Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing (Read 12768 times)

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #60 on: November 20, 2023, 07:50:53 AM »
Btw, still waiting for eef to read the ENTIRE HI red flag law and not just the ending part.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2023, 10:14:48 PM »
Btw, still waiting for eef to read the ENTIRE HI red flag law and not just the ending part.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I gave you parts with the due process in it because due process was the topic. Wouldn't make sense to post links to all 12 sections

Here, ill give a few more links, all these sections contain due process aspects.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0063.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0064.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0065.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0066.htm
« Last Edit: November 20, 2023, 10:21:18 PM by eyeeatingfish »

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2023, 11:27:21 AM »
I gave you parts with the due process in it because due process was the topic. Wouldn't make sense to post links to all 12 sections

Here, ill give a few more links, all these sections contain due process aspects.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0063.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0064.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0065.htm
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0066.htm

Have someone read this to you since you are failing to understand there is no due process.  Thanks for playing and proving I'm right. I didn't even have to post the links. Makes my part much less time consuming.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2023, 12:44:07 PM »
Have someone read this to you since you are failing to understand there is no due process.  Thanks for playing and proving I'm right. I didn't even have to post the links. Makes my part much less time consuming.

Botton line: the lawmakers were very careful to avoid using terms like confiscate or seize in the language of the statute.  Even HPD  pussy-footed around it by saying this:

Quote
Reasonable efforts should be made to serve any type of GVPO

and to recover all firearms and ammunition covered by such orders.

Officers shall enforce all valid court-issued GVPOs.
https://www.honolulupd.org/policy/policy-gun-violence-protective-orders/

"Recover."  Yeah.  Right.

Basically, the initial GVPO is granted with only the applicant and their witnesses giving the court their side of the story.  Once the GPVO is granted, there's a hearing scheduled and the respondant (gun owner) notified via serving the order.

What happens, but is glossed over, is the GVPO was issued without the gun owner's knowledge, then the Cops show up to "recover" all his guns and ammo.

Only then will a hearing be held to decide if a one-year GVPO will be granted.

As we all know, even if the respondent prevails in the hearing, they still have to go through the permit process again to retrieve their firearms. 

What's also not included because of the timing of when the law was written is whether or not someone with a CC license will (a) have it revoked as well, and (b) allowed to bypass all the permit BS when they try to "recover" their property.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2023, 01:12:39 PM »
Have someone read this to you since you are failing to understand there is no due process.  Thanks for playing and proving I'm right. I didn't even have to post the links. Makes my part much less time consuming.

It's there, don't know why you can't find it. Perhaps you need reading glasses. Jenga!

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2023, 01:17:55 PM »
Botton line: the lawmakers were very careful to avoid using terms like confiscate or seize in the language of the statute.  Even HPD  pussy-footed around it by saying this:
https://www.honolulupd.org/policy/policy-gun-violence-protective-orders/

"Recover."  Yeah.  Right.

Basically, the initial GVPO is granted with only the applicant and their witnesses giving the court their side of the story.  Once the GPVO is granted, there's a hearing scheduled and the respondant (gun owner) notified via serving the order.

What happens, but is glossed over, is the GVPO was issued without the gun owner's knowledge, then the Cops show up to "recover" all his guns and ammo.

Only then will a hearing be held to decide if a one-year GVPO will be granted.

As we all know, even if the respondent prevails in the hearing, they still have to go through the permit process again to retrieve their firearms. 

What's also not included because of the timing of when the law was written is whether or not someone with a CC license will (a) have it revoked as well, and (b) allowed to bypass all the permit BS when they try to "recover" their property.

Wait, how did you know about this info?  EEF posted that its constitutional and due process is met. He even posted the link to the law, which was only 1 part and didn't even address what I was saying. Then he posted other parts and STILL DIDN'T READ IT CORRECTLY.


Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaahahhaha "CMO, I was wrong, even though I posted various link and thought I was right. For future issues, I will ask someone who's nearest in proximity to me to read stuff aloud to me and explain it.  I appreaciate you letting me play".

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2023, 01:18:34 PM »
It's there, don't know why you can't find it. Perhaps you need reading glasses. Jenga!


Hmmmmmm, flap found it. OOPPPSIIEEE DAISSSSYYY. (In Billy Madison voice) Someone was wrong.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2023, 01:20:47 PM »
Botton line: the lawmakers were very careful to avoid using terms like confiscate or seize in the language of the statute.  Even HPD  pussy-footed around it by saying this:
https://www.honolulupd.org/policy/policy-gun-violence-protective-orders/

"Recover."  Yeah.  Right.

Basically, the initial GVPO is granted with only the applicant and their witnesses giving the court their side of the story.  Once the GPVO is granted, there's a hearing scheduled and the respondant (gun owner) notified via serving the order.

What happens, but is glossed over, is the GVPO was issued without the gun owner's knowledge, then the Cops show up to "recover" all his guns and ammo.

Only then will a hearing be held to decide if a one-year GVPO will be granted.

As we all know, even if the respondent prevails in the hearing, they still have to go through the permit process again to retrieve their firearms. 

What's also not included because of the timing of when the law was written is whether or not someone with a CC license will (a) have it revoked as well, and (b) allowed to bypass all the permit BS when they try to "recover" their property.


The law does not say that a person has to get a permit to purchase when retrieving their firearms after a cancelled GVPO, it just says a criminal background check.
[§134-68]  Return and disposal of firearms or ammunition.  (a)  A county police department shall return any surrendered or removed firearm or ammunition requested by a respondent only after confirming, through a criminal history background check, that the respondent is currently eligible to own or possess firearms and ammunition.

Firearm owners have the option of turning in the firearms later if they are served when they are not in possession, like for example if they are at work.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2023, 01:21:32 PM »

Hmmmmmm, flap found it. OOPPPSIIEEE DAISSSSYYY. (In Billy Madison voice) Someone was wrong.

So you can thank Flapp for finding it for you

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2023, 01:25:42 PM »
Wait, how did you know about this info?  EEF posted that its constitutional and due process is met. He even posted the link to the law, which was only 1 part and didn't even address what I was saying. Then he posted other parts and STILL DIDN'T READ IT CORRECTLY.

You seem to confuse constitutionality and due process, they are not the same thing. Whether the law is constitutional is a separate question from whether the law has due process.

You said there was no due process. I posted the sections that had due process in them. Now you are saying it didn't address what you were saying... moving goalposts.

I am beginning to think you don't understand what due process is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

Uno!

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2023, 01:54:17 PM »
You seem to confuse constitutionality and due process, they are not the same thing. Whether the law is constitutional is a separate question from whether the law has due process.

You said there was no due process. I posted the sections that had due process in them. Now you are saying it didn't address what you were saying... moving goalposts.

I am beginning to think you don't understand what due process is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

Uno!

Due process is in the Constitution Jean. I'll let you figure out which part, hint hint, it's not the 1st or 2nd amendment...

Thanks for trying to turn it around and show how silly ur wrong arguement is.

BTW, you still didn't admit you were wrong. Jean 2.0.

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2023, 01:54:32 PM »
So you can thank Flapp for finding it for you

So you gonna admit you were wrong?

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2023, 09:09:08 PM »
Due process is in the Constitution Jean. I'll let you figure out which part, hint hint, it's not the 1st or 2nd amendment...

Thanks for trying to turn it around and show how silly ur wrong arguement is.

BTW, you still didn't admit you were wrong. Jean 2.0.

I don't lie, that is why I didn't admit I was wrong.

Yes, due process is in the constitution, I didn't say it wasn't. Swoosh

You haven't even shown why it is unconstitutional or lacks due process, you only claim it, wrongly. Maybe because you still don't know what due process means. 

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2023, 08:24:03 AM »
I don't lie, that is why I didn't admit I was wrong.

Yes, due process is in the constitution, I didn't say it wasn't. Swoosh

You haven't even shown why it is unconstitutional or lacks due process, you only claim it, wrongly. Maybe because you still don't know what due process means.

Wow, now you think lying is the same as being wrong? No wonder you think that the constitution and due process aren't part of each other.

Thanks for pushing it back on me Jean and not reading it for yourself. 

Flapp explained why it lacks due process/unconstitutional, your ego isn't allowing you to admit you were wrong.  Maybe you should re-read the ENTIRE red flag law section very slowly again. 

Also, I'm still waiting for you to post another states red flag law that shows is constitutional (ie.due process).

Brystont1

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2023, 08:56:08 AM »
I swooshed CMO because his comments suggest red flag laws with due process are not possible and when I point out they are possible, he switches and asks where they exist. He is changing the parameters of the debate. Do they exist is a different question of whether they can exist.

Not sure if you meant to do this but you basically laid out an argument about whether due process was present based on whether you trusted the judges. Due process does not exist based on whether you (or I) trust the judges. I share your skepticism of the judges but that does not have a bearing of whether the law, as written, contains due process protections or not.

On the previous page I linked to part of the Hawaii red flag law and I illustrated how there is due process in the hearings that are prescribed. I explained how there is a short initial revocation (14 days) followed by a hearing in which the respondent may argue their case. And even after that, the respondent may ask the court for an additional hearing anytime during the year long revocation. This is, by definition, due process.

So just because a judge is present that makes it due process? No trial and guns get taken before you’ve had a chance to even know what’s going on satisfies the components of due process?

changemyoil66

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #75 on: November 22, 2023, 09:53:58 AM »
So just because a judge is present that makes it due process? No trial and guns get taken before you’ve had a chance to even know what’s going on satisfies the components of due process?

I guess to EEF, this is what he calls "due process".  SSD shows up at your door to give you the order and take your guns away at the same time. Then you go to court by 14 days to give your side of the situation. Guilty until you prove youre innocent. Due process.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #76 on: November 22, 2023, 10:48:56 AM »
I guess to EEF, this is what he calls "due process".  SSD shows up at your door to give you the order and take your guns away at the same time. Then you go to court by 14 days to give your side of the situation. Guilty until you prove youre innocent. Due process.

If I've said it once, I'll I've said it 100 times:  If someone is deemed too dangerous to possess guns and ammo, they are too dangerous to be free in society.

Either lock them up during an evaluation, or leave them and their guns alone.

Of course, the red flag law can't possibly be focused on the mental health of a human being and the risk they pose to themselves and/or others.  It's all about the guns and taking them away.

After all, people have a Constitutional right to not be arrested before they've committed a crime.
"How can you diagnose someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder
and then act as though I had some choice about barging in?"
-- Melvin Udall

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #77 on: November 22, 2023, 04:24:14 PM »
So just because a judge is present that makes it due process? No trial and guns get taken before you’ve had a chance to even know what’s going on satisfies the components of due process?

Having a judge present would be part of the due process but not all of it. Due process involves laying out procedures and steps that must be taken to protect an individual's rights. Due process includes the right to present evidence, the right to appeal, the right to a hearing, rules that are set out to give consistent application, etc.

Hawaii's red flag law incorporates these due process steps. Certainly one could make the argument that there is not enough due process in Hawaii's red flag law but what CMO cannot seem to understand is that even if he thinks there is not enough due process protections it is factually inaccurate to say there is no due process in the law.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #78 on: November 22, 2023, 04:26:28 PM »
Wow, now you think lying is the same as being wrong?

Swoosh!

Quote
No wonder you think that the constitution and due process aren't part of each other.

Strawman, swoosh


Quote
Flapp explained why it lacks due process/unconstitutional, your ego isn't allowing you to admit you were wrong.  Maybe you should re-read the ENTIRE red flag law section very slowly again. 

Wrong.

Quote
Also, I'm still waiting for you to post another states red flag law that shows is constitutional (ie.due process).

I never made such a claim.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2023, 04:31:30 PM by eyeeatingfish »

eyeeatingfish

Re: Breakdown of Rahimi SCOTUS gun case hearing
« Reply #79 on: November 22, 2023, 04:30:17 PM »
If I've said it once, I'll I've said it 100 times:  If someone is deemed too dangerous to possess guns and ammo, they are too dangerous to be free in society.

Either lock them up during an evaluation, or leave them and their guns alone.

Of course, the red flag law can't possibly be focused on the mental health of a human being and the risk they pose to themselves and/or others.  It's all about the guns and taking them away.

After all, people have a Constitutional right to not be arrested before they've committed a crime.

I think the problem is people view this through the lens of criminal law. This falls into the realm of mental health law which has a different burden of proof than criminal law so it is difficult to try and apply the standards of criminal law to mental health law.

I have agreed with you in the past though, that if we think the person is too mentally unstable to own a firearm that they should be brought in for a mental health evaluation. It makes no sense to saw someone is mentally dangerous but then not do any mental health assessment.

I do not subscribe to your belief that it is simply about disarming a population. I think that the left genuinely believes they are doing things that will save lives.