But didn’t you say that if a judge makes a bad call in light of little evidence that the judge should be held accountable? How are they to be held accountable if what you just said is true? Isn’t that why we have a constitution?

There are a few ways in which a judge can be removed or disciplined.

They can be a impeached, voted out (not in Hawaii), or a complaint could be filed with the judicial conduct commission. 

Schummer has a red flag complaint after his comments to the scotus by GOA. People have been flagged for less.

Lets see how it plays out, or are dems still immune from consequences?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I am guessing the judge will throw that out before it goes everywhere but it would be very interesting if he had to show up to court.

I am guessing the judge will throw that out before it goes everywhere but it would be very interesting if he had to show up to court.

That's not how red flags work.  Schummer would not know he is under suspicion until SSD shows up at his door.  But thanks to the internet and info released by FPC, he knows.  So consider himself lucky.

One set of laws for the insiders. Another set for everyone else. Some animals are more equal than others.

Duncan Lemp. Warrant has no mention of why he was red flagged. No one else in the home has a record.

He was killed while sleeping says his families atty.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Edit
PD says Duncan confronted the officer who shot him. Bodycam requested by family.

That's not how red flags work.  Schummer would not know he is under suspicion until SSD shows up at his door.  But thanks to the internet and info released by FPC, he knows.  So consider himself lucky.

That is how red flags work, at least not here, each place has their own set of rules. A judge doesn't have to grant the order just because someone makes a claim. The judge still has to find a certain amount of cause to issue the order.

When I said show up for court I was referring to the hearing after the initial seizure, the hearing where a judge makes the decision whether to restrict the firearms for a longer period.

Duncan Lemp. Warrant has no mention of why he was red flagged. No one else in the home has a record.

He was killed while sleeping says his families atty.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Edit
PD says Duncan confronted the officer who shot him. Bodycam requested by family.

I think I saw a post about this on instagram but the narrative seemed rather hard to believe so I was questioning its accuracy. Interested to see what else comes out of this one.

I think I saw a post about this on instagram but the narrative seemed rather hard to believe so I was questioning its accuracy. Interested to see what else comes out of this one.

Body cam footage will be key. Did PD shoot from outside the home into the bedroom of a sleeping, law abiding citizen, or not.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That is how red flags work, at least not here, each place has their own set of rules. A judge doesn't have to grant the order just because someone makes a claim. The judge still has to find a certain amount of cause to issue the order.

When I said show up for court I was referring to the hearing after the initial seizure, the hearing where a judge makes the decision whether to restrict the firearms for a longer period.

You mean judges have 1 very weak cause to warrant a red flag.  Cause u know, better safe than sorry.

And workers trained to follow orders without question put to work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You mean judges have 1 very weak cause to warrant a red flag.  Cause u know, better safe than sorry.

And workers trained to follow orders without question put to work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

A police officer has to find probable cause to take away your rights. The judge also has to find probable cause in order to grand an initial red flaw seizure of someones firearms. You think probable cause is very weak?

On top of that, the judge has to find a higher level of proof to keep the guns away from you for a year.

Body cam footage will be key. Did PD shoot from outside the home into the bedroom of a sleeping, law abiding citizen, or not.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If there was any body camera footage yes it would be key.
I just find it hard to believe an officer would just shoot into the wall of a dark bedroom for no good reason. Not impossible of course though, just hard to believe.

Like this one?



https://fox6now.com/2019/07/30/bodycam-caught-a-deputy-shooting-a-man-in-his-south-carolina-home-contradicting-initial-police-narrative/

A police officer has to find probable cause to take away your rights. The judge also has to find probable cause in order to grand an initial red flaw seizure of someones firearms. You think probable cause is very weak?

On top of that, the judge has to find a higher level of proof to keep the guns away from you for a year.

"probably cause"?  Like the crossing guard who got red flagged?  Or the father who's kids where helping clean out his home and saw his collection of weapons?  Or the Marine vet who said if he is attacked, he will fight back?  Or the WA man who "looked at his neighbors funny" from inside his home through his window? Like all of those?  Yet drug raids need more evidence.

Yet drug raids need more evidence.

that is so fk'd up.  well, we got the ACLU to thank for that, they go to bat for drug dealers and illegals, but stand aside and give wide berth for assault on the 2nd Amendment.  frickin' hypocrites.  I mean, the ACLU, in concept, is well-intentioned, but in real life, off-the-rails WMD-destructive to traditional American values.  they should be labeled as a terrorist organization.

JMHO.

"probably cause"?  Like the crossing guard who got red flagged?  Or the father who's kids where helping clean out his home and saw his collection of weapons?  Or the Marine vet who said if he is attacked, he will fight back?  Or the WA man who "looked at his neighbors funny" from inside his home through his window? Like all of those?  Yet drug raids need more evidence.

Probable cause.
I don't know what other states laws say, i am just telling you what is in our law.

Probable cause.
I don't know what other states laws say, i am just telling you what is in our law.

And I'm informing you that if many other states have all done similar things, do you really think HI will be any different?  That's like voting for the same type of politicians and expect a different result.

And I'm informing you that if many other states have all done similar things, do you really think HI will be any different?  That's like voting for the same type of politicians and expect a different result.

You are talking about a different issue. The law has a defined level of proof needed but you are asking how a judge will apply it which is a valid question but a separate one that is not unique to red flag laws. The language of the law is different from how a judge or police officer applies the law. If a judge or an officer abuses their power that doesn't make the law bad.

Probable cause is needed for an officer to make an arrest, is that also a very weak amount of proof? A judge still can rule on whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?

You are talking about a different issue. The law has a defined level of proof needed but you are asking how a judge will apply it which is a valid question but a separate one that is not unique to red flag laws. The language of the law is different from how a judge or police officer applies the law. If a judge or an officer abuses their power that doesn't make the law bad.

Probable cause is needed for an officer to make an arrest, is that also a very weak amount of proof? A judge still can rule on whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?

I'm saying that the judges have lowered the bar when needing probable cause for red flag confiscations.  Refer to all my examples of real events that have taken place.  And assume that there is no more to my stories that I explained. And we are talking about legal gun owners.  These are people who have never committed a felony in their life.  So to lower the bar, makes no sense.  Why don't they use the same minimal evidence when busting drug houses or dealers?  If we applied red flags to a drug house, all it would take is someone to overhear that a home sells drugs.  A judge would grant a warrant and SSD can go there and take all the drugs if found in the home.  Not arrest anyone inside the drug house, but tell them to come to court later to have their trial. So drug dealers have more rights than law abiding citizens.

To address your 2nd paragraph " Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?" The answer is yes.  But again, refer to above when I mention judges have also lowered the bar when needing compelling evidence to take away someones 2a right.

Another issue is that person doesn't even get a hearing to dispute the red flag, until after SSD shows up at their door and takes all their firearms and ammo.  So it's like a 2 step process, which violates the 4th amendment (due process).

I'm saying that the judges have lowered the bar when needing probable cause for red flag confiscations.  Refer to all my examples of real events that have taken place.  And assume that there is no more to my stories that I explained. And we are talking about legal gun owners.  These are people who have never committed a felony in their life.  So to lower the bar, makes no sense.  Why don't they use the same minimal evidence when busting drug houses or dealers?  If we applied red flags to a drug house, all it would take is someone to overhear that a home sells drugs.  A judge would grant a warrant and SSD can go there and take all the drugs if found in the home.  Not arrest anyone inside the drug house, but tell them to come to court later to have their trial. So drug dealers have more rights than law abiding citizens.

To address your 2nd paragraph " Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?" The answer is yes.  But again, refer to above when I mention judges have also lowered the bar when needing compelling evidence to take away someones 2a right.

Another issue is that person doesn't even get a hearing to dispute the red flag, until after SSD shows up at their door and takes all their firearms and ammo.  So it's like a 2 step process, which violates the 4th amendment (due process).

In many of the cases I have seen publicized as being overstepped by the judges I haven't seen anything that gives the whole story, just an allegation by the accused and their lawyer. I rarely see the content of the statement made by the accuser mention in the article. To be objective that just isn't enough for me to weigh in on. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying judges haven't or aren't lowering their standards, I am sure it has happened but that really is a problem with the judges, not the language of the law. We need a way to hold judges responsible though that is difficult because the system is also set up so that judges are not at the whim of a quickly changing mind of the public of politician. (double edged sword)

I am just speculating here but maybe probable cause is evaluated differently in a civil case than a criminal case. I don't see why it should be but that might explain this. Maybe we just need one higher up case where the appeals court rebukes a lower court judge about ruling when there was no probable cause.

As for the accused not being able to to attend the initial hearing, I understand the grievance but surely you must understand that this would greatly limit its effectiveness. I mean if I were planning on shooting up some place and I got a summons to show up for court next week because the government was thinking about taking my guns away what good would that do? I would just move my mass murder plot timeline up before the hearing. Can you imagine the FBI telling a terrorist planning a bombing to show up to court next week to have a hearing on whether or not to charge him with a crime? These are the types of situations where giving advanced notice and waiting are potentially disastrous.