Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Mason Melchizedek]

Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.

Prohibition

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.

Prohibition

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I know. You just can't show us any examples where provisions in the preamble (or Declaration) have ever been applied in legal cases.

whatever. i'm done trying to point you idiots in the direction of freedom when all you can see is your comfortable chains. i'm out.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Back on topic:

I believe that any Red Flag Law, needs to have a provision that includes the necessity of having a hearing, with the accuser and the accused; prior to any firearm removal and severe consequences for false allegations.

Except for cases, like those recently, where the idiot(s) posted what they intended to do.

My reason is:

Someone has a beef with their neighbor, know they possess firearms, and makes a vague accusation, just to irritate the neighbor.

 

[crowonapost]

I think it's interesting to apply family tactics to point at others instead of rule of law.
Once we establish, a weird moment from a family member to get 'Authority' involved we can then move to the first amendment of 'red letter' law. The law that gets a family member to rat out the non compliant group. (Fill in the enemy of limited profit) to suppress any other idea than billionaire lottery.

Man this is tiring....

So much failure of shared interconnected humanity and life by partisan bullshit. Sad is not the word, attachment is the, ... word.

 

[RB 60]

I would like to see the concept expanded so that an individual who:

a) Has amassed an arsenal,

and

b) Has expressed white supremacy views either online or in person,

-has their guns taken away.

Amassed an arsenal? What the hell do you consider an arsenal?
I have a number of guns for specific uses, many for hunting specific game and some for target shooting.

Should I have my guns taken just because I have a number of guns? What about gun collectors? Them too?
Expressed white supremacy views in person? Try to prove that one in court when you leftists lie saying he
said this or that.
Face the facts, you're anti gun and it doesn't matter who has them, you want the government to breach our
2nd. Amendment rights and take them without a legitimate reason. Fascist.

 

[RB 60]

I assumed color would be one of the flavors......also religion, gender, political orientation, beverage preference, etc...........

Look up why Illinois has to have a FOID card. You won't find it on google anymore, but it was Democrat politicians who made it a requirement to make gun ownership more difficult for blacks.
I pointed that out to Bourbon a long while back with the quotes form those Democrats who proposed the need for their restrictions, but they are no longer on google. I wonder why...

 

[RB 60]

I smell gas

Then get your head out of your ass.

 

[RB 60]

No, he doesn’t. Recall that he reversed an Obama EO that identified people who were deemed incapable of managing their own affairs in order to reduce the risk of them possessing firearms.

As he should have. Wouldn't that have included anyone who uses a financial advisor be deemed unfit to handle their own affairs and thus deemed unfit to posses a firearm?
What about those who's spouses handled all their financial affairs all their lives, and that spouse died and they had no idea how to manage their affairs and a sibling took
control of their affairs? What about those who just aren't good at math, should they lose their firearm rights too?

 

[RB 60]

How about this?

You amass an arsenal and you express hatred online then you lose your guns.

Any rights being violated there?

Why can't we do THAT.

With all the hatred for Trump expressed by you loony leftists, that would mean all of you leftists should be disarmed?

 

[RB 60]

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!

The Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolutionary War, you idiot!

 

[RB 60]

I think you should have to have B and C, not A. plus D mental health unquestioned as well as close gun sales loopholes,
eliminate military weapons and strong laws against young minors use or possession.

And the second amendment needs to be totally repealed.

Bring it on. The states will never ratify it.

 

[Into the Night]

It is according to Federalist No. 78.

The Federalist No 78 is not the Constitution of the United States. False authority fallacy.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution. See Article III.

"W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . "

The judges ARE governed by the Constitution. They have absolutely NO authority over it.

This recognizes the principal of judicial review and the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution which is supreme over laws and the will of the people.

No court has authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III.

 

[Into the Night]

The Constitution gives no role to the states to interpret the Constitution as that is the role of the courts

The States created the Constitution and ordained it to fundamental law.

(Federalist 78).

False authority fallacy.

They have a role in amending the Constitution

The States own the Constitution. They can do what they want with it.

but not without the joint involvement of the federal government.

The federal government is created by the Constitution. It has NO authority over it.

That is the point of the document--the Constitution cannot be amended without both federal and state action.

Yes it can! See Article V and VII.

The federal government has NO authority to modify its own Constitution! It cannot modify that which created it!

 

[Into the Night]

Of course, that is the purpose of the courts. Without them the president and Congress would be completely free to determine their own powers and there would be no check on those powers (including jury nullification).

False equivalence fallacy. The courts have authority over laws passed by Congress and the President, they do NOT have authority over the Constitution itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, and it has nothing to do with amending the Constitution since that process was defined in Article V.

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

You misstated my post. I said amendments require both federal and state action (not that the states don't have a say). The state role is ratifying amendments. The federal level is involved in proposing those amendments.

I said the 9th amendment has nothing to do with the amending process.

WRONG.

The States, if they choose to do so, can completely destroy the existing Constitution and create a new one. They do NOT need the federal government to be involved at all.

The States OWN the Constitution. THEY created it. THEY ordained it to power. They are made up the people that in turn gave the States that authority.

No court can override that.

 

[Into the Night]

The preamble has no binding legal principles.

Yes it does!

The "we the people" is not a power

It is a declaration of the power the people have to create and ordain such a document to power. The people do it through their States, and give their States the authority to exercise that power.

---the powers and limits of government are contained in the document itself

True. It is not contained in any court ruling.

as exercised through the people through their representatives.

Oh yeah...remember the people? Remember the States those people make up? They OWN the Constitution, NOT the federal government. Not any court.

You are claiming the preamble overrides the Constitution itself.

The preamble is part of the Constitution. YOU are claiming that the preamble effectively doesn't exist! YOU are attempting to modify the Constitution by nullifying its preamble!

The people can't change the Constitution except in the most abstract sense.

YES THEY CAN!.

 

[Into the Night]

Can you give me an example of how the states have ever interpreted the Constitution? And how that was done in practice.

The War of Secession (what most people call the 'Civil War'). The current rash of marijuana legalization being passed in many States. Each and every time they send representatives to convene in a national meeting according to the Constitution called 'Congress'.

 

[Into the Night]

According to your system those problems would be solved by constitutional provisions such as "we the people," the states, jury nullification, or whatever methods you think restrictions were put on the constitutional powers of government.

Since those problems were not solved in your view those methods to check the powers of government either do not exist or the people, states, and juries were happy with those decisions and do not see them as a problem.

You claim there are all these checks other than the courts but apparently they are not working.

What problems are you referring to? Void argument fallacy.