Tennessee becomes 20th state to sign constitutional carry into law.

[gregr]

Well, that's a great missive about Jesus and Adams, but you never explained why, "the so called "red-flag" laws are very, very CLEARLY a constitutional breach".

Because there is in fact due process, I don't see it as un-constitutional.

You obviously don`t understand what makes up Due Process. It is NOT Due Process to have your things taken and be taken into custody, THEN allow authorities to determine if there is an issue. Due Process happens BEFORE your rights and your freedom are taken.

 

[gregr]

It has to go before a judge and get approved.
Either beforehand or if an officer seizes the weapon/weapons I believe it has to go in front of a judge within 48hrs, the officer has to articulate his reasoning and those reasoning have to be legit.

After the fact is NOT Due Process. Due Process happens BEFORE property and freedom are taken.

 

[Jaybird1980]

After the fact is NOT Due Process. Due Process happens BEFORE property and freedom are taken.

An officer cannot take someone's weapons at will. There are conditions that have to be met if they are going to seize a weapon before a judge orders it. The language was changed in Indiana in 2019 and is better than it was prior to that. I still don't fully agree with it, but it's better than it was and that's a step in the right direction.

 

[femurphy77]

This is awesome news as the Mrs. and I will be retiring to Tennessee after the first of the year.
I was hoping Indiana would do the same, but that turned out to just further my disappointment with our state leadership.

We're thinking of more southerly latitudes ourselves, hmmm. . . . . .

 

[DadSmith]

An officer cannot take someone's weapons at will. There are conditions that have to be met if they are going to seize a weapon before a judge orders it. The language was changed in Indiana in 2019 and is better than it was prior to that. I still don't fully agree with it, but it's better than it was and that's a step in the right direction.

Obviously it didn't work the kid that did the shooting at FedEx was red flaged then went and bought 2 rifles after and NICS allowed it. So did the state fail to report it? Or did the FBI allow him to buy 2 more firearms in hopes he would do what he did to further gun control legislation? Right now imo the FBI isn't any better than the KGB. I would not put anything past any alphabet agency at this point.

The push for communism is to great for a lot of things to be just happening on their own. The Bolsheviks Red Terror activities it seems like to me or building to that point.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Obviously it didn't work the kid that did the shooting at FedEx was red flaged then went and bought 2 rifles after and NICS allowed it. So did the state fail to report it? Or did the FBI allow him to buy 2 more firearms in hopes he would do what he did to further gun control legislation? Right now imo the FBI isn't any better than the KGB. I would not put anything past any alphabet agency at this point.

The push for communism is to great for a lot of things to be just happening on their own. The Bolsheviks Red Terror activities it seems like to me or building to that point.

Those questions definitely need asked.
Since they kept the shotgun I would assume the Laird Law was used. I do believe that is now supposed to be reported (never used to be reported). That would indicate somebody dropped the ball, now is the time to find out where. Who deserves the blame, FBI, IMPD(not sure if they responded originally) computer system, paperwork sitting on a desk somewhere? I sure hope we get those answers, but I doubt that we will. There will be fingers pointing in multiple directions I imagine.

 

[gregr]

An officer cannot take someone's weapons at will. There are conditions that have to be met if they are going to seize a weapon before a judge orders it. The language was changed in Indiana in 2019 and is better than it was prior to that. I still don't fully agree with it, but it's better than it was and that's a step in the right direction.

Trampling anyone`s constitutional rights isn`t a "step in the right direction". Period. Perhaps it`s not "quite" as draconian as before, but Due Process isn`t after the fact, it is BEFORE a damned thing gets done. These so called, red-flag laws are entirely unconstitutional. They ALL have to go.

 

[JettaKnight]

You obviously don`t understand what makes up Due Process. It is NOT Due Process to have your things taken and be taken into custody, THEN allow authorities to determine if there is an issue. Due Process happens BEFORE your rights and your freedom are taken.

Obviously, I don't understand.

 

[gregr]

Obviously, I don't understand.

Finally...we agree...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Trampling anyone`s constitutional rights isn`t a "step in the right direction". Period. Perhaps it`s not "quite" as draconian as before, but Due Process isn`t after the fact, it is BEFORE a damned thing gets done. These so called, red-flag laws are entirely unconstitutional. They ALL have to go.

Greg, I get what you're saying. Your comments comparing the 1950s and today are perhaps half correct, in that yes, there has been a wholesale change from us being, by and large, a God-fearing community as a nation, to a nation more oriented toward hedonism. I do not think that that alone, however, has caused the moral decay, though it has contributed, without question.

The question I posed to you, though, which you have studiously ignored, is "What would you suggest be done instead?" That is to say, "Suggest a better course of action." Tell me how you keep a hunk of buckshot from that shotgun that "John" answered the door holding, out of the brainpan of a six year old just outside playing/walking in front of John's house to the bus stop to go to school.

(Separate question: What would any of us do if we saw "John" walk into Subway while we were there eating a sandwich? Would any of us not want to reassure ourselves that our pistol was on our hip, seeing a guy come in carrying a shotgun? I doubt any of us would drop him just walking through the door, but to use Col Cooper's color codes, you go from yellow to high orange, y'know? Why? He hasn't committed any crime...... yet.....)

This is not an either-or situation. There has to be a way to protect society not at the expense of, but rather respecting John's (and everyone's) rights. I am most expressly not choosing temporary security over essential liberty. I am not willing to ignore either one.

As to the Red Flag laws, the officer must go before a judge BEFORE seizing a person's property under that law. The person goes before the judge after the fact, to show that the taking of his property was incorrect, yes, but it's not, in most cases, (exigent circumstances, for example) strictly on the officer's judgment. That's not to say that there still are not problems; I disagree with the idea that the officer's statement is taken as evidence until disproven, but that the citizens' statements are at best, considered suspect until proven, in both cases by video or other corroboration.

So to reiterate, I'd like to hear your thoughts on a better approach to what to do about "John", whose behavior is at best, "sketchy", and likely dangerous.

Thanks

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

Greg, I get what you're saying. Your comments comparing the 1950s and today are perhaps half correct, in that yes, there has been a wholesale change from us being, by and large, a God-fearing community as a nation, to a nation more oriented toward hedonism. I do not think that that alone, however, has caused the moral decay, though it has contributed, without question.

The question I posed to you, though, which you have studiously ignored, is "What would you suggest be done instead?" That is to say, "Suggest a better course of action." Tell me how you keep a hunk of buckshot from that shotgun that "John" answered the door holding, out of the brainpan of a six year old just outside playing/walking in front of John's house to the bus stop to go to school.

(Separate question: What would any of us do if we saw "John" walk into Subway while we were there eating a sandwich? Would any of us not want to reassure ourselves that our pistol was on our hip, seeing a guy come in carrying a shotgun? I doubt any of us would drop him just walking through the door, but to use Col Cooper's color codes, you go from yellow to high orange, y'know? Why? He hasn't committed any crime...... yet.....)

This is not an either-or situation. There has to be a way to protect society not at the expense of, but rather respecting John's (and everyone's) rights. I am most expressly not choosing temporary security over essential liberty. I am not willing to ignore either one.

As to the Red Flag laws, the officer must go before a judge BEFORE seizing a person's property under that law. The person goes before the judge after the fact, to show that the taking of his property was incorrect, yes, but it's not, in most cases, (exigent circumstances, for example) strictly on the officer's judgment. That's not to say that there still are not problems; I disagree with the idea that the officer's statement is taken as evidence until disproven, but that the citizens' statements are at best, considered suspect until proven, in both cases by video or other corroboration.

So to reiterate, I'd like to hear your thoughts on a better approach to what to do about "John", whose behavior is at best, "sketchy", and likely dangerous.

Thanks

Blessings,
Bill

You want an answer to a question that gives you a tidy solution, when, there is none. Freedom isn`t free, and freedom is messy. I`ll say again, Due Process is not an officer going before a judge then taking your things and/or freedom, then you finally getting to court and having the issue properly addressed. Due Process is you having the issue properly addressed BEFORE your possessions or you are taken. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We are no longer a moral or religious people, and so, in self defense, we ignore the Constitution and try to deal with animals before they slaughter more innocents, but that is not what the law allows.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You want an answer to a question that gives you a tidy solution, when, there is none. Freedom isn`t free, and freedom is messy. I`ll say again, Due Process is not an officer going before a judge then taking your things and/or freedom, then you finally getting to court and having the issue properly addressed. Due Process is you having the issue properly addressed BEFORE your possessions or you are taken. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We are no longer a moral or religious people, and so, in self defense, we ignore the Constitution and try to deal with animals before they slaughter more innocents, but that is not what the law allows.

So you have no other suggestion, no better idea, you just want to call the current method in place of addressing a real, potential threat, by such descriptors as unconstitutional and illegal.

I don’t agree with Red Flag laws. I don’t like them. They are far from either neat or tidy and they strike me as immoral.

lt seems to me that allowing the “fox in the henhouse” so to speak, allowing a clear and present danger to the People to remain unchecked is equally immoral.

I was always taught that if you identify a problem, you should also have a suggestion or an idea of how to fix it. I thought I had one, but I was informed that my idea was partially already in place. You identified a similar problem, so I was trying to discover your suggestion to fix it.

Absent some method of addressing the problem, I don’t see more to discuss on the subject. I’m certainly willing, just not seeing anything more to say that wouldn’t just rehash the same points and descriptors all over again.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

So you have no other suggestion, no better idea, you just want to call the current method in place of addressing a real, potential threat, by such descriptors as unconstitutional and illegal.

I don’t agree with Red Flag laws. I don’t like them. They are far from either neat or tidy and they strike me as immoral.

lt seems to me that allowing the “fox in the henhouse” so to speak, allowing a clear and present danger to the People to remain unchecked is equally immoral.

I was always taught that if you identify a problem, you should also have a suggestion or an idea of how to fix it. I thought I had one, but I was informed that my idea was partially already in place. You identified a similar problem, so I was trying to discover your suggestion to fix it.

Absent some method of addressing the problem, I don’t see more to discuss on the subject. I’m certainly willing, just not seeing anything more to say that wouldn’t just rehash the same points and descriptors all over again.


Blessings,
Bill

There`s no clearer way to say this, than what I keep saying. There`s NO answer that will satisfy you people, but violating the Constitution and stripping citizens of their Due Process rights isn`t a legal recourse. How much more clear can it be said? Without violating the Constitution, there`s NOTHING that can be done! Get a grip. You do NOT get to trash the Constitution to "feel" safe! And the SINGLE thing you finally got right is, there`s NOTHING to discuss. You do NOT trash the Constitution. Period.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There`s no clearer way to say this, than what I keep saying. There`s NO answer that will satisfy you people, but violating the Constitution and stripping citizens of their Due Process rights isn`t a legal recourse. How much more clear can it be said? Without violating the Constitution, there`s NOTHING that can be done! Get a grip. You do NOT get to trash the Constitution to "feel" safe! And the SINGLE thing you finally got right is, there`s NOTHING to discuss. You do NOT trash the Constitution. Period.

I’m not sure who you think “you people” are. Last I checked, we are American citizens with as much say as you, no more, no less.

Also, the fact that we do not agree on something does not in and of itself make either of us right.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[churchmouse]

There`s no clearer way to say this, than what I keep saying. There`s NO answer that will satisfy you people, but violating the Constitution and stripping citizens of their Due Process rights isn`t a legal recourse. How much more clear can it be said? Without violating the Constitution, there`s NOTHING that can be done! Get a grip. You do NOT get to trash the Constitution to "feel" safe! And the SINGLE thing you finally got right is, there`s NOTHING to discuss. You do NOT trash the Constitution. Period.

I think you need to step off and realize who you are telling whats what as to the Constitution. This man has helped set bills in motion and has spoke in our behalf at more gatherings both large and small (and to our elected officials) that you ever will.

I have had to ask you to settle down before and I am doing it again. It is OK to disagree but dont be disagreeable. Tone it down my friend you are not the only one unhappy here.

 

[DadSmith]

@Bill of Rights
After finding out red flag laws are not working FedEx shooter and multiple other shooters got their firearms legally with the Feds approved via NICS.

I'm going to say I am now against both red flag and NICS because both are failures. Both allowed multiple mass shootings by insane people. If they don't work we don't need them.

Unless something gets fixed I have no confidence in them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

@Bill of Rights
After finding out red flag laws are not working FedEx shooter and multiple other shooters got their firearms legally with the Feds approved via NICS.

I'm going to say I am now against both red flag and NICS because both are failures. Both allowed multiple mass shootings by insane people. If they don't work we don't need them.

Unless something gets fixed I have no confidence in them.

I am against both as well, in principle. I also recognize that in practice, we will never be totally rid of either.

Here’s the thing though: red flags and NICS are not the answer, so we need to work to find out what is. Personally, I lean more toward education; from their early day’s in high chairs, our children watch us use knives. Eventually, we let them put a hand on outs while we cut, then we let them use the knife with a guiding hand on theirs, and after years, we allow them to use a table knife with no point and minimal if any edge. After many more years, that same child is allowed access to the sharpest knives in the kitchen even unsupervised.... obviously I’ve left out lots of steps in the interim, but if we can allow a child, properly trained, to use tools meant to rend flesh from bone for the tasks for which those tools were designed, why can the same logic not apply to the gun? (Rhetorical question-some of you have probably done exactly that)

I hold no illusions that the Left will ever agree that our methods work, no matter what methods those may be. That does not mean we should not use them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[gregr]

I think you need to step off and realize who you are telling whats what as to the Constitution. This man has helped set bills in motion and has spoke in our behalf at more gatherings both large and small (and to our elected officials) that you ever will.

I have had to ask you to settle down before and I am doing it again. It is OK to disagree but dont be disagreeable. Tone it down my friend you are not the only one unhappy here.

I apologize. My frustration was in repeatedly being asked for a solution when none exists. Not one that will satisfy anyone. But again, I apologize.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I apologize. My frustration was in repeatedly being asked for a solution when none exists. Not one that will satisfy anyone. But again, I apologize.

I get that you were (and are!) frustrated with the lack of a solution, as am I. What I’d like to see is all these frustrated people put their heads together and come up with a solution that truly answers the questions: “what do we do about John?” and “how do we fix the “gun grabber” problem”, among others.

I’m sorry my questions frustrated you. That was never my goal.

Peace to you, sir.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[churchmouse]

I apologize. My frustration was in repeatedly being asked for a solution when none exists. Not one that will satisfy anyone. But again, I apologize.

No worries as we are all on the razors edge right now.
Just take a deep breath and lets unit in this.