" Common Sense Gun Laws "
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Why Red-Flag Laws Are Worse Than You Think
Fortunately, the Vagueness Doctrine is most likely to prevail when an ambiguous law threatens a constitutional right, such as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms (see, for example, Smith v. Goguen).
Fortunately, the Vagueness Doctrine is most likely to prevail when an ambiguous law threatens a constitutional right, such as free speech or the right to keep and bear arms (see, for example, Smith v. Goguen).
Red-flag hearings must rely entirely on a “presumed fact” (the defendant poses an imminent danger to himself or others) being established by a “basic fact” (for example, the defendant has been repeatedly overheard saying, “I’d like to kill that idiot”). But Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute notes that, under Tot v. United States, a presumed fact satisfies due process only if it passes a “rational connection” test: There must be strong reason to believe that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the basic fact on which it depends (Leary v. United States). In today’s verbally immoderate society, there is almost never a rational connection between people’s insolent, bombastic, or sinister comments and the likelihood of future criminality. To function as intended, red-flag laws must deliberately abandon the rational connection test and alienate themselves from fundamental due process.
Mental disease evidence is likely to play a role in many red-flag hearings, yet this material often stands at odds with due process. Clark v. Arizona recognized the vagaries of mental disease evidence, including “the controversial character of some categories of mental disease, the potential of mental-disease evidence to mislead, and the danger of according greater certainty to [this] evidence than experts claim for it.” We can imagine how easily a red-flag hearing could shatter due process by granting undue weight to exotic psychiatric testimony. Ironically, this material will likely be held in particular esteem, as it ostensibly flows from scientists and “experts.”
Because “reasonable doubt” has been long established as the standard of proof for criminal cases, it must naturally apply to judicial proceedings in which an individual, who has not even been charged with a crime, can be stripped of a constitutional right. Nevertheless, red-flag laws often rely on “a preponderance of the evidence,” a radically diminished standard of proof. This, above all other injuries to due process, offends our system of liberty and fair trial.
16-Year-Olds Are Not Allowed Guns in California
Gun-control activists and Democratic presidential candidates have seized upon this news in order to advance the idea that it is time to pass whatever proposals they were already peddling, and, in concert, to blame those who disagree with them. In response, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have pointed out that the shooting happened in California, which already has all the laws that Democrats in Congress tell us are necessary. This response is correct, of course, but it is also irrelevant given that the perpetrator was 16-years-old and that this case therefore doesn’t fit within our gun-control debate at all. In California, 16-year-olds are ineligible to buy handguns, to possess handguns, to carry handguns, and to take handguns onto school property. Nothing that was done here was legal at any point. No “loophole” was exploited. No liberty was abused. This was illegal from start to finish. Unless one is making a case for the forcible confiscation of every gun in America, there’s not a great deal to debate here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/16-year-olds-are-not-allowed-guns-in-california/#
So Now WHAT
Gun-control activists and Democratic presidential candidates have seized upon this news in order to advance the idea that it is time to pass whatever proposals they were already peddling, and, in concert, to blame those who disagree with them. In response, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have pointed out that the shooting happened in California, which already has all the laws that Democrats in Congress tell us are necessary. This response is correct, of course, but it is also irrelevant given that the perpetrator was 16-years-old and that this case therefore doesn’t fit within our gun-control debate at all. In California, 16-year-olds are ineligible to buy handguns, to possess handguns, to carry handguns, and to take handguns onto school property. Nothing that was done here was legal at any point. No “loophole” was exploited. No liberty was abused. This was illegal from start to finish. Unless one is making a case for the forcible confiscation of every gun in America, there’s not a great deal to debate here.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/16-year-olds-are-not-allowed-guns-in-california/#
So Now WHAT
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
Thank you Martin O’Malley.
California has already passed a “universal background check” law. California, in fact, already instituted a 10-day waiting period, a limit to handgun purchases, a microtracking system, a personal safety test, an “assault weapon” ban, an age hike on the purchase of shotguns and rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without genuine due process, among many other restrictions. And none of those laws stopped the “slaughter” of children in Santa Clarita.
It’s illegal for a teen to walk around with a handgun anywhere in the United States. It’s illegal for a California teen to go to Alabama or Arizona or Virginia to buy a gun. It’s illegal for any teen to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun show or be gifted one from his dear uncle. It is illegal for parents to allow their kids to procure their firearms. No state or federal regulation now being championed by Senate Democrats would have stopped this teen, which is the case for the vast majority of mass shootings.
Murphy knows this. Kamala Harris and all the others leading Democrats who try to emotionally manipulate Americans to support their restrictions know this. All those who smear the NRA as a terrorist organization know this. All those who claim that Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands for failing to convene the Senate pass a Democratic bill that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the Santa Clarita shooting know this.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ngton-will-stop-mass-shootings-in-california/
It’s illegal for a teen to walk around with a handgun anywhere in the United States. It’s illegal for a California teen to go to Alabama or Arizona or Virginia to buy a gun. It’s illegal for any teen to purchase a gun through the mail or at a gun show or be gifted one from his dear uncle. It is illegal for parents to allow their kids to procure their firearms. No state or federal regulation now being championed by Senate Democrats would have stopped this teen, which is the case for the vast majority of mass shootings.
Murphy knows this. Kamala Harris and all the others leading Democrats who try to emotionally manipulate Americans to support their restrictions know this. All those who smear the NRA as a terrorist organization know this. All those who claim that Mitch McConnell has blood on his hands for failing to convene the Senate pass a Democratic bill that has absolutely nothing remotely to do with the Santa Clarita shooting know this.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...ngton-will-stop-mass-shootings-in-california/
The truth is, the person responsible for this shooting shot himself in the head after trying to murder his classmates. I don’t know or care what this 16-year old’s political beliefs are. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are to blame for today’s shooting. However, it’s a fact that you can have universal background checks, a ten day waiting period on firearms purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, microstamping, a “high capacity” magazine ban, red flag laws, “safe storage” laws, age restrictions on purchasing firearms, and dozens of other gun control laws and still have an attack like this happen.
For every politician trying to use this tragedy to push their gun control agenda, there should be a dozen reporters asking them why, if all of California’s gun control laws didn’t prevent an attack like this, they claim that a federal universal background check or ban on semi-automatic rifles would?
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/11/14/details-emerge-santa-clarita-shooting-dems-dont-wait-facts/
For every politician trying to use this tragedy to push their gun control agenda, there should be a dozen reporters asking them why, if all of California’s gun control laws didn’t prevent an attack like this, they claim that a federal universal background check or ban on semi-automatic rifles would?
https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/11/14/details-emerge-santa-clarita-shooting-dems-dont-wait-facts/
Red Flag laws are something a totalitarian state would implement. Basically, "for their safety" the cops storm your home (to seize your weapons - because "someone" has stated you have them and are a threat to yourself and others.
No right to confront your accuser
No right to a trial, to present evidence.
Geez, how much of the Bill of Rights can we redact before we don't have a Bill of Rights or even a Constitution.
No right to confront your accuser
No right to a trial, to present evidence.
Geez, how much of the Bill of Rights can we redact before we don't have a Bill of Rights or even a Constitution.
black dog
Free America
I believe you can thank Hipaa Laws for most of that,,,
black dog
Free America
Sixteen States offer carry permits to those that are 18-20 years old. I believe that Constitutional carry States also allow 18 and older to carry without a permit.