Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

[Into the Night]

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

Yes it has! The Constitution itself would not exist without it! That's a legal case if I ever heard one!

[Into the Night]

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.

Giving up? Then you shall be bound with those same chains, unless you flee. Then you would be bound by another's chains by force.

[Into the Night]

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.

Even if they posted what they intend to do. Of course, the hearing would be pretty short!

[Into the Night]

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

Guess that means disarming the KKK and Antifa, both leftist groups. Well, THAT worked out...didn't it!

[Into the Night]

Bring it on. The states will never ratify it.

Since most State constitutions discuss the right of the people to bear arms on their own, to ratify such a change would be to go against their own constitutions.

[RB 60]

Since most State constitutions discuss the right of the people to bear arms on their own, to ratify such a change would be to go against their own constitutions.

Yes, it would.

[USFREEDOM911]

Even if they posted what they intend to do. Of course, the hearing would be pretty short!

While you addressed the first part of what I said, you ignored the last part.

Any thing to say about it?

[Into the Night]

While you addressed the first part of what I said, you ignored the last part.

Any thing to say about it?

Sure. No nosey neighbor has the authority to change the Constitution.

[domer76]

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?

None of the above, dumbfuck.

[RB 60]

None of the above, dumbfuck.

Why not, dickhead? The law would include ALL of the above.

[domer76]

Why not, dickhead? The law would include ALL of the above.

Your ignorance of due process is astounding.

[RB 60]

Your ignorance of due process is astounding.

Due process? I saw no "due process" mentioned in that law. Show us where it's there.

[LV426]

While I love the idea of this law -ratting out your shitty Conservative friends and families to the police- I don't think it will be effective at preventing gun massacres.

[LV426]

Due process? I saw no "due process" mentioned in that law. Show us where it's there.

Where's the due process for those killed by guns?

Oh right, they get none because they're dead.

So fuck your due process for your shitty gun.

[LV426]

Just so we're clear, I'd red flag the fuck out of almost every single ammosexual on these boards.

People like RB 60 who make veiled threats.

People like smarterthanyou who fantasize about fighting the government.

People like that other asshole whose ID I forgot who said two days ago that he's hoping for a Civil War so he can kill everyone who has ever humiliated him on an anonymous message board.

I have yet to see a self-proclaimed gun owner not allude to violence in their posts here.