🔥🔥🔥
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Oh you made a post on great awakening.win? That's a red flag since its a right wing terror site so we must now seize your guns. That's exactly how these red flag laws will be used in 10 years time (maybe less) if let stand. Supreme Court needs to step in and start bitch slappin'
Definitely less. They're already setting the stage for that with their domestic terrorism nonsense.
Yah, no kidding. They've already labeled parents Domestic Violent Extremists for showing up to school boards and saying, "Stop teaching my kids to be transvestites! Teach them reading, writing, and math!"
Like the flip of a switch, every political opponent will be labeled with a red flag.
They are already doing it!
But wait the post says that the supreme court already ruled them unconstitutional
But with Antifa threatening their kids, the justices might change their minds.
Good that means there is precedent for the next round they are trying to pass. They can set them up and the SCOTUS can knock em' down
Always loved this guy
.....polite way of saying kill them and their families.
To the best of my knowledge, SCOTUS has never heard a case on red flag laws. The case this dude refers to was about a 4th amendment unlawful seizure. So many are contending that this case would support striking them down. To the contrary, if you applied it in the context of "red flag" laws, it would appear to simply require a judicial order/warrant. Which is what all of these bogus laws utilize. I would NOT cite this case in a briefing against red flag laws before SCOTUS. Best case, it is inapplicable. Worst case it supports the constitutionality of red flag laws when a judge issues a warrant for seizure.
That case has facts entirely inapplicable to the context of a red flag law. Dude has cops called on him by his wife for asking her to shoot him. Cops took him to the hospital and then returned for his guns. Allegedly misinforming his wife in the process. Then they seized them without a warrant. Plainly, this is a warrantless search/seizure. It is not a red flag law. Even if the purpose was similar.
4th amendment case law requires that if more than one person lives at the house, and any one party present refuses to consent to a search, the police can only do so with a warrant. This is to prevent occupant shopping to obtain consent. In this case, he only consented to go to the hospital if they agreed not to take his shit. In essence, he did not consent to allowing them in there. And that should have ended the discussion.
First circuit held that this was an exigency; that is, a circumstance exempted from requiring a warrant. They called it a "community caretaking" exception. And they justified it by saying police often interact with the public in a "caretaking" and non criminal context. And since this was not the subject of a criminal investigation, a warrant was unnecessary. But that is bogus.
SCOTUS reversed the court because there is no such concept exempting government from needing a warrant to conduct a search and/or seizure.
Warrants are applied for, and granted, all the time where there is probable cause to believe a crime is in progress or about to occur. As such, this case simply does not support the contention that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Only in the sense that if done without a warrant, they would be. The last thing you'd want to do is cite this giving an easy home run to a cucked court hell bent on eviscerating the second amendment.
I have no idea who the idiot was who downvoted you (and did not have the guts to say why), but thank you for bringing some clarity to the discussion.
Happens all the time when you say something contrary to the narrative. Doesn't bother me any. Though it is puzzling...
I came here expecting a post related to fire. Didn't read anything about fire. I feel cheated.
Tactic: Before the latest unconstitutional round of "laws" are struck down (6 mos. / 1 yr) they will try to take our weapons. Typical Marxist behavior.
MOLON LABE MOTHERFUCKERS!!
Did President Trump ever come to his senses when it came to him supporting red flag laws? That's one of the biggest beefs I ever had with him. Don't get me wrong, he is infinitely better than any dem, but his continued support for red flag laws really pissed off a lot of people.
And I know I'll be asked for sauce on this, so;
https://reason.com/2019/08/07/red-flag-laws-leave-gun-owners-defenseless/
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/8/conservative-opposition-mounting-trump-red-flag-la/
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/08/07/trump-considers-red-flag-laws-texas-lawmakers-have-blocked/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/05/trump-backs-red-flag-laws-could-impact-veterans-gun-ownership.html
These laws are Bills of Attainder, which is a punishment of an individual or group of individuals, without the due process of a court trial.
It is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.
I, for one, vote John Cornyn for a tar and feathering and to ride out of town on a rail...