You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Attempt to get 'Red Flag' laws for military
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
Lima Oscar 7
New member
It’s best that I don’t. To do so will create trouble here and get me sanctioned. The Defense Authorization act is an abomination on numerous levels.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We're not here to discuss the entire Defense Authorization Act -- that's outside the purview of this forum. If your comments don't pertain to the red flag provision, please take them to some other site.Lima Oscar 7 said:It’s best that I don’t. To do so will create trouble here and get me sanctioned. The Defense Authorization act is an abomination on numerous levels.
Well.... I'm all for some form of codified due process, but I'm not so sanguine
that clear & present danger/exigent circumstances justify -- don't-be-an idiot --
removal of weapons.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...ve-it-n1269234
xin loi.....
That story is a tragedy mehavey. Megan Montgomery should be alive today. While I generally agree that there should be a process to restrain/disarm a person that poses a “clear and present danger under exigent circumstances,” I believe that process should follow probable cause and the person should be held in custody in addition to taking their firearms away. If a state is to pass a law stating that someone’s firearms can be taken without a hearing, go ahead and give them their full due process and take them before a judge or magistrate to be confined. Seriously I’m not joking. If there is that great of a chance that a person is so dangerous they should be disarmed, it’s not a great leap to say that they should be confined for their own good and the good of society. This usually requires that an overt act has been committed. I’m ok with that being an absolute minimum threshold. Anything other than that, and we’re playing minority report. Almost every state has numerous laws prohibiting domestic violence. These laws vary from communicating threats, to stalking, to assaults. Break one these laws, and you should see a judge. Which is a great time to have a hearing about removing guns from the offender.
Also, that article isn’t a great example of why we need red flag laws. It’s a much better example of why states, law enforcement, judges, and other participants in the criminal justice system should follow existing federal and state laws. The suspect there should be a prohibited person in that he had an active restraining order. He was prohibited under both federal and Alabama laws. There were other laws that could have disarmed him. That article does smack of cops that were protecting a fellow cop though. Which is disturbing. And I’m a cop.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Several years ago, in Connecticut, a state trooper who was going through a divorce ambushed his wife and her attorney as they arrived at the courthouse for the divorce hearing. I don't recall details, unfortunately. I think he was under a restraining order, but I'm not certain. I remember that the wife's attorney (a woman) was seriously wounded but survived. If I remember correctly, I believe the wife was killed.
There was another incident in which a man going through a divorce (or maybe it had been granted) had been barred from possessing firearms, but he got one anyway, and he ambushed and killed his ex-wife while she was attending a concert on the town green.
These red flag laws are a joke. I agree with those who argue that if you can't be trusted to possess a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
There was another incident in which a man going through a divorce (or maybe it had been granted) had been barred from possessing firearms, but he got one anyway, and he ambushed and killed his ex-wife while she was attending a concert on the town green.
These red flag laws are a joke. I agree with those who argue that if you can't be trusted to possess a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed on the streets.
Lima Oscar 7
New member
There is absolutely nothing about Red Flag Laws that is consistent with our constitution or our constitutional republic; nothing.
I agree. If the threat i present is so great that i can have my property seized, then i should be arrested and brought before a Judge. That Judge can then ascertain if i should remain in custody and/or forfeit my right to keep and bear arms.
Let us not forget that is a Constitutionally protected right and should not be taken away lightly. Certainly not based solely on the accusations of a single person without a hearing, due process and my ability to defend myself against the allegation.
Let us not forget that is a Constitutionally protected right and should not be taken away lightly. Certainly not based solely on the accusations of a single person without a hearing, due process and my ability to defend myself against the allegation.
Lets not forget a couple of other things, specific to the military. One is that active duty serving personnel DO NOT have the Constitutional rights a the same way a civilian does.
I don't know the precise legalese but the bottom line is that via your enlistment contract, some of your Constitutional Rights are held in abeyance while you are on active duty. You do not lose the right, its just suspended (which you voluntarily agreed to) and can only be exercised within the frame work provided by the UCMJ.
Another point to keep in mind is that there is a structure for what is and isn't under military jurisdiction. While there are exceptions, generally things that happen off post are not under military jurisdiction. Those things can and usually do have repercussions and penalties under the UCMJ, but in many cases, civil law, takes precedence.
I see no point to any "red flag" law, and even less so to any such thing for the military. If it needs to be done the right officer can just order it. If its for guns off post, its a civil matter and no military red flag law is needed.
Might be wrong, but that's what it seems to me.
I don't know the precise legalese but the bottom line is that via your enlistment contract, some of your Constitutional Rights are held in abeyance while you are on active duty. You do not lose the right, its just suspended (which you voluntarily agreed to) and can only be exercised within the frame work provided by the UCMJ.
Another point to keep in mind is that there is a structure for what is and isn't under military jurisdiction. While there are exceptions, generally things that happen off post are not under military jurisdiction. Those things can and usually do have repercussions and penalties under the UCMJ, but in many cases, civil law, takes precedence.
I see no point to any "red flag" law, and even less so to any such thing for the military. If it needs to be done the right officer can just order it. If its for guns off post, its a civil matter and no military red flag law is needed.
Might be wrong, but that's what it seems to me.