Alas, there's little interest in it.
From Biden on down to city councils, we're
seeing no real police or justice reform.
Due process would mean a judge holding a hearing,
& signing off on any restrictions or confiscations.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, there were more children killed in school shootings this year than on-duty police.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
From Biden on down to city councils, we're
seeing no real police or justice reform.
& signing off on any restrictions or confiscations.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Reports that someone is unsuited to possess guns,
eg, threats issued, convicted violent felon.
And it should be understood that the judge’s initial order would only temporary until a full hearing can occur and the individual can respond, bring evidence or testimony. That should satisfy the due process requirement and make it constitutional.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Well it needs to be well defined and good evidence presented. I could see this being abused by the public and the government.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
This is backwards. The individual does not have to give evidence they are innocent, the state needs to give good evidence that the person is a threat. Accusing people of a crime they may commit in the future that can take away their rights is very scary and needs a lot of oversight and definition.
Correct. But the situation is much like that of an arrest warrant where evidence must be presented to convince a judge, then the trial occurs later, hopefully within a reasonable period of time.
Democrats are pushing for police reform all over the USA, including Biden. The problem is conservatives who push back on reforms of many kinds, police, gun safety, education, and even gender issues.
cataway
Well-Known Member
its not a contest
idea
Question Everything
Cops do not make the top 10 list: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html
idea
Question Everything
I think it is similar to getting a driving license. Have to show you can drive a car - have to show you are responsible and safe.
You're misrepresenting the law.
Do you know assault includes just threatening a person with harm? It may not seem like a crime to just threaten a person but it is. The same justification is applied when a person acts in a threatening manner, and has weapons. These red flag laws are even popular in republican states. These laws acknowledge that some people pose a threat of harm to others to a degree that their guns can be removed until they are deemed no longer a threat.
Remember rights often conflict. There is the right to life and liberty. And if one person poses a threat to these rights of others then that one person's rights are suspended to defend the right to life.
And let's not ignore that the right to own a gun is conditioned on there being well regulated militias for the safety of the state. So given these conditions are no longer required then the right is severely limited and weak.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I guess where I am worried is what do you have to convince a judge of? You are trying to convince a judge that someone will commit a crime in the future. With an arrest warrant you are trying to give evidence that a crime has been committed.
What kind of actions do you think should be sufficient?
For example example, documented incidents of domestic violence. Specific and creditable threats involving guns. Diognosed anger and impulse control issues with violent fantasies.
All government powers are ripe for abuse.
Continual vigilance is absolutely necessary.
But red flag laws could help reduce the carnage,
& thereby avert the gun grabbers gutting the 2nd
Amendment.
They pay it occasional lip service, but I see no comprehensive
progress. Qualified immunity has been weakened in some states.
But SCOTUS hasn't even given a clear decision about recording
police. (Several circuit courts have.) So far, only these recordings
appearing on youtube, & the resulting civil cases against cops &
government have had any real positive effect.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
There are already laws for threats. What criteria will there be to move forward with taking away gun rights to a citizen? I am not necessarily against ta red flag law, no one is talking about how they would be implemented. Like I said it has a high potential for abuse.
I agree, I am trying to find out what the criterial will be to remove a gun right.
The supreme court disagrees with you.
I'm frustrated that the good policies that Democrats put forth to help reform problems do not get republican support. This is not the fault of Democrats, it is the fault of republicans whose vision for America is more authoritarian and less justice. From gun access to police reform to social investment, Republicans don't want it. Unless citizens stop voting for politicians who have a toxic vision for America what we have today is as good as it's going to be, and likely worse.
The courts have been packed by conservatives, and they seem more interested in some idealistic and unrealistic vision for the USA than being a stable and regulated society. I say regulated to include police, where citizens rights (not just gun rights) actually mean something.
I doubt much will be changed in the USA until bad things happen to more and more people, from the money you have in your pocket for a car you're buying that gets confiscated to more kids being murdered in their class rooms. Our system needs to emphasize responsibility. If you aren't a responsible citizen, your rights get limited, and that means cops, too. You're a bad cop, you lose your job.
Given that people need to demonstrate they are responsible citizens they should make sure they understand what that means. I see many conservatives talk about rights, but almost nothing about the responsibility those rights require of a citizen. There's no right to be irresponsible. And too many people are treating rights as something they don't have to respect or account for. Rights are a relationship between the individual and the society they are part of. The "it's all about me" attitude is more and more a problem.
Do you disagree that rights require a person understand themselves and their place in a society, and that it is a responsibility?
Well the repeal of the 2nd Amendment would do it. It's one sentence. And the first part states that the right exists for well regulated militias for the security of the state. Trying to carve out a right that has to cut up a sentence to accomplish that is very questionable.
The conservatives do. Scalia's Heller opinion made a new right by breaking the 2nd amendment into two pieces, and ignoring the first part of it. This is why we need to be careful who we elect, and who gets nominated. This whole originalist interpretation is very weak to my mind. We live in 2022, not 1789. Different world, different weapons.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I agree that acts of domestic violence, psychological diagnoses from qualified experts that warrant temporary gun removal seem good to me. The specific and credible threats is a little more vague. What is your criteria for being specific and credible?