ERPOs in action, WA - no details, no charges ...

alsaqr said:

In the last couple years several mass murderers, including the El Paso shooter, have announced their attentions on social media. Some are telling me the confiscation of would be mass murders firearms is unconstitutional and that law enforcement must wait until the person kills someone.

Click to expand...

Announcing a plan to kill someone is a crime. So charging them with it is acceptable.
Saying someone might be planning a crime, so I'm taking his guns isn't.

Seek and ye shall find,
https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf (Janet Napolitano)
So easy, a Caveman could do it.



Take care with sweeping generalities that "this group" or "that group" can be disenfranchised from 4th & 5th Amendment due-process protections simply because "everybody knows"
Pretty soon you might well find it's "your group."

This is why they pass "red flag laws" it allows "them" to bypass the legal system and violate constitutional rights!

How about the Mother and Kid that post a picture of target shooting in the woods on social media. OMG he must be a threat to the school!!

roscoe said:

Um - that's pretty thin.

Click to expand...

A document saying Veterans are more dangerous to America than Hamas and Al Quada is far from thin. Maybe you do not feel the same way, but as someone who has served 8 years in a combat arms MOS, it enrages me to this day. The point is, if gun grabbers are willing to paint veterans and the military as extremist there is no stopping who they go after with a red flag law. Polite golf clap because a Neo Nazi might have done something and was stopped by a red flag law. Start disarming Veterans en masse, well, boogaloo. Obama was a genital hair away of giving the Social Security Administration unprecedented authority to deny 2A rights to anyone they provide benefits to, on the grounds of being "unfit to manage finances." SSA manages somewhere around 50 million accounts nationwide. The biggest gun ban in history was a blip to MSM except to say Trump is providing weapons to the mentally ill which is blatantly false.

roscoe said:

No. I want independent confirmation. Something that gets the full context. I know - how about a copy of the memo itself so we can actually see what it says?

Click to expand...

Really? A copy of the actual report, in it's entirety, isn't good enough for you? What do you want, stone tablets brought down from Mt. Sinai and given to you by Moses himself?

herrwalther said:

....Obama was a genital hair away of giving the Social Security Administration unprecedented authority to deny 2A rights to anyone they provide benefits to, on the grounds of being "unfit to manage finances." SSA manages somewhere around 50 million accounts nationwide....

Click to expand...

That right there is funny! If anyone is "unfit to manage finances " it's the Federal government.

1911 guy said:

Otherwise, we are inviting abuse.

Click to expand...

Passing the law in the first place invited abuse.

Tommygunn said:

I must wonder how long it will be before these redflag laws, and others like it, will be used on us, or others

Click to expand...

Yeah, read up on the history of some abuses of the RICO act.
There was a motorcycle club in a town I used to live in that was like 1%'er lite. They had patches and all that, but rarely had any money among them, didn't deal drugs or anything, but the local yokel sheriff didn't like them and used to harass them with RICO charges. Nothing ever stuck but they were even broker trying to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]

FlSwampRat said:

Yeah, read up on the history of some abuses of the RICO act.
There was a motorcycle club in a town I used to live in that was like 1%'er lite. They had patches and all that, but rarely had any money among them, didn't deal drugs or anything, but the local yokel sheriff didn't like them and used to harass them with RICO charges. Nothing ever stuck but they were even broker trying to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
It's used on citizens all the time to confiscate their cash.LE claims its drug money files no charges and alot of people just forfeit it.

This whole thing about taking folks guns without due process is scary, whatever they want to call it.

It sets a horrible precedent and undoubtedly there will be confrontations from those who are being unconstitutionally imposed upon.


As has been said these laws do nothing to help and everything to hurt.

FlSwampRat said:

Yeah, read up on the history of some abuses of the RICO act.
There was a motorcycle club in a town I used to live in that was like 1%'er lite. They had patches and all that, but rarely had any money among them, didn't deal drugs or anything, but the local yokel sheriff didn't like them and used to harass them with RICO charges. Nothing ever stuck but they were even broker trying to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

There was a big fight over that several years ago when it was learned that the mayor and police chief of a suburb of St. Louis, MO, were using the RICO laws to charge various people, confiscate their property, use it for themselves, and never actually file charges against the "alleged" perps ("victims"). They may be out of prison by now.

Once a precedence has been established to disarm someone before they have broken any laws, then it can be incrementally expanded to include everyone eventually.

herrwalther said:

A document saying Veterans are more dangerous to America than Hamas and Al Quada is far from thin. Maybe you do not feel the same way, but as someone who has served 8 years in a combat arms MOS, it enrages me to this day. The point is, if gun grabbers are willing to paint veterans and the military as extremist there is no stopping who they go after with a red flag law. Polite golf clap because a Neo Nazi might have done something and was stopped by a red flag law. Start disarming Veterans en masse, well, boogaloo. Obama was a genital hair away of giving the Social Security Administration unprecedented authority to deny 2A rights to anyone they provide benefits to, on the grounds of being "unfit to manage finances." SSA manages somewhere around 50 million accounts nationwide. The biggest gun ban in history was a blip to MSM except to say Trump is providing weapons to the mentally ill which is blatantly false.

Click to expand...

Did you read the report? It simply does not say that. In fact, nowhere in the entire document are the words "Hamas" or "Al Qaeda", nor any reference to Islamic terrorism.

bdickens said:

Really? A copy of the actual report, in it's entirety, isn't good enough for you? What do you want, stone tablets brought down from Mt. Sinai and given to you by Moses himself?

Click to expand...

Sorry - I thought you were talking about the Washington Times article. Anyway, I read the report, and it never even mentions Islamic terrorism. Nor does it advocate taking firearms away from veterans.

I am an opponent of any takings without due process, but I also don't like it when people stir up outrage over something that is not true.

I know people want to be outraged over the Obama administration, but whatever he might have wanted to do personally, he only signed two laws on gun ownership, and both expanded gun rights. I know a few folks who lost money stockpiling ARs for the Obama 'gunpocalypse', but it obviously never happened, and that was, partly, because it was not ever a legislative priority for him. This report was explicitly about white supremacist terrorism, and, frankly, given Tim McVeigh, Dylan Roof, the Pittsburgh Synagogue, and quite a few others, it represents a real threat. They would be irresponsible not to keep tabs on it. I think we can be pretty sure they were also keeping tabs on Islamic terrorists as well, but that would be a different, probably much longer memo.

The confiscation of cash is a byproduct of the failed "war on drugs". At least two Oklahoma sheriffs went to prison for confiscating cash from motorists.

roscoe said:

Did you read the report? It simply does not say that. In fact, nowhere in the entire document are the words "Hamas" or "Al Qaeda", nor any reference to Islamic terrorism.

Click to expand...

I did read the report. 10 years ago. So because the report didn't read exactly as I stated, it isn't credible? Are you serious? "Veterans are the biggest terrorism threat in the domestic US" Paraphrased as "Veterans are worse than Hamas and al Quada." These little internal memos are how gun confiscations get started. Regardless of how "true" you believe them to be. Memo goes around in 2009 that says Veterans are terrorists. Obama pushes for an SSA ban not long after. Not a coincidence.

herrwalther said:

I did read the report. 10 years ago. So because the report didn't read exactly as I stated, it isn't credible? Are you serious? "Veterans are the biggest terrorism threat in the domestic US" Paraphrased as "Veterans are worse than Hamas and al Quada." These little internal memos are how gun confiscations get started. Regardless of how "true" you believe them to be. Memo goes around in 2009 that says Veterans are terrorists. Obama pushes for an SSA ban not long after. Not a coincidence.

Click to expand...

Huh? It also does not say "Veterans are the biggest terrorism threat in the US". It doesn't even imply anything like that. It says:"DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States." And nowhere in that section does it mention veterans.

If you claim a document says something, it would help if we adopt the same reference standards we learned in school. Exact quote, page,irk, etc,

roscoe said:

Huh? It also does not say "Veterans are the biggest terrorism threat in the US". It doesn't even imply anything like that. It says:"DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States." And nowhere in that section does it mention veterans.

Click to expand...

Thanks. IME: Most folks referencing this 2009 report have never read the document.

Some veterans organizations misquoted the report and raised holy hades; most veterans never read the thing, they simply parroted others. Many on these boards willingly accept the word of rabble rousers and political activists, then quote same on message boards where many never read anything. Truth has fallen victim to political trash.

None of the organizations that railed and caterwauled about this report ever posted a link to the document; they desired that you accept their quotes as gospel.

Think the dark ages and the church. Bibles were printed in Latin. Mass was held in Latin. The faithful simply accepted the word of priests and the church hierarchy. Then along came Martin Luther.

This quote from the 2009 report got some veterans all shook up:

"(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans


(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and


radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from


military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the


capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out


violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist


groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from


the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.


— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military


veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing


extremist groups.


— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers


of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now


learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”



— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement


that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have


joined extremist groups."

i spent a career in US Army EOD. In the mid 1960s one of my EOD school instructors, a decorated veteran of WWII and the Korean War, retired and went to work for the Weather Underground.

Here's the link to the ten page 2009 document that's caused such a fuss. Takes about ten minutes to thoroughly read the document.

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Good Ol' Boy said:

This whole thing about taking folks guns without due process is scary, whatever they want to call it.

It sets a horrible precedent and undoubtedly there will be confrontations from those who are being unconstitutionally imposed upon.

Click to expand...

Anytime anything is done in darkness and without due process everyone suffers. As you say, it is very scary because who knows what or who the next thing to be taken will be.

As has been said these laws do nothing to help and everything to hurt.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with that

Cole never showed up for the hearing:

"Seattle officials filed their petition on Sept. 26 and seized the guns from Cole in Snohomish County the same day, Wyatt said. He did not show up for a subsequent hearing. Cole could not be reached for comment Thursday and did not appear to have an attorney."

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...ader-of-neo-nazi-chapter-in-washington-state/

Yep, the feds nailed Cole's running mate with a weapons charge, possession of firearms by a doper:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ces-federal-gun-charge-after-arrest-in-texas/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/suspected-neo-nazi-charged-gun-crime

DHS did a bit of apologizing, even to the American Legion and VFW, for mentioning veterans in the report. Even CNN acknowledges the contents. Now why would DHS apologize if they were in the right about pissed off veterans?

https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

Old Dog said:

'Tis rather a pity that we have members on a gun rights forum who wish to defend the state in depriving citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Click to expand...

Tis a shame that some folks on these boards shill for the "rights" of Hitler loving Nazis. You don't get to rule on what is Constitutional.