the citizens of that State. It can be charged with dereliction of duty. The prosecutor himself is now essentially an accessory to the crimes of the mental health professional, and in turn, is a contributing factor to the murders.

That is one way to look at it.

The other, more correct way is this:
The background check itself is illegal. Nothing should have prevented the asian lunatic from obtaining a gun. Leaving a lunatic that is a danger to himself and others on the streets intentionally is a crime in and of itself which the mental health professional should be tried for. The prosecutor that failed to uphold the law and failed to try for involuntary commitment is a contributing factor to the murders just as much as the mental health professional himself is.

 

[domer76]

situational constitutionality does not negate rights, you fuckwit shitstain. watching you try to discuss the constitution is laughable, at best, especially since you have no citations from the founders that you haven't twisted like a flag in the wind.

Top three forum stupid posts ever.

Vehicles cannot be necessary in a modern society.

Smarterthanyou wrote the Constitution.

Gun regulations are not in the interest of public safety.

 

[domer76]

nobody gets gagged before going in to the theater. DUI checkpoints violate your 4th Amendment rights, speeding laws are victimless crimes, and i don't know what you're trying to do with trespass laws. If a law can be abused, why is it still a law? the founders didn't want that. Now, when a person is found to have had his rights violated by the abuse of these laws, what do you consider an appropriate recompense?

^The idiot doesn’t know that DUI checkpoints DO NOT violate 4th Amendment rights.

Thinks he wrote the Constitution, so he knows what the founders “didn’t want”.

 

[domer76]

falling back to SCOTUS, a remarkable political establishment known for siding with majority sentiment instead of the constitution, is a last refuge of tyranny. It's a declaration of your belief that the people are just too stupid to know whats constitutional and whats not.........admittedly a position not without its merits...........but still reckless

You’re a perfect example of people being too stupid to know what’s constitutional and what’s not.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Almost everything about this post is wrong. In the language of the time "well regulated" meant top notch and highly proficient. Other words that changed meaning over time: awesome was not equivalent to "very good" back then, nor was "incredible"... there's tons of them, in this case it unfortunately makes ignorant people who don't understand that some meanings of words in language change over time think it means what they want it to mean rather than what it clearly states.

The first part is the reason the right exists, the second part is the right. At the time there was no standing army and the government was able to call up a militia, the citizens (every time "The People" is used in the constitution it means citizens) have a right to arms because the government has an army...

Written in today's language and today's meaning it would read more like this: The government has a highly trained and proficient standing army, which is necessary to its ability to function, therefore the right of the people to maintain arms that can be used to defend against that army shall not be infringed. Shall not is legalese for "not in any way"...

You have to remember that the founders had quite literally just finished fighting a war against a government that tried to take away their weapons. This right exists and was enumerated in the constitution to ensure that this would not happen again.

Hey thanks, but you are off on a tangent with your idea that you think the 2nd Amendment was written with the bat-shit-crazy idea that our fore-fathers wanted to keep it's citizens armed- JUST IN CASE THEY WANTED TO TURN THEM ON IT"S OWN GOVERNMENT.

Do you really believe that kind of bat-shit-craziness?

FUCK NO DUDE!

Our Forefathers were very concerned that the King Of England could return and start the war all over again, and they did not trust the Kings of Spain or France from attacking us at any time either- SO THEY WANTED TO INSURE THAT THEIR CITIZENS REMAIN ARMED SO THAT THEY COULD ASSIST THE CONTINENTAL ARMY TO FIGHT FOREIGN ENEMIES!

This was never about arming citizens so they could overthrow our own Continental Army at their own discretion!

I mean really dude- that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! LOL!

 

[Getin the ring]

Hey thanks, but you are off on a tangent with your idea that you think the 2nd Amendment was written with the bat-shit-crazy idea that our fore-fathers wanted to keep it's citizens armed- JUST IN CASE THEY WANTED TO TURN THEM ON IT"S OWN GOVERNMENT.

Do you really believe that kind of bat-shit-craziness?

FUCK NO DUDE!

Our Forefathers were very concerned that the King Of England could return and start the war all over again, and they did not trust the Kings of Spain or France from attacking us at any time either- SO THEY WANTED TO INSURE THAT THEIR CITIZENS REMAIN ARMED SO THAT THEY COULD ASSIST THE CONTINENTAL ARMY!

This was never about arming citizens so they could overthrow our own Continental Army at their own discretion!

I mean really dude- that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! LOL!

you were there? amazing

 

[Rune]

It's not a trial you stupid mother fucker.

Yes it is, Dog Breath.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You sure got the party lie down about what "Well regulated" used to mean.... Claiming "Well Regulated" used to mean "top notch" is still very funny to me every time I hear if, it it was "top notch" its because it was "well regulated".

It is the absolute height of ignorance or stupidity to believe that the founders would use 'well regulated' to mean government controlled after they had just won independence from their government that tried to confiscate their arms

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The mental health professional in the employ of VA Tech admitted in interviews that he had the asian lunatic as a patient and knew he was a danger to himself and others. But since he never reported it as required by law, he cleared the background check and bought the guns.
And he went unprosecuted.
This is not unique.

was that professional prosecuted?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i'm a constitutional idiot stuck on exact wordings, and shit i won't let go because i'm a fuckstick

yes, we've come to realize that you're a moron