Red Flag Laws and the Misguided Worship of Due Process - Graybeard Outdoors
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-03-2019, 03:37 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tdoyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: windber, pa
Posts: 1,019
Send a message via MSN to tdoyka
Default Red Flag Laws and the Misguided Worship of Due Process

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_process.html

October 3, 2019
Red Flag Laws and the Misguided Worship of Due Process
By John Velleco
Congress is in one of what it euphemistically calls its "District work periods," and so the pressure is off gun-owners for a fortnight. However, the threat will resume right after Columbus Day — which, surprisingly, is still a federal holiday. Gun-owners correctly perceive their Second Amendment rights to be balanced on the edge of a knife, awaiting the pressure to build again after the next well publicized shooting.

For gun-owners, the pattern is all too familiar: a mass shooting, such as those in El Paso and Dayton, followed by massive amounts of publicity by the anti-gun media and posturing politicians, accompanied by a demand that Congress "do something," such as red flag laws. In response, gun-owners demand that their elected officials stand firm against the pressure, holding their collective breath, waiting to see how many of those members of Congress who promised to support gun rights in the months before the last election are willing to sacrifice those principles a year before the next election.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) promised that under his bill, to get a federal grant, the state red flag laws would have to provide "due process." Similarly, President Trump has sought to assure the public that any red flag legislation will provide for "rapid due process." When questioned, most congressional Republicans say they will support police seizing guns only if rigorous due process is provided. Don't buy it. Red flag laws violate the Second Amendment, and "due process" is not a magic wand to be waved to make the infringement go away.

Due process is the idea that the government must follow the procedural rules under our system of justice. These guarantees protect Americans against arbitrary decisions by the government to take away life, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court has described due process circularly as "what process is due." There is no one set of rules for all situations. Typically, the greater the liberty interest at stake, the more extensive the due process protections must be.

Most associate due process with concepts like the right to a hearing, an unbiased decision-maker, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the ability to present evidence in your defense. But is it really true — as the president and many others appear to believe — that the government can take away someone's rights, so long as it showers him with lots and lots of due process? The promise of due process is little comfort when those exercising that process have no respect for the rule of law.

Imagine if the government accused you of wanting to be a drug-dealer. You've never been charged with — or even accused of — having actually sold drugs. But still, someone thinks there's a good chance you may in the future. So you're given a hearing, allowed to hire a lawyer, and permitted to testify why you won't become a drug dealer in the future. But at the end of the day, a judge still believes there's an unreasonable risk that you will enter the drug business. So, in order to prevent that possibility, for the next year or so, you no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. The police may now stop your car and search it any time they wish and enter your home to search for drugs at will. What, that doesn't sound fair? What's the problem? You were given loads and loads of due process!

The government can't strip away Fourth Amendment rights simply because, in doing so, it has complied with due process rights. The Fourth Amendment still protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a warrant based on probable cause. Likewise, the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — regardless of whether the government thinks it's a good idea that a particular person have guns.

Certainly, young children, illegal aliens, and murderers are not part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. Current law makes firearms possession illegal by a person convicted of a felony or who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." But there is absolutely no historical or legal precedent for taking Second Amendment rights away from those who the government's "precogs" declare may commit a crime in the future.

President Trump should be familiar with this concept. In response to the Mueller investigation, President Trump lamented that he should be cloaked with the presumption of innocence and that it's a tall order to prove a negative — for someone to show that he didn't commit a crime. How true. But how much harder is it for a person to prove that he won't do something in the future? It's impossible. Yet that's the standard red flag laws impose on their victims.

Three of the governments in the last century that experimented with their versions of red flag laws, allowing government judges to declare political enemies mentally unfit in order to make it easier to subjugate them, were communist (red) China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. Each of those nations had lots of red in its flags.

History has taught us time and again that governments are far more dangerous to liberty than are criminals. A person's odds of being murdered by a tyrannical government (termed "democide") are astronomically higher than by a mass shooter. Yet too many people seem oblivious to the fact that far worse than some criminals getting access to guns is a system where the government gets to decide who should be disarmed. In fact, that is the beginning of the end of a free society.

Many people won't like to hear this, but it has never been the job of government to prevent future crime. If it were, then our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights would stand as an obstacle.

Lindsey Graham has moaned that "the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact." What he's really saying is that constitutional rights shouldn't impede the government doing whatever it wants to do. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of all Americans. There's no way around that. In a truly free society, bad people will sometimes do bad things — like falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The role of government is to punish bad actors and provide justice to victims — after the commission of an illegal act.

If the government takes on the improper role to prevent future crime, that inevitably will result in an Orwellian surveillance state, where freedom is theoretical at best. Many believe we are already on that road, and red flag laws are certainly a big step in the wrong direction.

The maxim is still true that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. A government agent armed with a red flag law is a poor substitute. Even the left-leaning Mother Jones magazine has questioned whether red flag laws would actually stop mass shootings.

Regardless, it is not up to our "overlords" to weigh and balance Americans' constitutional rights against the potential future danger they may pose. And the robust protection of Fifth Amendment due process rights means little if the process results in the infringement of protections that the Second Amendment unequivocally declares "shall not be infringed."

“All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed — only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”
― Nikola Tesla
tdoyka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-04-2019, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,140
Default

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,”

Donald Trump voicing his support for Red Flag Laws

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.



H&R family: Topper 88 16 Gauge Mod, Pardner 16 gauge Full, Model 480 Topper Jr .410 Full, Handi .300 AAC Blackout
doublebass73 is offline  
post #3 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-04-2019, 04:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 2,908
Default

At this point nothing has been passed into law , And nothing will get passed before the 2020 election .

Last edited by mcbammer; 10-04-2019 at 04:07 PM.
mcbammer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-04-2019, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublebass73 View Post
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,”

Donald Trump voicing his support for Red Flag Laws
No one is perfect. I believe President Trump realizes the error in this and will turn away from it... Benefit of the doubt, if you will... Because I will give that...
Mule 11 is offline  
post #5 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-04-2019, 07:29 PM
Senior Member
 
nw_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SW Oregon
Posts: 7,673
Default

He better! I supported and voted for him because of his stance on ILLEGAL Immigration,support for the second amendment, and overall support of the Constitution. My faith in his adm is starting to wain. He had this election coming up in a land slide. All he had to do was let the Dems shoot themselves in the foot, and they were doing a good job of it. His **** mouth is HIS worse enemy. People who think like me put him in office and without us he is dead in the water. I will not vote for anyone who tramples on these rights. PERIOD!

I don't think of myself as a staunch Republican or Democrat.
I am a Christian and a Conservative...........In that order!
nw_hunter is offline  
post #6 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-05-2019, 10:44 PM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mule 11 View Post
No one is perfect. I believe President Trump realizes the error in this and will turn away from it... Benefit of the doubt, if you will... Because I will give that...
I can only take Trump at his word. He has not come out publicly and stated that he was wrong about wanting to take people's guns first then giving them due process second. Until he does that his words are that of a tyrant. If Obama had said those exact same words there would be no hesitation from you in calling him a tyrant, he would've gotten no benefit of the doubt from you. The sad fact is Trump has accomplished more gun control in 2 years with his bump stock ban than Obama did in 8 years. Reagan also accomplished more gun control with his '86 machine gun ban than any Democrat in our lifetime. Reagan effectively took machine guns out of the hands of the entire working class. The sad fact is Republicans look the other way if a fellow Republican bans guns. They only oppose gun control if a Democrat is in office.

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.



H&R family: Topper 88 16 Gauge Mod, Pardner 16 gauge Full, Model 480 Topper Jr .410 Full, Handi .300 AAC Blackout
doublebass73 is offline  
post #7 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-05-2019, 10:45 PM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nw_hunter View Post
he better! I supported and voted for him because of his stance on illegal immigration,support for the second amendment, and overall support of the constitution. My faith in his adm is starting to wain. He had this election coming up in a land slide. All he had to do was let the dems shoot themselves in the foot, and they were doing a good job of it. His **** mouth is his worse enemy. People who think like me put him in office and without us he is dead in the water. I will not vote for anyone who tramples on these rights. Period!
so true!

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.



H&R family: Topper 88 16 Gauge Mod, Pardner 16 gauge Full, Model 480 Topper Jr .410 Full, Handi .300 AAC Blackout
doublebass73 is offline  
post #8 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-05-2019, 11:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,798
Default

Quote:
Reagan also accomplished more gun control with his '86 machine gun ban than any Democrat in our lifetime.







BS!!!!!!!!!! You seem to have quickly forgotten Clinton's "assault weapon ban".

Aim small, miss small!!!
casull is offline  
post #9 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-05-2019, 11:19 PM
Senior Member
 
doublebass73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by casull View Post
BS!!!!!!!!!! You seem to have quickly forgotten Clinton's "assault weapon ban".
You're the one slinging BS. You seem to have quickly forgotten that Clinton's "assault weapons ban" doesn't exist any more and even when it did exist it only banned "scary features" like bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds and pistol grips. You could still buy new production ARs and AKs without scary features during that time.

Unlike Clinton's "assault weapons ban", Reagan's machine gun ban is still law today. It ended all civilian machine gun production, period end of story. That caused the price of grandfathered machine guns to go through the roof, out reach for the average working person. Thanks to Reagan we now have a situation where the government small arms are superior to what civilians (militia) are allowed to own, in direct conflict with what the founding fathers wanted.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

So as you can see, my original statement of "Reagan also accomplished more gun control with his '86 machine gun ban than any Democrat in our lifetime." still holds true despite your weak attempt at trying to make Clinton's assault weapons ban seem worse.

Liberal Logic 101:
Americans shall be required to submit to a background check to exercise a right already guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment while any foreigner shall be allowed into America without submitting to a background check.



H&R family: Topper 88 16 Gauge Mod, Pardner 16 gauge Full, Model 480 Topper Jr .410 Full, Handi .300 AAC Blackout
doublebass73 is offline  
post #10 of 29 (permalink) Old 10-05-2019, 11:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: 3 miles NW of Brownells retail store and they keep me broke!
Posts: 1,414
Default

Ok then, so whats option "B" if we are going to piss down Trump's neck? How much caving to the pressure do you think would have come from Rubio, Cruz or any of the other Rhino Politicians had they gotten elected. Just suppose the past do nothing Republican Congress had actually earned their pay? We wouldn't have 90% of the BS going on that is now front and center in the media. I see Trump as our only saving grace at this point! If only our elected Republicans other than Trump would understand that we voted for change and that change included them getting behind Trump....for the most part they haven't and he is fighting that left wing machine all by himself. I wish we could replace every republican congress man and senator with someone who has the balls that Trump has. Heck ole Nancy has a bigger pair than anyone on the Republican side.

You have to stand for something or you fall for anything and that stand has to be a united one and it's not!
gpa&hisguns is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome