DOJ Releases Biden Gun Confiscation Order Legislation

trekrok

Sharpshooter
Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
1,264
Location
Yukon, OK
I don't know what the fix is on these. I think everyone agrees crazy people shouldn't have guns, but not sure how you can get there with red flags without trampling on the rights of everyone else.

If they give advanced notice of a hearing, doesn't that just change the schedule of a mass shooting? Then they'd know, well, guess I better get this done before 130pm on Friday. Fun job to be the surprise knock on the door to confiscate the guns though.

I wonder how many would avoid going to shrinks and doctors because of it?

Would it be a public filing like restraining orders? If I were a burglar, those would be good houses to hit, would be nice to know you wouldn't encounter guns there.

They aren't really concerned with suicides I guess or wouldn't they also take sharp and pointy things? And anything that could be fatal if ingested?

I'd be surprised if judges wouldn't just rubber stamp the initial filing to confiscate the guns. They'd be afraid that if they denied it and then something bad happened, they'd get severe blowback in the media.
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
11,995
Location
Southern Oklahoma
I don't know what the fix is on these. I think everyone agrees crazy people shouldn't have guns, but not sure how you can get there with red flags without trampling on the rights of everyone else.
Sadly, I don't think it's possible.

And especially not under an anti-gun administration. :anyone:

^^These^^ are all problems with red flag laws. Not to mention the potential of someone who just doesn't like you making up crap to cause you trouble. Kinda like "swatting".
Agree x1000. :/
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
26,543
Reaction score
7,595
Location
Collinsville
While I can support Red Flag laws to a degree, they have to be a full hearing with evidence from both sides and full legal representation. Not a kangaroo court designed to take someone's guns no matter what.

And, no confiscation of firearms prior to the ruling.

And a defined process for getting one's property back.

ERPO's are flagrantly unconstitutional for these reasons and more. Making them constitutional would strip out every feature that proponents of ERPO's demand be in them. They're not bugs, they're features. ERPO's are a complete non-starter and need to be struck down by SCOTUS.
 

uncle money bags

Sharpshooter
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
5,386
Reaction score
41
Location
OKC
There are already procedures for the temporary confiscation of firearms from persons deemed a threat to themselves or others. Anyone who is familiar with a Victim Protection Order knows this.
Lets say; for example, there is a domestic assault and the dominant agggressor is identified. The assault resulted in visible physical injuries or obvious disfigurement. The dominant aggressor also made threats to " [email protected]#$&* kill that bleep". Maybe they have made threats in the past, maybe they even pointed a firearm at the victim in the past. Victim has a report taken, and the suspect is arrested or a warrant filed for their arrest. Victim requests a Emergency VPO and a judge will decide if the facts and circumstances warrant the seizure of the suspects firearms until a hearing can be held (within 5 days) to determine what will happen with the firearms.
To back up just a bit, if the judge decides that; based on all of the evidence presented, that the firearms shall be temporarily seized they will order that on the EPO. When the EPO is served on the suspect, their firearms are seized.
Red flag laws seek to undermine all of the checks and balances inherent in the current system in order to make the seizure of firearms easier. Red flag laws are clearly in direct conflict with 4th and 14th amendment at the very least. In my experience, the vast majority of LEOs or Peace Officers would refuse to enforce them.
 
Top Bottom