• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New bill in Senate

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
310
Location
Planet Earth
Got this in an email from GOA. This is an update to earlier information.

S. 7 Would Allow the very Gun Confiscation Orders that Killed Gary Willis in Maryland
In this day and age, there are few capital crimes in America for which you're likely to ever be executed.

But, if gun grabbers have their way, one of them will be: "BEING A GUN OWNER."

Gun Confiscation Orders (fraudulently sugar-coated as "red flag laws") which have been passed in 13 largely-Leftist states are really scary:
- - In Ferndale, Maryland, 60-year-old Gary Willis was executed by police with a Gun Confiscation Order, when he came to the door at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand. It now turns out that the Gun Confiscation Order was obtained by a vengeful relative who wanted to punish Willis for his political views.
- - In Seattle, Washington, an early report by Fox News showed that Gun Confiscation Orders were being summarily approved in almost every case.
- - In Middlebury, Vermont, prosecutors obtained a Gun Confiscation Order against a kid -- and then, without any statutory authority, used it to strip his law-abiding uncle of his constitutional rights.

All of this shows that, when the government has begun to slide toward authoritarianism, it's really a little too late to expect "the rule of law" to be followed.

Currently, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham has said that he's working with anti-gun zealot Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to craft a Gun Confiscation proposal.

Under the Blumenthal-Graham proposal, states would presumably be bribed to enact statutes which allow police or an angry "ex" to convene "secret courts" to strip gun owners of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The first thing the gun owner would learn about it is when the police knocked on his door in the middle of the night, ready to ransack his house and, if he resisted, to arrest him or shoot him to death.

But even by the fascist standards of New Jersey and California, the federal legislation imposing Gun Confiscation Orders is extreme!

S. 7 would allow Gun Confiscation Orders

S. 7 is currently the only "red flag" confiscation bill to be introduced in Congress. And it is extreme.

To begin with, who can convene a "secret court" where neither the targeted gun owner nor his attorney is allowed to appear?

Under S. 7, ANYONE "related by blood, marriage, or adoption." To be clear, Elizabeth Warren is distantly related to Indians (1/1024th). And all of them would be able to convene a "secret court" under S. 7.

The secret court "hearing" is so perfunctory it can be conducted by telephone. And, although the bill contradicts itself, it's far from clear that written testimony must be under oath.

Predictably, virtually every Gun Confiscation Bill, that has been introduced or passed throughout the nation, implies that the police can ransack your house when they arrive to serve the order in the middle of the night.

In S. 7, the court is mandated to give a "clear statement of instruction" as to what they can or can't do. The search and seizure is supposed to occur "upon issuance of the order." And police are specifically allowed to use "any lawful authority" to search your house and seize your guns.

Using standard Bloomberg tactics of deceit, every Gun Confiscation Bill across the country lists lots of horror stories about things the court CAN consider. But none of these are prerequisites to the relinquishment of your constitutional rights.

Finally, in every Gun Confiscation Bill that we've seen, your "due process" consists of your "right" to spend $10-20,000 to hire a lawyer and expert witnesses and convince a judge he made a mistake. THAT IS NEVER SUCCESSFUL.

And, oh yes, if it were successful, your name has already been sent to NICS; so, good luck on convincing your state to correct the records.

In a gun control movement which is increasingly willing to shred the whole Bill of Rights if it will eliminate gun ownership, Gun Confiscation Orders are the "crown jewel" of repression.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,716
Location
here nc
got a cite for this pontification?

by the way the 'gun confiscation' & 'red flag whatever' are appropriately known as extreme risk protection orders.
 

Griz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
308
Location
, ,
by the way the 'gun confiscation' & 'red flag whatever' are appropriately known as extreme risk protection orders.
gotta dumb it down for some elected officials ; )

I've already sent letters and emails to all of my reps for this legislative session. Kind of a pro 2nd, we're watching what you guys do, notice. Be interesting to see how the freshman J. Hawley does with McCaskill tossed out.

Looking forward to the responses.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Time to call Rand Paul and old Mitch again.

That's the problem with Trump. He hasn't seen a anti gun bill he doesn't like and is actually calling for this type of law in the states if not the fed too.
So republicans feel freer to introduce anti gun bills or work with Dems on anti gun bills
The NRA will likely back it,ike it does NICS and if it gets thru Congress Trump will sign it.

Innocent blood has already been spilled by these immoral unconstitutional laws in states that have them. Much more will be if something like this passes.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
got a cite for this pontification?

by the way the 'gun confiscation' & 'red flag whatever' are appropriately known as extreme risk protection orders.

Catchy name. Extreme risk protection orders. But appropriately they should be called what they are.

Crystal Ball Gun Confiscation Orders.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Protective orders serve a function in society. However, this is America. We were founded on the idea that government’s primary function is the protection of individual Rights. This is why we require Due Process before the state takes away Rights such as Life, Liberty, and property.

Protective orders that result in gun confiscation can be implemented in constitutional ways. I can support such orders if they meet the criteria below, which (IMO) would make them constitutional.

1. Much like PC can justify searches and seizures under the 4A and can justify arrests, PC should be the standard for issuing protective orders. Someone must present, under oath, evidence to a judge who makes a determination whether PC exists to believe that this person presents a danger to self or to others. The judge should then make a decision as to whether that danger rises to the level justifying a temporary removal of the RKBA. If it rises to a level justifying the forceful removal of the guns themselves, then the subject of the order should likely be taken into custody instead.

2. Much like when judges issue warrants on finding PC exists, the hearing to find PC doesn’t include the subject of the warrant or the subject’s attorney. However, after a warrant is served, the subjects have near immediate access to the courts to redress errors/oversteps by the courts. Such should be the case for any existing or new process for issuing protective orders. If anyone has temporarily lost the RKBA due to a protective order, he or she should have access to the courts within days to try to vacate the order.

3. Those who attempt to bring protective orders should be held to a high standard of having and proving cause and of truthfulness. The subject of the warrant should be entitled to civil damages should they demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the person requesting the order did so frivolously or dishonestly. Criminal penalties should also be assessed if the burden of proof of frivolity or dishonesty is sufficient.

4. Implementation of any order to remove the RKBA should generally be served by an officer or two who do not have the authority to enter the premises nor to seize the guns. If the judge is so convinced that the subject of the order presents such a danger that a SWAT team, entry, a search, and seizure is required, then the subject himself or herself should be taken into custody. Under normal circumstances, the subject should merely be notified of the order and that firearms and ammunition should be turned in that day to law enforcement. The officers should offer (not demand) to perform that function at the subject’s door.

The goals of protective orders, much like the goals of search, seizure, and arrest, can be realized constitutionally. I can support any law that implements a constitutional procedure. I cannot support any law that removes someone’s RKBA without Due Process.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
Anyone who supports any form of ex parte violations of our due process and warrant protections located within the US Constitution is no friend of individual liberty.

Emotional concerns are a poor justification to obviate a citizen's constitutional protections without due process and prior notice. Ex parte proceedings are not due process as the US Constitution uses of the term, judicial nitwittery notwithstanding.

Allowing a violated citizen his day in court after the fact is unacceptable and unjustifiable.

Civil and criminal penalties levied against the citizen who provides a false statement will never undo the harm the state has done.

Exposing a citizen to warrant-less arrest for legal acts, even potential arrest for constitutionally protected acts, is repugnant to 4A protections. This is the most concerning aspect of these ERPOs.

The constitution is quite clear, charge the perp with a crime or leave him alone. It should offend the sensibilities of liberty minded citizens that this topic is deserving of any rational discussion.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Constitution already recognizes the possibility of proceedings that could impact the Rights of an individual not present at those proceedings: the issuance of warrants, such as those for search, seizure, or arrest, almost always result from proceedings at which the subject is not present.

The standard is probable cause, not the presence of the subject.

If a judge finds that probable cause exists to believe that a person is a danger to himself or to others, it is reasonable to order the least restrictive usurpation of an individual’s Rights, pending a proceeding during which all sides can be heard.

This is not even unusual constitutionally.

The problem is specifically in laws that allow protective orders to be issued on less than probable cause or that allow non-temporary or wildly overwrought temporary violations of individual Liberty, not in the constitutionality of protective orders in general.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ERPOs are a ex parte violation of our constitutional protections.

Do not conflate the acts of a cop getting a warrant for the purposes of investigating criminal activity with ERPOs. The mere ownership of a firearm, a constitutionally protected act, does not meet the burden enshrined in the 4A to permit the state to violate our 2A via a ERPO.

Discussing ways of doing ERPOs within constitutional bounds is illogical and a affront to individual liberty. Missouri's HB 40 (2019 legislative session) is a "red flag law" that enables anyone to harm a innocent citizen without any evidence that a criminal act has been, is being, or will be perpetrated.

The burden is on the accused (respondent) to prove his innocence, his lawfulness, when has not violated any law.

Threats of criminal and civil sanctions for false statements will not mitigate false statements. All a petitioner has to do is sound convincing and a judge will sign away your rights, your home, your property, your livelihood just in case. Sanctions for false statements never not stop cops from making them, why would a criminal contempt charge affect a liar looking to harm anyone with a false allegation of imminent harm to self or others.

The court can extend the ERPO without any input or notice to anyone.

All a cop has to do is to wave a ERPO in your face to "inform" you that your life is in imminent peril if you do not comply with the ERPO.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Then, by your argument, so are other protective and restraining orders, both of which are generally obtainable with an “ex parte” hearing, but remediable with a second hearing.

The underlying principle is that the Constitution recognizes courts’ abilities to temporarily restrict Rights, including the far more basic Rights of Liberty and property, when probable cause is provided, with no requirement for the subject to be present at the initial hearing.

Anyway, I have made my point and see no reason to belabor it further.

Caveat: I am not saying that the bill before the Senate would pass constitutional muster as I see it, only that it is possible for any system of protection orders to pass—if sufficient protections are built into it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
All ex parte orders are offensive to our constitution. Laws codifying such offenses should not exist.

Reputation, impacts on employment, ect. are not remediated via the courts. There are no number of protections that can be codified into any law that would clean-up the mess the state made.

The courts have allowed "ex parte" when criminal matters are afoot, a warrant. Do not elevate a gross injustice (ERPO) to the level of sound constitutional jurisprudence regarding criminal matters.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,396
Location
White Oak Plantation
The 5A protects the citizenry from ex parte actions by the state. Some may see exceptions as reasonable, whereas The Founders obviously knew better. If a crime is alleged, the state investigates, if no crime has been committed then the state must not act.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
OC for ME has it correct. Red flag laws do away with due process. Allowing an individual who has committed no crime to have their property illegally confiscated. And RTKABA violated.

And just a slight correction .
The RTKABA is as old as man. More basic than owning property

The Owning of property came much later.
However those who think such laws don't violate the RTKABA do have a point though I doubt they realise it.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was replaced long ago when the first restriction on weapons was allowed to be passed.

From that point on what was left was different degrees of the governmentd permission to be armed.
It is a stretch to say a right that had been successfully taken away 100 yrs ago is being violated today.
Red flag is simply government removing more permission.


Until all gun owners wake up to that fact, we will never regain the RTKABA.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,716
Location
here nc
As has been pointed out previously in other threads on this forum, MH professionals have the ability to have citizens put on three day mental health holds without judical due process?

Just saying
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,716
Location
here nc
Solus, then who monitors those MH "officials"?? What efforts will be made to be sure their review is "fair and impartial"?

I'm not holding my breath on that. :rolleyes:
JTHunter2, you seem to be presenting as irrational, displaying extreme anxieties, as well as expressing yourself in gibberish, and getting blue/red in the face with breathing problems!

yes Officer i will will watch them until EMS and the cadre of LEs suited in their swat gear arrive...and yes i will sign the three day hold paperwork.

Fair enough as i truly felt your treatment was impartial...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
As has been pointed out previously in other threads on this forum, MH professionals have the ability to have citizens put on three day mental health holds without judical due process?

Just saying
Mental health " professionals " using the term very loosely, don't show up at your doorstep with a swat team demanding your property because your ex said she thinks your a threat .

Just sayin
 
Top