Are the "Red Flag" laws unconstitutional? - Poll

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Apr 14, 2019.

?

Are the red flag laws unconstitutional?

  1. No

    11 vote(s)
    39.3%
  2. Yes

    15 vote(s)
    53.6%
  3. Yes - But okay with that if it gets rid of guns.

    2 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    With so many states passing these "Red Flag" laws, I was wondering if others think this is unconstitutional?

    This gun grab is against the 2nd Amendment, and also ignores due process. I know this topic has been discussed, but wanted to take a poll to see how many feel it is unconstitutional, and even if some know it is, but they don't care as long as it removes guns.
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #2
    I'm VERY much afraid of the concept of taking away someone's rights without due process.

    There are very many rights, including constitutionally-protected rights, that a person can lose once they've been fairly adjudicated by due process - the right to vote, to keep and bear arms, etc. But taking away rights from someone who hasn't even done anything wrong would be a VERY nasty precedent.

    Don't believe for a minute that it would stop there. If we start taking away guns from completely innocent people because of what they MIGHT do with them, what's next? Taking away someone's freedom of speech because of something they MIGHT say? Banishing a publication because of something they MIGHT publish?

    How about this: denying someone the right to a speedy trial because they MIGHT be acquitted?

    These aren't all that far-fetched; if you can deny someone the right to keep and bear arms because they MIGHT break the law, it's just a matter of time before somebody will use that precedent to start denying other rights without due process.
     
  3. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #3
    I voted yes because all the one’s I know of ignore due process.

    Now with that said there might be state out there with a “Red Flag” law that does follow proper due process but I don’t know of it.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    If they ignore due process then, yes, I believe they are unconstitutional.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Mentally ill people would have had their rights stripped without due process in the time of the founding fathers.
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    By definition, "Red Flag" laws include due process. A Judge has to be petitioned (usually by either a family member or law enforcement) that an individual should not be allowed access to firearms. This petition has to include evidence of behaviour that is sufficient to convince the Judge to temporarily remove firearms.

    The individual in question has the right to contest the petition. He/she can appear before the Judge and present evidence and testimony.

    There is due process.
     
  7. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #7
    The mentally ill have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else does.

    Mentally ill does not equal violent or criminal.
     
  8. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #8

    Don’t I have the right to face my accuser?
    Is this person making the accusation a doctor or a specialist in emotional or mental conditions? What proof/evidence is needed to be shown? NOTHING.

    Doesn’t sound like due process is being followed to me...
     
  9. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    No there is not. These are the problems with the Colorado red flag law...

    https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_3445c570-5dad-11e9-b8f2-20677ce07cb4.html
     
  10. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #10
    Definitely not due process. Someone can obtain a temporary order to take away your firearm without being present, taking away ones right of due process. And a judge is not a licensed mental health professional to give a proper evaluation. To do so that mental health professional would have to work with such a person prior to a court hearing.

    So no, not due process.
     
  11. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #11
    [​IMG]




    I support the Second but at the same time I also believe the Second would not exist or would be limited had the founding fathers have the knowledge of our guns issues of today. I don't believe they had intended the Second to be a free for all option, nor do I believe they would be so open had these guns of mass killing be available back then. It's a messy pickle they left us with when it comes to the Second.
     
  12. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #12
    Where is it a "free for all" and when they wrote that they were talking about the same weapons a military would have.

    Also back then it wasn't run and gun like you see in the latest Army recruiting ad. In a lot of cases these guys would calmly march in ranked lines and faced the enemy, 50 to 100 yards apart and facing each other would open fire(including the use of cannons) at each other until one line broke.
     
  13. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #13


    Free for all was prob not the best words to use. I meant in reference to all the types of weapons that exist today that many have access too. And the weapons used by the military back then were still not weapons of mass killing like we have today. They didn't have weapons back then that could mow down hundreds by one person. Like the kind used in the Vegas shooting.
     
  14. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #14
    From Wikipedia

    Even "petitioning a court to order the removal of a firearm who may present a danger" is not enough to stop hard core Conservatives from whining about taking guns out of the hands of these awful people?

    How about if we petition for the right for children in a classroom to be gunned down by one of these would be armed sickos, would that be enough to satisfy you - or does that really only count when they're still in the womb?
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    How about we let people face their accuser before they have their possessions taken away from them?

    How about we still follow the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” instead of the reverse.

    I’m not against removing firearms from people who may be a danger. But do it a way that doesn’t shred the Constitution.
     
  16. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #16
    Actually, every post you've made on this topic would suggest otherwise, at least that I have ever read. Hiding behind a constitution that was written when there were muskets compared to the weapons we have today is ridiculous by any standard. Modifications need to be made, people need to be held accountable and such lethal weaponry should be out of the hands of civilians.
     
  17. lostngone macrumors 65816

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #17
    They are also ignoring the fact that if I am that much of a danger to myself or others there are already laws in place to have someone held for observation or arrested for threatening someone.

    If someone is suicidal or intent on doing harm to someone does ANYONE really think just removing firearms is going to stop someone? I would go as far as saying it would just aggravate that person(or situation) more.
     
  18. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #18
    I know, right?!?! How silly of me to want someone to be afforded his/her Constitutional rights to face their accusers or to be "innocent until proven guilty."
     
  19. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #19
    Yeah:

    So now following the law is considered hiding behind the constitution...........

    Just when you start to think it can't get any loonier....
     
  20. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #20
    The issue in that case was bump stocks ( Already illegal now ) and not the semi-auto rife itself. The constitution said arms, not muskets. The way the constitution is written the people could be similarly armed with current firearms of the times ( Except banned weapons to the public ) Americans with muskets is not sufficient to prevent or fight tyranny today with local and federal governments armed with semi and full auto firearms or more available.

    I think he means due process, with the ability of taking someones firearm away after they were deemed mentally unstable and capable of harm for no lawful purpose. Taking ones firearm away first without due process is unconstitutional.
     
  21. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #21
    It's 229 years old. Do you also run around making quotes from Deuteronomy about stoning a woman for being on her period?

    Also, would you compare a musket to a semi-automatic? How about a handgun, or even a shotgun? What about an M-16 or a rocket launcher? Is there a line to be drawn and by whom? Forget all these questions, we have a 229 year old Constitution that talks about a well regulated militia and anyone who questions it is blasphemous!

    You guys must know how this sounds to a parent of a child who died at the hands of these weapons because of dated laws you all protect so vehemently without thought or regard.
     
  22. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #22
    It's unconstitutional if they strip someone of their rights prior to due process. If a given person is feared to be a danger to themselves 5150 their ass. If they are deemed a danger to someone specifically, that's why there's restraining orders.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 15, 2019 ---
    Well the first problem with your argument is deuteronomy has no legal basis in our country. The old testament doesn't apply to everyone. Second, are there any other rights you feel that 229yr old pesky document gets in the way of you squashing?
     
  23. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #23
    We already have a separation of church and state, besides murder is already illegal.

    Weapons don't have hands, only the humans that use them.
     
  24. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
    So you should just be able to ignore the parts that you don't like. Got it.
     
  25. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #25
    You mean like the way Conservatives ignore a well regulated militia? Please, explain that applies today again?
     

Share This Page

37 April 14, 2019