Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What I see happening is a man making $15 a hour, going thru a divorce and his soon to be exwife wants to punish him so she throws the red flag. Where is he going to come up with the money to for a law

For a taste of the future Google SWATTING and read the latest that happened to the fortnite kid. It's clear all it takes nowadays is a "claim" to get authorities all hot bothered and knuckle deep

The death penalty is one of those things you have to get right every single time. If not, you are just another murderer and you will have some explaining to do if you have a hand in it. (I believe) It

38 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

If taking guns is not important, what do you want red flag laws for?

I don’t want a Red Flag Law. All I have done is point out that it may give you specifics on due process you don’t have now. The cops are going to take your guns if they want to; they don’t need Red Flag laws to do that. If they are seized as evidence in a criminal case, it is clearly defined when you will get them back; when the court says you can have them back. It a mental health case it isn’t as clear cut.

I just keep seeing all the drama and people scared that the cops will be able to seize their guns if these Red Flag laws pass. They can do that right now.

These Red Flag laws and enhanced background checks (doing away with private sales without a background check) are just some legislators way of doing “something” without impacting law abiding voters.

Let me repeat….I don’t want Red Flag laws, I would like to see due process even though it will have zero impact on me. Legislation specifying how and when these things will happen is the only way to have due process.

If you want to keep things the way they are now; that’s fine, tell your legislators that. They will be happy to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

I'm sorry, but just where did Dave say that he wanted Red Flag laws?

 

9 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

Lets post the text of what I said....

On 8/13/2019 at 11:36 AM, DaveTN said:

We are in 100% agreement. I have asked for clearly defined Due Process in any proposed legislation. Hours or days , as I stated before, not weeks or months. And that if a person is found to be competent; their weapons will be return immediately with no further obstacles. (No transfers, proof of ownership, etc.)

I support this because it would offer protections we do not have now. Failure to act will result in cops doing whatever they want, whenever they want, and the only people that can do anything about it will be the people that can throw money at the issue. As a former cop I have seen this firsthand. (Not in this state, I don’t know what the procedures are in this state and it doesn’t appear many others do either.)

Edited by DaveTN
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t want a Red Flag Law. All I have done is point out that it may give you specifics on due process you don’t have now. The cops are going to take your guns if they want to; they don’t need Red Flag laws to do that. If they are seized as evidence in a criminal case, it is clearly defined when you will get them back; when the court says you can have them back. It a mental health case it isn’t as clear cut.

I just keep seeing all the drama and people scared that the cops will be able to seize their guns if these Red Flag laws pass. They can do that right now.

These Red Flag laws and enhanced background checks (doing away with private sales without a background check) are just some legislators way of doing “something” without impacting law abiding voters.

Let me repeat….I don’t want Red Flag laws, I would like to see due process even though it will have zero impact on me. Legislation specifying how and when these things will happen is the only way to have due process.

If you want to keep things the way they are now; that’s fine, tell your legislators that. They will be happy to hear it.

Thanks for clarifying.

When bersa said he didn't have a problem with red flag laws and you responded in agreement, I came to the wrong conclusion.

For the record, I don't want to keep things the way they are now. I want to follow the Constitution as it was written and intended.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

Thanks for clarifying.

When bersa said he didn't have a problem with red flag laws and you responded in agreement, I came to the wrong conclusion.

For the record, I don't want to keep things the way they are now. I want to follow the Constitution as it was written and intended.

If you threaten someone with violence the cops can seize you guns without violating your Constitutional Rights.

To violate your rights the word “unreasonable” would need to be removed from the 4th amendment. Its in there for a reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

If you threaten someone with violence the cops can seize you guns without violating your Constitutional Rights.

To violate your rights the word “unreasonable” would need to be removed from the 4th amendment. Its in there for a reason.

Well, as a former LEO I wouldn't take someone's word for it without any corroborating evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

Well, as a former LEO I wouldn't take someone's word for it without any corroborating evidence. 

Sure, but you don't answer to anyone about it unless a Command Officer questions it. Once it goes to the DA; they do whatever they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

If you threaten someone with violence the cops can seize you guns without violating your Constitutional Rights.

To violate your rights the word “unreasonable” would need to be removed from the 4th amendment. Its in there for a reason.

I'm at the beach having a beer and a drunk puts his hands on my wife and I tell him if he touches her again I will kick his ass and because I threatened the guy the cops go to my house and seize my guns.

Is that what you're saying is Constitutional?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beebee233 said:

I'm at the beach having a beer and a drunk puts his hands on my wife and I tell him if he touches her again I will kick his ass and because I threatened the guy the cops go to my house and seize my guns.

Is that what you're saying is Constitutional?

No.

 

Really??
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

Dave said that he supports due process in any Red Flag law; not the law itself.

I think that's where legislators go off the rail and wreck. Support of language in legislation is support of the legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beebee233 said:

I think that's where legislators go off the rail and wreck. Support of language in legislation is support of the legislation.

I agree with the first sentence. Congress knee-jerks legislation that they never read with the mindset that it'll be fixed later which, of course, never happens. My belief is that the majority of society doesn't give a rip about your right to an AR-15 and will force legislation upon us, so why not apply pressure to ensure that due process in ensured?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

No.

 

Really??
 

Yes, really. The whole topic here as I see it is about a person being deemed a threat to someone else and that being cause to seize guns. Not knives, not chainsaws, not baseball bats, just guns. And then allow this person back into society.

That's right up there with a no firearms sticker on a door.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

I think that's where legislators go off the rail and wreck. Support of language in legislation is support of the legislation.

I absolutely support Due Process. It’s one of the very few things that protect you from the system.

6 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

Yes, really. The whole topic here as I see it is about a person being deemed a threat to someone else and that being cause to seize guns. Not knives, not chainsaws, not baseball bats, just guns. And then allow this person back into society.

That's right up there with a no firearms sticker on a door.

If the person threatened someone with a chain saw. I would arrest them, seize it and tag it into evidence. If the wife said her husband threatened her with a chainsaw and he was headed off for commitment in the local mental hospital; I would seize the chainsaw if she didn’t want it in the house. Same with knives, baseball bats, or yes….even guns.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I absolutely support Due Process. It’s one of the very few things that protect you from the system.

If the person threatened someone with a chain saw. I would arrest them, seize it and tag it into evidence. If the wife said her husband threatened her with a chainsaw and he was headed off for commitment in the local mental hospital; I would seize the chainsaw if she didn’t want it in the house. Same with knives, baseball bats, or yes….even guns.

So you would seize whatever the threatened person wants you to and only that/those items?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

So you would seize whatever the threatened person wants you to and only that/those items?

If you are trying to get me to say that I would take whatever I felt was required…Okay…

I would seize whatever I felt the need to seize. I would be required to act within the limits of the Constitution, the State Law, and Department Policy. Or in short…Due Process.

As I said before… you can’t handle your own family’s business; so, I was called. If you threatened a family member (or someone else) with violence you would not like what I (or most Police Officers) would have done, you probably would feel like your constitutional Rights had been violated and you were not treated fairly. As recourse there are thousands of Attorneys waiting to hear your story.

I’m only saying that for the people that wonder what happens in these situations. If anyone thinks the cops will be called to someone threatening someone with a gun and there will be a lot of hand wringing on the part of the Officers trying to decide what to do, or court being held on the street; that’s not reality.

Edited by DaveTN
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thng I want in all Red Flag Laws is DUE PROCESS and as of yet I'm not seeing that being discussed even remotely by politicians looking at passing them in their states. Due process evens up the playing field somewhat. At least the person losing their guns knows who filed the complaint so they can provide a defense against the claim filed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

The only thng I want in all Red Flag Laws is DUE PROCESS and as of yet I'm not seeing that being discussed even remotely by politicians looking at passing them in their states. Due process evens up the playing field somewhat. At least the person losing their guns knows who filed the complaint so they can provide a defense against the claim filed.

Doug, I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting seizure of guns based on an anonymous complaint, or a person not being told who made the complaint. Now, an anonymous complaint of a violation of the law is something else. That’s up to the cops to make their own case.

However, I don’t know what’s being suggested for sure because I have not seen any legislation. I heard legislation was proposed here in TN, but when I went to the Legislatures web site; I found nothing. When I asked here; nothing.

So the only intelligent discussions we can have right now are about generalities, or what would happen right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Doug, I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting seizure of guns based on an anonymous complaint, or a person not being told who made the complaint. Now, an anonymous complaint of a violation of the law is something else. That’s up to the cops to make their own case.

However, I don’t know what’s being suggested for sure because I have not seen any legislation. I heard legislation was proposed here in TN, but when I went to the Legislatures web site; I found nothing. When I asked here; nothing.

So the only intelligent discussions we can have right now are about generalities, or what would happen right now.

Thanks Dave. I just got an email from GOA asking that all the GOA members send emails or call and tell Trump not to sign the Red Flag Bill he has laying on his desk and said that the anti-gun people are making a big push after that shooting of police officers in Phili the other day. And again it was done by a felon/Criminal that should not have had a gun in the first place and not a law abiding citizen. Time after time when shootings like that one take place it is done by a criminal but the Anti-Gunners want to punish the law abiding citizens for it. I was sure glad to hear that all of the police officers made it that were wounded. I thought they would have to end up killing him to get him out but he got out unscaved!!! He was actually shooting threw his ceiling trying to kill to officers in the upper level of his house. He was determind to kill police officers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Thanks Dave. I just got an email from GOA asking that all the GOA members send emails or call and tell Trump not to sign the Red Flag Bill he has laying on his desk and said that the anti-gun people are making a big push after that shooting of police officers in Phili the other day. And again it was done by a felon/Criminal that should not have had a gun in the first place and not a law abiding citizen. Time after time when shootings like that one take place it is done by a criminal but the Anti-Gunners want to punish the law abiding citizens for it. I was sure glad to hear that all of the police officers made it that were wounded. I thought they would have to end up killing him to get him out but he got out unscaved!!! He was actually shooting threw his ceiling trying to kill to officers in the upper level of his house. He was determind to kill police officers. 

The best description I have heard of why that guy was not still in jail was because on Monday, Wednesday, Friday we discuss making sure we are protected from violent offenders and they get sent to prison. On Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday we discuss why violent offenders deserve a second chance and we need to let some of them out.

I’ve never changed by view on that. I was disappointed to see Trump roll over for the criminal huggers; but I guess sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do; plenty of conservatives were high fiving letting criminals go when they were parading them around the White House.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines