Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order

SmarterthanYou said:
I see we need to be extremely specific with some people...........so let me rephrase.

ANY FREE AMERICAN

is that better for you?
Click to expand...

OK thank-you. I wasn't trying to be weird about it. It's just that you said ANY and with NO exceptions.
There are people who voluntarily live in facilities and can leave anytime they want. And, there are plenty of people
that have mental issues living in society, taking a lot of meds or no meds at all. Some are just sick in the head with
a history of violently acting out. These people should not acquire guns.
I understand your position and you're entitled to it obviously. :cool: Peace
 
anatta said:
2nd amendment isn't absolute anymore then other Bill of Rights amendments.

It's regulation because of the EXTREME NEED to keep firearms away from deranged minds
Click to expand...

when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, two things were presented to the people.......below.

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

and afterwards, it was still recognized as an area the federal government had no authority to approach..........

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
 
Stretch said:
There can always be symptoms before a condition/disease actual appears.
Click to expand...
Nope. If symptoms appear, you have the actual condition or actual disease.
Stretch said:
We see a doctor to check it out.
Click to expand...
No, you see a doctor to relieve or mitigate the condition.
Stretch said:
Come to a conclusion with tests, labs, etc.
Click to expand...
To identify the condition you have, yes.
Stretch said:
If there are legitimate witnesses to the behavior of someone with symptoms of rage syndrome, bouts of irrational anger, an obsession with weapons (and not
for sport), recent history of battering or bullying a weaker human or animal, keeps to himself in a closed off room for the majority of time, shows little to no interest
in school, recreation, work, social gatherings, on and on and on...........
Click to expand...
Gun are not symptoms. They are inanimate objects. A mass murder is a mass murder. It is not a 'symptom' to be treated. It is a crime to be dealt with. Psychoquackery. You cannot use doctors to pronounce someone 'fit for society'.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
is the 'victim' you're referring to afforded the RIGHT to own and carry a firearm??????????????
Click to expand...

The victim of a crime whose had their property, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness taken away.
I have no problem with sane rational citizens having all the guns they want.
 
Stretch said:
The victim of a crime whose had their property, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness taken away.
I have no problem with sane rational citizens having all the guns they want.
Click to expand...

you're not answering the question....................

does a 'victim' have a right to own and carry a weapon to protect themselves?
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. If symptoms appear, you have the actual condition or actual disease.

No, you see a doctor to relieve or mitigate the condition.

To identify the condition you have, yes.

Gun are not symptoms. They are inanimate objects. A mass murder is a mass murder. It is not a 'symptom' to be treated. It is a crime to be dealt with. Psychoquackery. You cannot use doctors to pronounce someone 'fit for society'.
Click to expand...

I was only using an analogy. And, I don't think that a gun is a symptom. Of course a mass murderer should be convicted.
As I said:
If there are legitimate witnesses to the behavior of someone with symptoms of rage syndrome, bouts of irrational anger, an obsession with weapons (and not
for sport), recent history of battering or bullying a weaker human or animal, keeps to himself in a closed off room for the majority of time, shows little to no interest
in school, recreation, work, social gatherings, on and on and on...........

^ These are the ones who should not have access to weapons. They need some medical help and attention way before they get their hands on a gun.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're not answering the question....................

does a 'victim' have a right to own and carry a weapon to protect themselves?
Click to expand...

You know what? Not everybody can afford a few thousand (or even hundred) dollars to stock up on firearms and equipment.
A lot of folks would be left defenseless. Just sayin'.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Hey Dumber-than-a-box-of-hair!

If you try to possess something illegal- you would be committing a crime- it would be confiscated- and your freedom could be taken away.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't smoke marijuana or have it in your possession.

However, since the Constitution was written, Federal laws were put into place to make marijuana illegal to consume or possess, and many people had their property and their liberty taken away and have gone to jail for consuming or possessing it.

So you are DUMBER-THAN-A-BOX-OF-FUCKING-HAIR!
Click to expand...

UH - Marijuana is not mentioned in the Constitution, so your attempt to connect the two is a fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
It is absolute. The federal government as absolutely no power to ban or limit guns. The States have absolute no power to ban or limit guns.
Click to expand...
you can argue in the abstract that the individual rights are unassailable -but they are obviously not.
we even put restrictions on free speech like no incitement to violence.
The same principle applies to the 2nd. From what I understand those who are red flagged will get due process

Define 'deranged mind'.
Click to expand...
it's a short hand term obviously -but if there is shown cause ( and i would expect that to be enumerated/statute)
and a judicial hearing does in fact find them to be a danger top society -there is the deranged mind
 
Stretch said:
You know what? Not everybody can afford a few thousand (or even hundred) dollars to stock up on firearms and equipment.
A lot of folks would be left defenseless. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I do understand that. it's how so many states/cities got away with license requirements and other infringements to keep blacks and native americans unarmed...........

what would happen if license requirements were done away with? more people could afford to buy a gun for their protection.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
UH - Marijuana is not mentioned in the Constitution, so your attempt to connect the two is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

hes-right-you-know-32644960.png
 
Just curious; but let's go with the OP premise.

What recourse does the accused have, if the Court decides that they're not a danger to themselves or others, against the accuser(s)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top