Bipartisan 'red flag' gun laws plan has support in Congress

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Bipartisan ‘red flag’ gun laws plan has support in Congress

By MATTHEW DALY
August 7, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite frequent mass shootings, Congress has proved to be unable to pass substantial gun violence legislation, largely because of resistance from Republicans.

But a bipartisan proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is gaining momentum following weekend mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 31 people dead. The emerging plan would create a federal grant program to encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws to take guns away from people believed to be dangers to themselves or others.

A similar bill never came up for a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate last year, but both parties express hope that this year will be different. President Donald Trump has signaled support for the plan.

“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech on Monday.

-snip-

Read more: https://apnews.com/bdb661de1fe14e58951102349d5d44be

[gejohnston]

1. Clear violation of the Fifth Amendment,

and should be struck down if passed.

[MarvinGardens]

2. There should be due process.

And the less of that there is, the more temporary it should be. 48 hour "psych holds" that the police or doctors can initiate, and civil committment, are not criminal due process, but can still deprive a person of their liberty to protect them and others.

[gejohnston]

3. this is a case of removing property

that is without ever being accused or suspected of a crime, and without compensation. It also involves having to prove your innocence. In Colorado, some random person in the next state can call the cops on you and say whatever they want, and you have to prove your sanity to a higher level of evidence to a judge. When I was a kid, it was elements on the right who supported such illiberal and unconstitutional nonsense.

[flamin lib]

4. The idiocy of two laymen arguing the Constitution as if they are

constitutional experts aside sometimes it's hard not to respond to GE.

I'll see your 5th amendment and raise you the 4th that says, in part,. " And no Warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Probable cause would be the belief of someone in a position to show cause that a person is or may be a danger to themselves or others and willing to swear or affirm to a judge to that such is the case and naming the person and the guns. So, yeah, a Warrent can be issued and property seized just because somebody said so and is willing to swear or affirm that such is true.

GE and I both got our degree in constitutional law from Sears so take our opinions for what they are worth.

[gejohnston]

5. probable cause,

has to be based on evidence, and evidence of a crime that has been committed.

For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion. The test which the court employs to determine probable cause is whether an objective person of reasonable intelligence would believe that the circumstances indicate that the person arrested or detained has committed a crime.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/probable-cause-searches.html

In CO and MA, there is no standard to file for a warrant, nor no evidence required. It is legalized SWATing, nothing more.

The difference isn't where one gets a degree, the difference is that one actually does research and bases opinion on facts and logic.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Looks like facts in this case don't do what the doctrinaire wanted them to do

h/t to Talking Heads for the reference...

[flamin lib]

7. No, the difference is the degree of arrogance it takes to compare an

amateur hobbiest's Google search to "prove" a predetermined conclusion to the lifetime of dedication to the law it takes to become a Constitutional Scholar.

I also can't let the pass the passive/aggressive slight at my research abilities and application of logic. All I can say is that my Masters Thesis got no dings from the jury. Might being on the the Dean's list have swayed the decision? Don't know. The degree was in English, the Thesis was Linguistics vs Semantics, the difference between a word's origin and how it is understood. That was 44years ago so the meaning and use of 'logic' may have changed by now? It clearly has for GE.

Now, with the juvenile taunts out of the way let us to continue down this rabbit hole of two wannabe SCOTUS appointees . . .

Evidence? Is the eye witness testimony of someone knowledgeable of the facts, made to a judge and sworn under Oath or affirmation isn't evidence just what is?

Standards are also a bit different for criminal vs civil law. The generally accepted standard for criminal court is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and for civil court (where protective orders fall) is "the preponderance of evidence". The whole purpose of a PO is to prevent moving a situation from civil court to criminal court.

But then again what do I know I'm just an amateur googlephile wannabe. And freely admit it.

[gejohnston]

8. let me not be passive agressive

I saw no logic, only ideology. One thing I noticed about academics in the Humanities. They tend to think they know everything and act superior to the working class and nonacademics to compensate for the fact that they don't know shit about the real world.

Evidence? Is the eye witness testimony of someone knowledgeable of the facts, made to a judge and sworn under Oath or affirmation isn't evidence just what is?

No. It is simply an allegation of a non crime.

[flamin lib]

9. I give up. You were once worthy of my attention but

all you have now are personal attacks. You start with criticising me for poor research and lack of logic. I show you that isn't so. Now you follow up with attacking my education. You glorify ignorence as some kind of badge of honor. Terms like "real world knowledge" and "working class" are nothing more than a coded defense of a lack of intellectual openess and curiousity.

Ignorance can be cured and is nothing to be ashamed of but intentional and willful ignorance to the point using it as a proof of superiority is a sign of a greater issue.

If any of that sounds like a personal slight it's not. I am addressing your argument or more precisely lack thereof.

Good day sir.

[gejohnston]

10. You are projecting

I did't say poor research. I said none and no logic. Your " code" is simply an observation on the narrow mindedness and bigotry in academia.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. You *have* repeatedly demonstrated poor research, lack of logic, and promulagted untruth...

...here, and on other threads:

I invite the disinterested reader to read what's at the following links and decide for themselves:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=11154


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199662#post36

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199662#post42


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172197860#post19

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172197860#post35

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172197860#post55

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172197860#post87

et seq