My cousin doesnt think red flag laws are a violation of the 2nd amendment because youcan get your guns back and l dont...

You need to pay a couple of niggers to rape your cousin.

How would you feel having your car taken away because you were a little risky on the road? Sure, it may make other people who drive feel safer but you just lost a valuable aspect of your person.
Honestly, your cousin's brain dead if he thinks that.

It’s an imperfect system
Basically if you’re pro freedom you have to articulate the idea that you’re okay with lunatics having the possibility of running around shooting people, which is a hard sell to normies

You got any links for this shit man? I believe you and remember reading this shit but its easy to say things

Thats my problem. He doesnt like the laws but he doesnt see it as tyrrany or that this could get out of hand. His arguement is its no big deal because you get your guns back

The 5th Amendment guarantees that citizens shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. "Red flag laws" deprive you of your constitutionally-guaranteed rights and your property without due process. They are therefore unconstitutional.

It is a flagrant violation of your constitutionally guaranteed right to the presumption of innocence that you be punished first and forced to prove your innocence second.

His name was Gary Willis and he did not go gently into the good night

SHALL

google.com/url?q=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-officers-serving-red-flag-gun-removal-order-fatally-shoot-armed-man/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiHr_jg3_DgAhXYu54KHVmzD6oQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfKXn9JexFx_YZmQi98cT

Is there anywhere we can find out just exactly what this man was going through that led up to this? I want to know if this man was actually a littlw wigged out or not. My cousin and l argued over this specific case. My cousin argues that because this man got violent he was a danger. I agree with you guys whole heartedly. I wish he had taken a few with him

He's ignoring due process you retard, if they can't comprehend why that's a bad thing then it's not worth trying to explain it to them

Before anything, you should remind him, he is the one supporting the new and extreme possition, so he also needs to argue why his position is NOT a violation of established rights.

Ok real argument time:
With the recent spree of police getting shot or shooting people in no-knock raids lately, is it really okay to create a whole new category and reason to have more no-knock raids?
The whole red-flag law hinges on everybody being on the up and up. It assumes that no one will be corrupt and abuse the system to blanket take guns away. Point out that all it takes is a single heavily biased judge (if they say that's not possible point out Kavanaugh or Ginsburg depending on their political leanings) and a crusading individual.
How about the abusive ex that disarms their vicitm before he/she/it shows up one last time.

It works the same as the government taking your kids away if you're a danger to them, or them issuing a restraining order against you which doesn't allow you to go some place.

Since there's exigency, like you causing harm to your kids or you hurting the person who applied for the restraining order, they execute the order immediately. You are given the opportunity to set up a court hearing to plead your side of the story, and if the court can't then prove legal grounds to hold the order in place, they drop it or amend it to be more reasonable to fit the situation (say, split custody of your kids... Not sure if that could apply to guns).

Courts have worked this way for a while, it's just unprecedented for it to apply to guns. I can see it holding up as constitutional desu. They're going to base the justification for that on recent events. What I hope to see though is that the court requires an actual, verifiable mental health reason to uphold the order. From what I've heard, they're just going on peoples' word at this time that "he's crazy, he made such and such political comments on Faceberg." There should need to be actual mental illness or sustainable threats made. I think unless that's the case, it won't be held up as constitutional.

t. Lawfag

in order to combat being 'red flagged' you would have to prove that you're not a danger to yourself or others. since it's nigh impossible to prove a negative, especially in court, the law is bullshit

This, it's deprivation of property without due process. If anything it's more of a 5A issue than a 2A issue, though it's also definitely an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms as well.

Didn't even think of this one but yeah, it's essentially a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Red flag laws go through a judge.

You don't understand civil law. In order to have someone's rights taken away due to a non criminal act as in "He's crazy" you need to have a VERY strong and detailed case that you can take to court. It is very difficult to prove someone is crazy. It is also difficult to argue that someone is not crazy AFTER they have been committed.

I toured a involuntary commitment facility for forensic patients and civil patients earlier today. They told me that 4 out of 5 of their patients committed crimes and only a fifth were there due to someone else petitioning for their commitment.

Well put.

The government can take your kids away my dude. Your own flesh and blood. People who have that happen to them freak the fuck out, and they wonder why there isn't some law or right protecting them from that. The founders didn't exactly cover it, they weren't thinking about that, but in some other cultures it's considered a right to be able to keep your kids. I would argue that that's more important even than your free speech. Why aren't you advocating against that?

Oh, because some people are actually very shitty kid owners, and are endangering them. Just like some people are shitty gun owners, and endanger others. We're basically applying the same legal custody laws to guns as we are to kids, obviously with some major differences. That system has held up in court, and it makes sense. Take the kids away immediately so they don't cause harm to them and don't flee with them. There of course has to be a legal justification to do this. Try advocating for much stricter legal justifications for taking someone's guns, but don't deny that in very rare cases some people need them taken away.

They took mine and gave em back

Attached: _20180818_074318.jpg (3792x3792, 2.3M)

>don't deny that in very rare cases some people need them taken away
I personally don't deny this but I think there needs to be some form of liability for the party seeking removal of the guns. Something fiscal (such as a fine plus and reimbursement of any damages to the guns) and potentially criminal as well (such as if someone is the vicitm of a crime while disarmed, the individual who set the process in motion is charged with a lesser crime). There may have to be an investigation and criminal charges for those who abuse this to deprive individuals of their rights.

Ask him how he would feel if the government seized/froze all his financial accounts based on a "tip" from someone that he was involved in drug trafficking or similar, and the only way to get everything back/unfrozen is to prove in court that you've done nothing wrong. Also the police will have access to the accounts and can "borrow" some of the funds, or "lose" them. There's no money equivalent but cops have also stored guns in a way that when people get them back they're all rusty and shit because cops are retards that think "who cares, its a criminal's weapon, better it get fucked up and not work."

It is setting a precedent that you are guilty and you need to prove yourself innocent without ever having committed a crime. Does that not rustle any nerves in his/her body?

Attached: Tactical Reacharound.jpg (497x497, 67K)

I would really like to hear the story.

Attached: 1544322991698.jpg (639x633, 57K)

>The founders didn't exactly cover it, they weren't thinking about that
What do you think SHALL NOT is for? For memeing? Protect your family and your rights, retard

It's actually pretty bad bros.
>crash car
>have guns / cc permit
>hate cops
>refuse to blow
>get DUI
>they take guns
>I asked for them back
>they complied

Any story is better than no story. Thank you.

Did they take the guns out of your car or did they go to your house and take them?

>The founders didn't exactly cover it, they weren't thinking about that, but in some other cultures
Not in ours. It's a whole different ball game to suspend a constitutional right without due process. You erode the legal protections for all the others and bring us that much closer to an authoritarian state. Yeah CPS sucks sometimes, but it's not a fundamental threat to liberty.

He wasn’t violent, he had a gun behind his back because somebody knocked on his door at 4 in the morning.

Shit went south bc the cops saw the gun

Just the 3 pistols I was carrying and they threw away all the ammo I had on me, something like 300 rounds. Got the guns back as soon as I could get a ride to the station.

>Taking someone's children away isn't a threat to liberty

Lolnokids detected.

>they didn't fuck me over that hard so it was OK

Fuck you bootlicker

Well why should the state not be allowed to take youre kids away when you litterly beat them up or deny them human rights?

Read
And

Stfu retard. The states is not anyone's daddy. They decide to take liberties away because of people like You that thinks these behaviors are totally normal in a free society, well, they are not

If the parents are threatening their children's wellbeing it's a preservation of liberty at the expense of someone who has disrespected it

I'm saying it's not a threat to every other civil liberty.

Why should the state not be allowed to take someone's guns away when there's sustainable threats being made or the person is just downright nuts?

I'm playing devil's advocate, but people are starting to think like this. If you're going to argue it, come up with some good arguments now because shit is changing in the world of gun rights. I personally think we should concede to reasonable shit, but get rid of all the dumb fluff laws, of which there is plenty. But show that we're reasonable and willing to compromise, so long as, and only if, they're willing to compromise too.

So you had an accident, exercised your due process rights, had your guns confiscated and your ammo trashed without compensation, and you're not still fucking livid?

Bluepilled and fagged all the way

SHALL NOT

The CPS taking kids away is contingent on someone having committed a crime against them.
If they apply these same red flag rules to CPS (and they very well might) you'd be horrified at the results (or at least you should be).

youtube.com/watch?v=w8egE4x9Djo

I hated cops before, and I still do now

Lol

Credible threats are legally defined and can be adjudicated in a court of law, same with being mentally incapacitated. The state can burden rights given criminal conduct. What they can't do is come over and take your guns because some anonymous fag ((supposedly)) said you were a danger. The issue is one of due process, recourse, and appropriate punishment.

As far as compromise goes, how can you expect them to hold to it? What's to stop them from demanding more in 5 years? A certain example of a national socialist leader and a British PM comes to mind. Many GC advocates have already admitted that their ultimate goal is total bans or even confiscation. Seems to me that each restriction is just one more step in that direction.

Yeah they do harass the shit out of people. My cleaning lady has a POS drug addict son, and when she wouldn't give him money he called CPS on her and claimed she was molesting her younger son. Apparently CPS fucked with her for years and gave her a ton of trouble. She was happy as fuck when Kavanaugh was confirmed.

There is quite a bit of difference from actually endangering people on the road and "he has a gun and is mad at me/my mom/whoever.

Please tell us the story

>But show that we're reasonable and willing to compromise

Fuck compromise and fuck you you cum-guzzling fag-barge. APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK WITH TYRANTS THEY WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED!

Can you lrove that claim? Thats how l answer the door too

Everything..
INCLUDING
denying Felons who are not currently in prison
is a violation of the 2nd.A

p.s - your bro is a fucking moron.

This
If the felon's still a threat, they should be jailed or killed

Because they're your property til they turn 18.

When has compromise on gun control ever led to anything but more gun control?

All gun control comes from kikes.

Attached: 1542601060361.jpg (2832x3916, 1.75M)

>Be freedom loving American
>Legally own firearms
>Libtard sister files “red flag” petition
>Cops roll up unannounced
>Bang on door at 4AM
>Man answers door armed (as anyone of us would)
>flashlight in face
>is told to drop his gun
>gets shot to prevent him being a danger to himself

Have you guys even read any of the red flag laws?
I don't know about other state's but Oregon's are pretty good in terms of due process. The petitioner has to present valid physical evidence (medical documents, text messages, etc) as well as sworn testimony, and the defendant can testify and confront them in court before the judge even decides to write the order. That's literally the law. It can then be appealed almost immediately. And then even if it were to go through it's only for a year.
The only reason you would see them as bad is if you're full shall, which makes me wonder why you support taking guns from felons?

Attached: thinking-hard.png (248x203, 22K)

>carrying three pistols and three hundred rounds
are you one of those Jow Forumsringe mall ninjas we see?

Who gives a fuck what your cousin thinks. Even the gun grabbing attorney general said representation before confiscation.

Attached: Capture+_2019-03-07-19-37-46.png (1192x1852, 237K)

Backup and backups backup and restore 300 rounds isn't even that much

>>car crash
>>hate cops
>>refuse to blow
>>get DUI
Either you were actually drunk, and rightfully deserved to be fucked with, or you weren't drunk but still went on to act like an idiot on purpose to annoy some dude on the job, in which case you also deserved the shit you gathered.

here's Oregon's red flag law.
not super unreasonable honestly.
still shouldn't comply, mostly for memes.
oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2017orlaw0737.pdf

Attached: Screenshot (520).jpg (909x617, 451K)

Imagine the dipshit cops who tell themselves that they support the constitution while they kick down a door to take a man's guns away. I hope they all die on the front lawn.

Attached: 1424905676945.jpg (1000x1000, 203K)

In other words, getting locked up in prison/holding cells for months is fine because you will eventually get released regardless of being locked up without due process.

Also, there is another practical reason to oppose the "red flag" laws and that has to do with wasting taxfunded resources going after false threats because of arbitrary misinterpretations.

I guess it isn't important that a gun restraining order doesn't also take away crossbows, knives, or access to large blunt objects. People can only be a danger to each other if there are guns. For reasons. No other conceivable actions exist. Assault charges for making threats isn't actually illegal and jailing people for assault is a bad idea. Once again, for reasons. In fact, taking away just guns and not doing any other action against someone making criminal threats is just fine and perfectly safe, so red flag laws make perfect sense.

Alternatively, people could be jailed for making criminal threats instead of just having cops "temporarily" steal their property. Someone with a gun restraining order can still hit you with a car. Kinda hard to do if the person making threats is in jail. Why the fuck would anyone justify red flag laws?

This red flag bullshit is making me rethink my home-defense guns. Instead of pistols I should probably use rifles or a VEPR shotgun.

Felons deserve to live. If they can't be trusted, they shouldn't be free.

You serve your punishment, and that should be it.

Wasn't drunk but the cop was being a dick and I don't trust breathalyzers or cops.

AR-10 in 22-250 shooting Lehigh 38gr solid copper .224 bullets

>not super unreasonable honestly
The words you use may not mean what you think they mean. Disarming free people is an example of being unreasonable.

> on the job
> you also deserve
Typical cop mentality. You are not a judge or jury. You do not get to punish people, this has cost police officers their jobs, freedom and lives in some cases. Stop making that mistake as soon as you can.

I think disarming free people of upstanding character would be unreasonable. That is not who red flag laws target, and in the event they do the respondent can have a court hearing within 21 days to appeal it and make their case: either discrediting their accuser or accrediting themselves. But then again I'm not full shall, so there you go.
If you're that concerned just bury shit and never talk about it.

Report your cousin as mentally unstable and say he has guns and you’re worried

You have to prove this shit in court and under oath. If you can't it's perjury. They don't just believe you if you're weepy, you have to have a history of offenses and documented behavior or threats of suicide or something

>disarming free people of upstanding character would be unreasonable.
I like to think people not guilty of crimes are also people of upstanding character. We seem to differ on this point.

Red flag is wrong no matter what and any LE serving one deserves to die

/thread

You are innocent until proven guilty. In this case though, they have to go through a judge but you don't have proper legal representation so it's this extra fucky loophole thing. Kinda scary what sort of precedent this could set

Pretend that the police showed up to take away literally anything besides guns based on an anonymous Good Samaritan who said your cousin made them feel unsafe. A car is a great example, but you could also go for clothing, computers, etc.

Your cousin is then free to retrieve said after giving the local pigsty no less than 21 but no more than 270 days to review his case, contingent on proving to the satisfaction of the designated authority figure that he is not, in fact, a danger to himself or others. There may be a nominal processing fee. Also the cops have no legal liability for the condition in which the good are returned.

Sound fair?

I agree. That is not who the law targets. They aren't just gonna take some weepy testimony from someone with no evidence of past offenses to violate someone's constitutional rights. Even if they did that shit would be ripped apart at the appeal.

It depends on the specific text of the law, but no. You need to understand that it's ALREADY ILLEGAL for someone with a documented history of "offenses" (felonies) or "threats of suicide [or harm to others]" (involuntary psychiatric commitment) to possess firearms in the United States.

The entire point of these laws is to LOWER THE STANDARD for firearms confiscation beyond what is already establish. How far they're being lowered varies by state, but every red flag law constitutes such a lower. That's the *purpose* of the laws.

What crime is committed before seizure? Why are the guns seized before all appeals are exhausted? If a credible threat (assault) is documented, why is this about property seizure and not incarceration?

>They aren't just gonna take some weepy testimony from someone with no evidence of past offenses to violate someone's constitutional rights.

Actually, no, that's exactly what they're gonna do. The only actual question is

>whatchu gone do bout it, wyboi?