"Beto O'Rourke's proposal of a mandatory "assault weapon" buyback, aka, gun confiscation."
Proposed at the Democrat debate.

Pretty easy to do in Hawaii.
Everybody registers their guns here.
I'm curious how many HPD( yours and mine)will
show up at your door and demand your
AR, AK, or 10/22?
They have anything better to do?
You are easy targets,  you obey the laws.
Real criminals shoot back.
Aloha.

I would say 100% of HPD will comply with "orders".  Not only if there was a buy back, but also any red flag orders as well.

Man in WA recently had his guns confiscated.  He posted a pic of himself holding an AK and talking about the Joker movie.  He didn't say he was going to do anything violent.  But they looked at previous tweets and found some in 2017 when he was "threatening" females.  They didn't use his Joker tweet for reasons of red flag, but the 2017 tweets.

What’s sad about it is that 90% will cower at the presence of the “pigs” and give them up without so much as a “f-off you, pig” to their faces. I’m getting all mine outta here with just a shotgun or two so I can shoot trap and skeet. HPD told me in a letter that they could care less where I take my guns as long as it was out of the state, no paperwork was needed as long as they’re gone. If they ever come to my home while I’m still here and ask where all my registered firearms are I’ll shove the letter in their faces and tell them to go find them back in mainland.

Just remember law enforcement in any form are not you friends....

I would say 100% of HPD will comply with "orders".  Not only if there was a buy back, but also any red flag orders as well.

A "buy back" (confiscation) is a bit different than a red flag order though.

A "buy back" (confiscation) is a bit different than a red flag order though.

Yeah, 1 law abiding are forced to drive to the police station or become a felon by a certain date which is known by the law abiding citizen.

Other SSD kicks the door in and takes it from its legal owner with zero notice to said owner.

A few police unions stated they will not participate in any buy back if beto wins presidency. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There is zero chance of Beto getting elected so no need worry about his stupid plan which also violates more than
just the 2nd amendment.

The dark side of this is that Beto calls for the mandatory buyback and as far reaching policies as "he" can think of. Everyone gets riled up and says no to that, but a little while later, halfway there is acceptable. It's the Cass Sunstein method of 'Nudge". Throw a fit on the outrageous and then the "sane" one comes in to save the day with a "reasonable" proposal and everyone loves it...

F government

Yeah, 1 law abiding are forced to drive to the police station or become a felon by a certain date which is known by the law abiding citizen.

Other SSD kicks the door in and takes it from its legal owner with zero notice to said owner.

A few police unions stated they will not participate in any buy back if beto wins presidency. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The difference is that an officer doesn't always know the content of a judge's order. The judge issues an order and the cops make an arrest based on the order without knowing the facts and circumstances of the case. That's where the difference lies, any officer can know confiscation is unconstitutional but your average patrol officer may not know that the judge's order to take a firearm was constitutional or not. For example, a cop stops a speeder and the computer shows there is a warrant for an arrest. The cop doesn't research the case first and determine whether the judge was right, they just act on good faith on the judge's order.

The difference is that an officer doesn't always know the content of a judge's order. The judge issues an order and the cops make an arrest based on the order without knowing the facts and circumstances of the case. That's where the difference lies, any officer can know confiscation is unconstitutional but your average patrol officer may not know that the judge's order to take a firearm was constitutional or not. For example, a cop stops a speeder and the computer shows there is a warrant for an arrest. The cop doesn't research the case first and determine whether the judge was right, they just act on good faith on the judge's order.

This is where the problem is. Im sure red flag has come up recently amongst  hpd. So when an order is given after jan 1, maybe they should question it. Or have higher ups state they will not enforce an unconstitutional law and stand up for the people.

And everyone knows our judges will hand them out like candy and a rubber stamp. See FL as an example. Since it was enacted, 2600 people have been red flagged.  Law abiding with zero felonies had their guns and ammo taken away.

How many of these orders took guns out of the hands of drug dealers, gang memebers, or any other felons? Im betting slim to none.

And im willing to assume that to get any guns back, the permit to acquire process will have to be done all over again. And no ammo will be returned or monetary comensation given.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is where the problem is. Im sure red flag has come up recently amongst  hpd. So when an order is given after jan 1, maybe they should question it. Or have higher ups state they will not enforce an unconstitutional law and stand up for the people.

And everyone knows our judges will hand them out like candy and a rubber stamp. See FL as an example. Since it was enacted, 2600 people have been red flagged.  Law abiding with zero felonies had their guns and ammo taken away.

How many of these orders took guns out of the hands of drug dealers, gang memebers, or any other felons? Im betting slim to none.

And im willing to assume that to get any guns back, the permit to acquire process will have to be done all over again. And no ammo will be returned or monetary comensation given.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If the beat officer gets to read the whole case before serving the order then the argument can be made that he/she can see the case and know the order is not lawful but if all the officer has access to is a plain order from a judge that does not provide details then it is harder to say they should know it unconstitutional as all they would have is the judge's order. I think that's where the good faith argument comes in.

I don't know where you get the idea that ammo will not be returned. Does a red flag order even confiscate ammo at all?

Yes ammo and it wont be returned or monetary compensation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

When an arrest warrant is executed, there is a charge/conviction listed as to the legal justification for the warrant. The Cops need to know what they are walking into when they execute warrants.  Searching a gang member's apartment for drugs or guns is a little different than placing a soccer mom under arrest for failing to appear for jury duty.

When a "red flag" warrant is executed, there can be no criminal statute or conviction listed since there has been no crime committed.  The only legal justification on the warrant would be the statute that permits confiscating guns.  The Cops don't have to know the details of the case, as in what the reported triggering behavior or worrisome comments were.  If the Cops are going to refuse to execute red flag warrants, it'll be for ALL warrants issued under the red flag statute.

It'll be pretty obvious to any officer executing a firearm confiscation order that it's red flag related.  No associated arrest, no criminal charges, no criminal convictions. 

It's pre-crime in its most unconstitutional form -- they will take your guns before you commit any crime even though they have no psychics predicting you will.

When an arrest warrant is executed, there is a charge/conviction listed as to the legal justification for the warrant. The Cops need to know what they are walking into when they execute warrants.  Searching a gang member's apartment for drugs or guns is a little different than placing a soccer mom under arrest for failing to appear for jury duty.

When a "red flag" warrant is executed, there can be no criminal statute or conviction listed since there has been no crime committed.  The only legal justification on the warrant would be the statute that permits confiscating guns.  The Cops don't have to know the details of the case, as in what the reported triggering behavior or worrisome comments were.  If the Cops are going to refuse to execute red flag warrants, it'll be for ALL warrants issued under the red flag statute.

It'll be pretty obvious to any officer executing a firearm confiscation order that it's red flag related.  No associated arrest, no criminal charges, no criminal convictions. 

It's pre-crime in its most unconstitutional form -- they will take your guns before you commit any crime even though they have no psychics predicting you will.

You are assuming that all of this information is indicated on the warrant.

Maybe it is and the cop can tell but maybe very little is given. There could be a risk that the judge's order was entirely justified and the officer refuses on just the label of red flag, in which case the officer would have a hard time defending his decision to refuse the order. Patrol officers aren't constitutional scholars as much as we would like them to be so I think it is a little harsh to put this entirely at the feet of your average cop.

You are assuming that all of this information is indicated on the warrant.

Maybe it is and the cop can tell but maybe very little is given. There could be a risk that the judge's order was entirely justified and the officer refuses on just the label of red flag, in which case the officer would have a hard time defending his decision to refuse the order. Patrol officers aren't constitutional scholars as much as we would like them to be so I think it is a little harsh to put this entirely at the feet of your average cop.

"Maybe" is not a valid argument.

I've looked at samples of arrest warrants. There is a line for the offense (code #) and a separate section for a more complete description.  There will be more information in the warrant application and affidavit, but the specific crime/justification for the warrant is listed on its face.

Cops are not robots. They are given information they need to know when arresting people.  Warrants are not given to any street cop to execute. They are sent to a warrant service office, usually at the Sheriff's office.  They, in turn, can enlist a street cop's assistance, but the warrant has to be in hand to be given to the person being arrested, property searched, or property seized.

You are assuming that all of this information is indicated on the warrant.

Maybe it is and the cop can tell but maybe very little is given. There could be a risk that the judge's order was entirely justified and the officer refuses on just the label of red flag, in which case the officer would have a hard time defending his decision to refuse the order. Patrol officers aren't constitutional scholars as much as we would like them to be so I think it is a little harsh to put this entirely at the feet of your average cop.

good thing you are not an average cop...

"Maybe" is not a valid argument.

I've looked at samples of arrest warrants. There is a line for the offense (code #) and a separate section for a more complete description.  There will be more information in the warrant application and affidavit, but the specific crime/justification for the warrant is listed on its face.

Cops are not robots. They are given information they need to know when arresting people.  Warrants are not given to any street cop to execute. They are sent to a warrant service office, usually at the Sheriff's office.  They, in turn, can enlist a street cop's assistance, but the warrant has to be in hand to be given to the person being arrested, property searched, or property seized.

"maybe" was never an argument, it is considering both sides of the issue in the face of the unknown. If I assume to know what a red flag order from a judge looks like I have a very real chance at being wrong.

Warrants are regularly given to street cops to execute. The Sherriffs also do serve them as well. Street cops serve all sorts of judges orders from arrest warrants to restraining orders to mental health detainment orders, to penal summons.

good thing you are not an average cop...

Is that a compliment?

Is that a compliment?

perhaps one might be inclined to possibly perceive that might be true

"maybe" was never an argument, it is considering both sides of the issue in the face of the unknown. If I assume to know what a red flag order from a judge looks like I have a very real chance at being wrong.

Warrants are regularly given to street cops to execute. The Sherriffs also do serve them as well. Street cops serve all sorts of judges orders from arrest warrants to restraining orders to mental health detainment orders, to penal summons.

HOw many gun consification warrants have been issued in the past few years?  The most recent related one was the pakalolo letter many got.  But even those said they had to surrender firearms by X date.  Not kicking the door in at 3am. 

I'm willing to bet that that number will increase 10 fold starting Jan 1st.  So any LE with some problem solving skills can assume that "hey this might be a red flag warrant".  Maybe we should dig deeper or not enforce.  But then again, everyone will blindly follow, so it's just wishful hopes.