The reason why this case does not really apply to most red flag and TRO laws is that Rahimi agreed to not have any firearms. Most of the time with TROs the respondent has no choice, the judge sets the terms of the order and the responded has to abide. In other words, Rahimi does not have the same due process challenge that most other people facing gun rights revocation would face.

The speeding analogy wasn't an argument that any restriction of rights is unconstitutional, it was more a rhetorical question about where the line should be drawn as to when someone's gun rights should be revoked. What is a responsible citizen considered to be in terms of the test of whether they are too dangerous to own a firearm? Clearly this right would not be revoked for speeding.


After many mass shootings and domestic violence murders many people, including people here, bemoan how the system failed, how cops or doctors, or family members knew the individual was dangerous but did nothing. But at the same time you are staunchly against any sort of restraining order or red flag law of any kind. You can't bemoan the failure of authorities meanwhile not giving them any powers to act.

Response to 1st paragraph:
In red flag laws, there is no "due process" whether you can keep your guns or not. Same with the title USC and the TRO as Rahimi was awaiting his court date.  For a TRO, 1 is served the papers and unknown to them it was happening.  My friend got a TRO when the Sheriff showed up at his door. But he was off island at the time and had no clue.  Then when they got to court, the days his exgf alleged he threatened her in person, he was again off island.  So the TRO was dismissed.  This is similar to red flag, which we covered. "take the guns first" is the phrase. But then again, you agree that red flags are consitutional, even though there's no due process, so I would figure that you also agree with TRO's.

Paragraph 2
SWOOOOSSHHHHH

Paragraph 3
What we have is a failure of the process. Court dates have been backlogged going on for decades.  Imagine if someone got their court date within a few days instead of weeks/months/even years.  Then due process can be given.

"But at the same time you are staunchly against any sort of restraining order or red flag law of any kind. You can't bemoan the failure of authorities meanwhile not giving them any powers to act." Do you mean me or they as your first sentance states "many people".  I am not 1 of these "many people".  I see if the system failed like the TN church shooting where his dishonorable discharge wasn't logged, which would have prevented the shooter from buying a gun.  I don't blame doctors, cops, or family members, but instead an error.  And same would be for any similar situations as I believe in "due process".  This is what the anti 2a wants you to believe that they "system" failed.  The system is handicapped by politics and orgs like MDA/ET who rather spend money on taking law abiding peoples rights away, instead of spending their money on help for those who need it or a faster court process. What is failing the US is disarming the victims like gun free zones and the anti 2a propoganda that the left pushes.

After many mass shootings and domestic violence murders many people, including people here, bemoan how the system failed, how cops or doctors, or family members knew the individual was dangerous but did nothing. But at the same time you are staunchly against any sort of restraining order or red flag law of any kind. You can't bemoan the failure of authorities meanwhile not giving them any powers to act.

You have that backwards. I don’t want to give them any powers BECAUSE they have shown their failure time and time again with the laws they already have on the books.

You have that backwards. I don’t want to give them any powers BECAUSE they have shown their failure time and time again with the laws they already have on the books.

Let people choose to arm themselves or not.

I didn't answer about the podcast as I didn't listen to it.  As you've never asked me until now if I listened to it, I never felt a need to state so.

I could summarize, but the vids are worth a watch.

Yes, you have to find the vids. It won't be hard if you know how to search, which you do know how to do. Here's a hint, the vids you need have "Rahimi" in the title/search and are from less than 2 weeks old.  Which should be obvious because the oral arguments just began and didn't happen say 1 year ago or 4 years ago.

I asked you before that, but maybe you missed it, no biggie.

Response to 1st paragraph:
In red flag laws, there is no "due process" whether you can keep your guns or not. Same with the title USC and the TRO as Rahimi was awaiting his court date.  For a TRO, 1 is served the papers and unknown to them it was happening.  My friend got a TRO when the Sheriff showed up at his door. But he was off island at the time and had no clue.  Then when they got to court, the days his exgf alleged he threatened her in person, he was again off island.  So the TRO was dismissed.  This is similar to red flag, which we covered. "take the guns first" is the phrase. But then again, you agree that red flags are consitutional, even though there's no due process, so I would figure that you also agree with TRO's.

Paragraph 2
SWOOOOSSHHHHH

Paragraph 3
What we have is a failure of the process. Court dates have been backlogged going on for decades.  Imagine if someone got their court date within a few days instead of weeks/months/even years.  Then due process can be given.

"But at the same time you are staunchly against any sort of restraining order or red flag law of any kind. You can't bemoan the failure of authorities meanwhile not giving them any powers to act." Do you mean me or they as your first sentance states "many people".  I am not 1 of these "many people".  I see if the system failed like the TN church shooting where his dishonorable discharge wasn't logged, which would have prevented the shooter from buying a gun.  I don't blame doctors, cops, or family members, but instead an error.  And same would be for any similar situations as I believe in "due process".  This is what the anti 2a wants you to believe that they "system" failed.  The system is handicapped by politics and orgs like MDA/ET who rather spend money on taking law abiding peoples rights away, instead of spending their money on help for those who need it or a faster court process. What is failing the US is disarming the victims like gun free zones and the anti 2a propoganda that the left pushes.

You cannot make blanket statements about red flag laws in such a manner, I have pointed this out to you before. Each jurisdiction comes up with their own form of red flag laws, they are not all the same. One jurisdiction's laws could have due process while another jurisdiction might not have proper due process procedures in place.

I believe red flag laws can be constitutional. Again, it all depends on what protections are put in place by the specific jurisdiction.

Thank you for clarifying your position. So here is the key questions:
How do we stop these individuals who exhibit "red flags" but have not yet committed a crime but while still protecting their constitutional rights? It seemed like you were getting at court dates being timely. Were you implying that a red flag law gun revocation could be reasonable if the hearing is within a short time period? That is one of my key things for me, someone should get their hearing quickly, like 5 days or something

You cannot make blanket statements about red flag laws in such a manner, I have pointed this out to you before. Each jurisdiction comes up with their own form of red flag laws, they are not all the same. One jurisdiction's laws could have due process while another jurisdiction might not have proper due process procedures in place.

I believe red flag laws can be constitutional. Again, it all depends on what protections are put in place by the specific jurisdiction.

Thank you for clarifying your position. So here is the key questions:
How do we stop these individuals who exhibit "red flags" but have not yet committed a crime but while still protecting their constitutional rights? It seemed like you were getting at court dates being timely. Were you implying that a red flag law gun revocation could be reasonable if the hearing is within a short time period? That is one of my key things for me, someone should get their hearing quickly, like 5 days or something

We covered this already in another thread. I asked you to show which jurisdiction has due process and you didn't come back with anything.  So now you're making a statement again that 1 may have, so I'm asking again to prove it.  Because I"m making a statement that I don't know of any who provide this (due process).  They ALL are take the guns first, due process later.

Red flag or gun confiscation can be constitutional IF the person gets their fair day in court BEFORE any guns are taken away.  And if they are taken away, then the person is also in jail without bail as they are so dangerous that they souldn't be on the streets because they have commited a crime.

Since the USA has more freedoms than other countries, it is very difficult to stop someone who hasn't committed a crime yet.  Which the alternative is do away with gun free zones and let law abiding people carry easily and give people the chance to protect themselves from said dangerous individuals.

We have seen in history that without the freedoms the USA has, governments often abuse that power.  I mean even here in HI during covid, citatons and arrest were made due to a proclamation that is unconstitutional and not law.  Which the news reported 96% of cases were dismissed.  I saw HPD "following orders" and not allowing people to peacefully assemble.  Only to change their mind 20 mins later and allow it, but look for reasons to arrest.  Like not wearing a mask (not law).  I also witnessed 1 good cop not following orders and stating the proclamation is unconstitutional so he won't tell the people he was interacting with what to do.  So overall a 50:1 ratio of following orders.

EEF,

Did you watch Mark Smiths videos?  Thoughts on what the AG statements are?

Also FYI Mark Smith wrote an amicus brief to support the Wolfard lawsuit, the sensitive places lawsuit.

We covered this already in another thread. I asked you to show which jurisdiction has due process and you didn't come back with anything.  So now you're making a statement again that 1 may have, so I'm asking again to prove it.  Because I"m making a statement that I don't know of any who provide this (due process).  They ALL are take the guns first, due process later.

Red flag or gun confiscation can be constitutional IF the person gets their fair day in court BEFORE any guns are taken away.  And if they are taken away, then the person is also in jail without bail as they are so dangerous that they souldn't be on the streets because they have commited a crime.

Since the USA has more freedoms than other countries, it is very difficult to stop someone who hasn't committed a crime yet.  Which the alternative is do away with gun free zones and let law abiding people carry easily and give people the chance to protect themselves from said dangerous individuals.

We have seen in history that without the freedoms the USA has, governments often abuse that power.  I mean even here in HI during covid, citatons and arrest were made due to a proclamation that is unconstitutional and not law.  Which the news reported 96% of cases were dismissed.  I saw HPD "following orders" and not allowing people to peacefully assemble.  Only to change their mind 20 mins later and allow it, but look for reasons to arrest.  Like not wearing a mask (not law).  I also witnessed 1 good cop not following orders and stating the proclamation is unconstitutional so he won't tell the people he was interacting with what to do.  So overall a 50:1 ratio of following orders.

There are more than 38,000 jurisdictions that could enact red flag laws in the U.S., so it might take a minute to sort through all of them…

There are more than 38,000 jurisdictions that could enact red flag laws in the U.S., so it might take a minute to sort through all of them…

How many states have red flag laws as of 2023?

Hint: 22 including The District of Columbia

You can also eliminate Oklahoma from having red flag laws anytime soon.  They passed an "anti-red-flag" law.  So, 22 out of a possible 50.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/red-flag-laws-states

How many states have red flag laws as of 2023?

Hint: 22 including The District of Columbia

You can also eliminate Oklahoma from having red flag laws anytime soon.  They passed an "anti-red-flag" law.  So, 22 out of a possible 50.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/red-flag-laws-states

So red flag laws can only be enacted at the state level?

So red flag laws can only be enacted at the state level?

Yep.  By definition, it can only be enacted at the state level since it requires a state court to issue the order.

Imagine trying to enforce a protection order from one county if the dangerous person lives in a county without red flag laws, but works in another county where they exist.  Messy.  His employer could call the cops, and the cops apply for a protection order, but it'll be meaningless.

How many states have red flag laws as of 2023?

Hint: 22 including The District of Columbia

You can also eliminate Oklahoma from having red flag laws anytime soon.  They passed an "anti-red-flag" law.  So, 22 out of a possible 50.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/red-flag-laws-states

Wow, i thought it was like 12.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

We covered this already in another thread. I asked you to show which jurisdiction has due process and you didn't come back with anything.  So now you're making a statement again that 1 may have, so I'm asking again to prove it.  Because I"m making a statement that I don't know of any who provide this (due process).  They ALL are take the guns first, due process later.

Red flag or gun confiscation can be constitutional IF the person gets their fair day in court BEFORE any guns are taken away.  And if they are taken away, then the person is also in jail without bail as they are so dangerous that they souldn't be on the streets because they have commited a crime.

Since the USA has more freedoms than other countries, it is very difficult to stop someone who hasn't committed a crime yet.  Which the alternative is do away with gun free zones and let law abiding people carry easily and give people the chance to protect themselves from said dangerous individuals.

We have seen in history that without the freedoms the USA has, governments often abuse that power.  I mean even here in HI during covid, citatons and arrest were made due to a proclamation that is unconstitutional and not law.  Which the news reported 96% of cases were dismissed.  I saw HPD "following orders" and not allowing people to peacefully assemble.  Only to change their mind 20 mins later and allow it, but look for reasons to arrest.  Like not wearing a mask (not law).  I also witnessed 1 good cop not following orders and stating the proclamation is unconstitutional so he won't tell the people he was interacting with what to do.  So overall a 50:1 ratio of following orders.

I don't have to show which one has due process protections because I am not making a blanket statement. You are the one suggesting that none of them do. I am pointing out that it is possible to create a red flag law with proper due process. I don't have to prove that some particular jurisdiction did to prove that it is possible.

On top of that, I don't know what you consider to be adequate due process. If you are accused of assault the officer arrests you based on probable cause yet you don't get a hearing before you are arrested. A red flag law deprives you of property, an arrest deprives you of freedom. Accused of a crime is different than being accused of a dangerous mental health condition though. The question has been asked as to why, if the person is dangerous, aren't they admitted to the mental hospital. That is a very fair question but is that preferable instead of a lesser restriction of rights? So even if I list a bunch of jurisdictions that I think have adequate due process protections, you might consider them not adequate.

You say the due process should happen first, but is this practical? If I think someone is going to shoot up a school tomorrow, how effective would it be to have a hearing in two weeks as to whether that person should keep their guns? Even someone brought in against their will on a mental health confinement doesn't get a hearing before they are taken into the mental hospital, they get it later.
I am not a fan of gun free zones but I don't factor that into this issue because there is not much evidence it has any bearing. It is a bandage, not a solution.

EEF,

Did you watch Mark Smiths videos?  Thoughts on what the AG statements are?

Also FYI Mark Smith wrote an amicus brief to support the Wolfard lawsuit, the sensitive places lawsuit.

I have not, I am not familiar with Mark Smith.

I don't have to show which one has due process protections because I am not making a blanket statement. You are the one suggesting that none of them do. I am pointing out that it is possible to create a red flag law with proper due process. I don't have to prove that some particular jurisdiction did to prove that it is possible.

I am making a blanket statement and I cannot prove which ones do have due process as none of them do.  But you stated that one or more may, which is why I asked you to prove it.  Nice try, trying to turn this around again.  All you have to say is "My statement that a red flag law may be constitutional was based on not looking up all of them (23), but a guess.  This guess was wrong".  Also nice goal post moving.

I gotta learn how to bold paragraphs so I don't gotta quote each one.

On top of that, I don't know what you consider to be adequate due process. If you are accused of assault the officer arrests you based on probable cause yet you don't get a hearing before you are arrested. A red flag law deprives you of property, an arrest deprives you of freedom. Accused of a crime is different than being accused of a dangerous mental health condition though. The question has been asked as to why, if the person is dangerous, aren't they admitted to the mental hospital. That is a very fair question but is that preferable instead of a lesser restriction of rights? So even if I list a bunch of jurisdictions that I think have adequate due process protections, you might consider them not adequate.

We already covered in the prior red flag thread when this law was being suggested/passed what is due process AKA constitutional. If you forgot, then go search and read the entire post, especially the part where you suggest it is constitutional.  I am not talking about being arrested, I'm talking about red flag. Nice goal post moving again to try to show you're right. Here's a hint, no one is arrested if a red flag consfiscation is impemented, so you cannot use your arrest example.

You say the due process should happen first, but is this practical? If I think someone is going to shoot up a school tomorrow, how effective would it be to have a hearing in two weeks as to whether that person should keep their guns? Even someone brought in against their will on a mental health confinement doesn't get a hearing before they are taken into the mental hospital, they get it later.
I am not a fan of gun free zones but I don't factor that into this issue because there is not much evidence it has any bearing. It is a bandage, not a solution.

If someone is threatening to shoot a school tomorrow, then aren't there other laws that can be implemented and arrest/detainment can be made? Which means said person has no access to their guns cause they're in jail.  IF red flag were to be highly successful, then that means ALL states that have it must require ALL guns be registered.  Which we all have learned from your prior post that you think registration is constitutional.

Thanks again for playing. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I have not, I am not familiar with Mark Smith.

You should watch the recent Rahimi vids first, then any other ones that catch your eye.  Since he did help with the sensitive places lawsuit here by writing a brief.

I am making a blanket statement and I cannot prove which ones do have due process as none of them do.  But you stated that one or more may, which is why I asked you to prove it.  Nice try, trying to turn this around again.  All you have to say is "My statement that a red flag law may be constitutional was based on not looking up all of them (23), but a guess.  This guess was wrong".  Also nice goal post moving.

I gotta learn how to bold paragraphs so I don't gotta quote each one.

You have looked at the text of the red flag laws of all states and determined that none of them have due process protections?

You avoided the most important question I asked you, what do you define as constitutional due process protections? Just because you think there are not enough due process protections or they don't work as you think they should work does not mean they are unconstitutional.

Hawaii's red flag law does due process protections. Within 14 days of an ex parte order there has to be a hearing for the respondent where the order is either extended for a year or is dissolved. Even if granted, the respondent may petition the court at any time during the 1 year revocation for a hearing to terminate the order.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0066.htm

So apparently you haven't looked at the texts of all the states, you haven't even looked at the due process protections in our own red flag law.
On top of that you continue to argue a strawman, I clearly was talking about the concept of red flag laws but you swoosh in and start asking where they exist. Saying they can exist is not the same thing as saying they do exist... swoosh!

If someone is threatening to shoot a school tomorrow, then aren't there other laws that can be implemented and arrest/detainment can be made? Which means said person has no access to their guns cause they're in jail.  IF red flag were to be highly successful, then that means ALL states that have it must require ALL guns be registered.  Which we all have learned from your prior post that you think registration is constitutional.

Short answer: It depends

Long answer: it would matter what the nature of the comments were. Did the person say they would shoot up a school? Did they say they wanted to shoot up a school? Did they say they had temptations to shoot up a school? Someone may pose an immediate threat to themselves or others without verbalizing the threat. In order to arrest someone on a threatening charge you need to prove a few things: he threat has to be specific and the threat has to be something realistically possible. Absent that you cannot put them in jail but that doesn't mean they are not a danger.

I don't think that registration as a whole is unconstitutional, but thats another topic.