The Truly Insidious Nature of Red Flag Laws - KrisAnne Hall, JD

[EdJames]

Okay, I'll come back to the thread in 2026 or so.  I did some searching before I asked.

It is only 45 minutes, man....  I hope that you will have a spare 45 minutes before 2026, otherwise I worry that you won't make it!!

 

[Jazzhead]

Seriously?  You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...

Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good. 

You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window.  I'm not.  End of conversation.

I support the due process protections advocated by David French, a conservative who I respect.    And there are a number of common situations where due process necessarily comes after the fact.   

[EdJames]

I would be pleased to read a transcript.   I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.

Then pour a finger or two of your favorite single malt and watch it at home tonight.

(Your precious Phillies have the night off!!)

[thackney]

I would be pleased to read a transcript.   I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.

Ditto.  Even if I did, I'm not spending my time this way on any subject.

Any video of length is not going to be watched by me.  In my opinion, if it is worth sharing, it is worth writing down.  I'm not on the internet to watch TV.

[roamer_1]

It is only 45 minutes, man....  I hope that you will have a spare 45 minutes before 2026, otherwise I worry that you won't make it!!

 

One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!

[libertybele]

Yeah something just about like that, except the fines and payments, which you've overlooked.

And most municipalities and counties have a time limit on their responsibility wrt property. So by the time you actually get a shot at getting the gun back, it will probably already have been destroyed.

So by the time you're in 6 months or more, and a few thousand bucks down, you won't get it back anyway. Far better to just go buy another... off the street this time.

No, I didn't forget about the obvious legal fees and fines that will be incurred.  Trying to keep things simple for @Jazzhead   --- but you make a good point -- cheaper to buy another weapon  -- now off the street -- but @Jazzhead must think that the red flag laws and allowing rights under the Constitution to be ignored is going to prevent that.   

[EdJames]

One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!

Indeed.

@thackney, just read Madison's "Property" Essay in the OP and call it a day!!  ;)

[libertybele]

One of the best illustrations she made was toward the reduction of real property for the good of the community... The 'authorities' come and say they are going to have to shorten up your lot by 2 feet on every side... How most folks would throw a hissy over that, but fail to see the very same thing happening to their God given rights... Rights as a real property, an actual possession - Brilliant!

Yes, great example ... well, you know...things change with time...   Indeed, our rights shouldn't.

[Sanguine]

I would be pleased to read a transcript.   I do not have the ability to listen to a lengthy video on my work computer.

No problem.  Come back when you have either read or listened to it. I look forward to your comments.

[thackney]

Indeed.

@thackney, just read Madison's "Property" Essay in the OP and call it a day!!  ;)

I did do that shortly after you posted the link!

Cheers!

[roamer_1]

but @Jazzhead must think that the red flag laws and allowing rights under the Constitution to be ignored is going to prevent that.   

Yeah... He seemed shocked when I told him I bought most of my guns off the back of a truck... Like there is something wrong with that. 

[roamer_1]

Yes, great example ... well, you know...things change with time...   Indeed, our rights shouldn't.

In fact, they don't. That is why it is so important to understand them as natural rights granted by God - Thus removing them to an higher court, above the courts of men.

Principle things - Always true.

And in that, where those rights are infringed, they can only be infringed under the color of law, and not the law itself.

[libertybele]

Ditto.  Even if I did, I'm not spending my time this way on any subject.

Any video of length is not going to be watched by me.  In my opinion, if it is worth sharing, it is worth writing down.  I'm not on the internet to watch TV.

Ok, but you should be able to skim through the video and pick up the pertinent points.

[thackney]

Ok, but you should be able to skim through the video and pick up the pertinent points.

How would you skim through a video?  Fast forward and know in advance when to pause it for the important points?

[Jazzhead]

In fact, they don't. That is why it is so important to understand them as natural rights granted by God - Thus removing them to an higher court, above the courts of men.

Principle things - Always true.

And in that, where those rights are infringed, they can only be infringed under the color of law, and not the law itself.

The natural right is that of self-protection.   There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret.   That is subject to reasonable regulation.

License, register, insure.   As with cars, as with guns.   

[roamer_1]

The natural right is that of self-protection.   There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret.   That is subject to reasonable regulation.

License, register, insure.   As with cars, as with guns.

Fine, then do so in your own dang state and leave mine the hell alone.

People 3000 miles away have no business telling me what to do.

[txradioguy]

The natural right is that of self-protection.   There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret.

Says who?  You?  Some anti Second Amendment politicians in DC?

Shall not infringe is pretty clear around here to everyone but you.  And no where in there does it say how many and of what type of weapons we're limited to own.

That's a Liberal fantasy creation that you've bought into.

That is subject to reasonable regulation.

Define "reasonable regulation".

License, register, insure.   As with cars, as with guns.

Show me the Constitutional right to drive a car.

[roamer_1]

Fine, then do so in your own dang state and leave mine the hell alone.

People 3000 miles away have no business telling me what to do.

And that, BTW, is another extremely important aspect of this conversation. That this is being bandied about as federal law makes me cringe far more than as offered by the various states.

[Bigun]

California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds

https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/?fbclid=IwAR3rIPKiaD4XjZU95N9cqT5D5WyGvihnabev8RlKrwY5XkKe_5lf-uLq7Ko

[Bigun]

The natural right is that of self-protection.   There is no natural right to possess a unlimited quantity of semi-automatic weaponry in secret.   That is subject to reasonable regulation.

License, register, insure.   As with cars, as with guns.

It's really too bad that School of Law you attended spent all of it's teaching time on case law and none on the Constitution.

[austingirl]

@Jazzhead, what do you think of Hall's presentation? 

Surely you didn't come on this thread and make comments without having actually reviewed the information being discussed?  That would be sort of like, well, trolling.

Of course he did.

[XenaLee]

Seriously?  You just stated that the supposed conservatives wanted "roubust" due process ... now your saying it doesn't matter that due process would come after the fact...

Hello, the difference is -- the "proposed suspect" hasn't been caught doing anything, is not suspected of any crime, they are only believed that they may possibly commit a crime that hasn't happened because someone thinks that there is that possibility or perhaps they just have an axe to grind with that person and decided to turn them in for their own good. 

You're willing to push several amendments under our Bill of Rights out the window.  I'm not.  End of conversation.

It's called "moving the goalposts".... and in case you haven't noticed...

the left does that all the time. 

[EdJames]

It's called "moving the goalposts".... and in case you haven't noticed...

the left does that all the time.

Yes!

That is another logical fallacy that he uses:

- Moving the goalposts or (propositum motus), to change the direction or objective of the discussion while it is still in progress...

 

[Jazzhead]

Well,  I listened to the first 12 minutes,  and heard barely a word about red flag laws.   

[libertybele]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776