Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 293

Thread: Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

  1. Top | #191
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,513
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.
    You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?

  2. Top | #192
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,939
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,978
    Rep Power
    76
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.

  3. Top | #193
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,019
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,962
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    No, the problem is you shifted the goal posts. I showed that the red flag laws are not incompatible with the 4th amendment.
    What you fail to consider is that the issue doesn't just rest on one line of the amendments...
    You’re the one who brought up the 4th amendment, not me. Your claim that red flags violate that amendment is wrong.

    Hell, you introduce the 6th amendment and admit that it is not applicable because red flags ste mit criminal cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT
    In other words: Cherry Picking.
    That is your MO in this thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by DBT
    You obviously do not apply the same standards. According to your comments, you apparently accept reports made about gun owners as reliable regardless of the fact that they may be sincere but mistaken, or malicious, yet dismiss the accounts of those who claim to be the victims of mistaken or malicious reports that resulted in police turning up at their home to confiscate firearms.
    Obviously you do not understand what “substantianted” meanss. Unlike you, I do not accept whatever someone says.

  4. Top | #194
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    You’re the one who brought up the 4th amendment, not me. Your claim that red flags violate that amendment is wrong.
    The 4th amendment quote is just one part of the issue and it's brevity is open to interpretation that may ignore other factors and rulings. Which is why I also referred to other amendments and other rulings, which you conveniently ignore or brush aside.

    Again:

    ''The standard is not whether there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner has committed a crime, as the Constitution would seem to require. Rather, the standard is some subjective determination about whether the owner represents some "danger."

    ''The greatest potential for abuse arises when the police or a citizen (“the petitioner”) seeks a temporary order without informing the gun owner. Guns are property, and the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide that people may not be deprived of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that before the government can confiscate or infringe upon property, the owner is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself or herself. He or she is entitled to have a lawyer, cross-examine, and take advantage of other procedural benefits afforded by our Anglo-American legal tradition''

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Hell, you introduce the 6th amendment and admit that it is not applicable because red flags ste mit criminal cases.
    That is your MO in this thread.
    Hardly, seeing that I am looking at the overall picture and the problems with aspects of the red flag laws, acting against gun owners on what may be frivolous or malicious claims. Actions being taken before gun owners can address the claims being made against them.


    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Obviously you do not understand what “substantianted” meanss. Unlike you, I do not accept whatever someone says.
    Obviously it is you who doesn't understand the nature of substantiation because you seem to accept that it is justified to seize someones property on the basis of what someone says.

    I am the one pointing out that what someone claims may not be true, that they may be mistaken or making a malicious claim in order to punish a partner when a relationship fails, etc, which is known to happen and need to be accounted for before action is taken.

  5. Top | #195
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.
    You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?
    No, I don't mean that. Nobody means that.

  6. Top | #196
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.

  7. Top | #197
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,497
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,249
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Public safety and justice should be pursued, but not at the expense of punishing the innocent.
    You mean, like school kids getting gunned down in classrooms? Or not those innocents?
    Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our system. Without it it would be hard to avoid a descent into tyranny.

  8. Top | #198
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,497
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,249
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    It very well might be permanent--they usually don't store them properly. If they're kept long enough they're likely to come back unserviceable.

  9. Top | #199
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,497
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,249
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.
    I'd like to see this apply in all criminal cases. If you're not convicted of something they have to cover your reasonable costs and the greater of minimum wage or your salary for any time you can't work because of their actions. (And if you're in jail that minimum wage is for 24 hours/day.)

  10. Top | #200
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    One could make the argument that those firearms are not being taken or confiscated permanently, which would make a difference. Those weapons are in effect being impounded. So there's a lot of interpretative wiggle room, maybe? The owners are being temporarily deprived of the use of their property in the name of public safety.
    Possibly, as long as the gun owner is not financially disadvantaged in cases of false or mistaken accusations, the state or the accuser bearing the cost of lawyers, loss of income, etc.
    I'd like to see this apply in all criminal cases. If you're not convicted of something they have to cover your reasonable costs and the greater of minimum wage or your salary for any time you can't work because of their actions. (And if you're in jail that minimum wage is for 24 hours/day.)
    Yes. And of course allowing the accused to address the claims made against them before things go too far and get too complicated. A prompt assessment of the actual threat, not just acting on someones say so, then sorting out the mess, which doesn't do anyone any good and ties up resources that could be put to more productive use elsewhere

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •