Police Take Guns, Judge Gives Them Back...Some Positive Rulings on Red Flag Laws
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
Phaedrus/69
Member
No, that's not necessarily the case. It depends on the state and the law. Obviously in this case it worked out like it's supposed to with the guy getting his guns back.
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,395
YUP! We just removed one from the bench last year for making an unpopular, albeit legal, decision.
Last edited:
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,395
Meh. Just follow the Constitution.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'll go one step further.
I believe there should be a clear process in place for the RESTORATION of rights which were previously removed in accordance with due process.
Most, if not all, states have a process in place for this. The federal government, from my reading, makes this exceedingly difficult. (But what do I know...I'm not an attorney.)
While there is certainly a basis for the denial of certain rights in perpetuity for convictions for certain crimes, I do not hold with the general concept of a person being convicted of (whatever), sentenced for some period of imprisonment (plus whatever else, like fines, community service, etc.) and then, after serving out the full sentence and being released, not being allowed those certain rights again JUST BECAUSE.
Federal law pretty much says if you're convicted of any felony or misdemeanor domestic violence, you're screwed on the RKBA. What does a person's RKBA have to do with a felony conviction for bribery, tax evasion, or embezzlement, for example? And if a person serves their sentence under the law, why should such a person ever have to fight to have that right restored?
Do such people NOT have a right, for example, to defend themselves or others with a firearm? Or provide for food by hunting? Or shooting sports? Or, and here's a good one, take up arms against a tyrannical government?
Backing up a bit further, it's reasons like this that makes me tell people they're nuts for wanting to make this and that particular thing a "felony" criminal act. REALLY? Do you understand that what you're doing is ALLOWING the government to label an ever increasing percentage of the population as FELONS which carry disproportionately serious repercussions on their rights, beyond your personal idea that such-and-such OUGHT to be in legal pergatory in perpetuity?
Denying a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is such a serious action that our constitution itself was written to hamstring the government on multiple levels with respect to the ability to do so with impunity.
We have a portion of the population which clearly is in opposition to capital punishment, because it's "wrong" for the state to do this and it's "cruel and inhumane" to put a person through the process of taking their life.
Well, I say that at least capital punishment has an ultimate ending orchestrated by the State. Denying a person's liberties and rights, however, is a form of torture and punishment in perpetuity, deliberately inflicted through the rest of a person's natural life.
Another thought: if a person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with the RKBA, then why are they ever released from imprisonment in the first place?
The logic is anything BUT logical.
Yeah...a case can obviously be made for certain violent felony acts, like murder, manslaughter, various assaults, etc. But a lot of the others? Nope. Sorry...not seeing why the State is justified in denying their RKBA (among other rights) for these issues.
I believe there should be a clear process in place for the RESTORATION of rights which were previously removed in accordance with due process.
Most, if not all, states have a process in place for this. The federal government, from my reading, makes this exceedingly difficult. (But what do I know...I'm not an attorney.)
While there is certainly a basis for the denial of certain rights in perpetuity for convictions for certain crimes, I do not hold with the general concept of a person being convicted of (whatever), sentenced for some period of imprisonment (plus whatever else, like fines, community service, etc.) and then, after serving out the full sentence and being released, not being allowed those certain rights again JUST BECAUSE.
Federal law pretty much says if you're convicted of any felony or misdemeanor domestic violence, you're screwed on the RKBA. What does a person's RKBA have to do with a felony conviction for bribery, tax evasion, or embezzlement, for example? And if a person serves their sentence under the law, why should such a person ever have to fight to have that right restored?
Do such people NOT have a right, for example, to defend themselves or others with a firearm? Or provide for food by hunting? Or shooting sports? Or, and here's a good one, take up arms against a tyrannical government?
Backing up a bit further, it's reasons like this that makes me tell people they're nuts for wanting to make this and that particular thing a "felony" criminal act. REALLY? Do you understand that what you're doing is ALLOWING the government to label an ever increasing percentage of the population as FELONS which carry disproportionately serious repercussions on their rights, beyond your personal idea that such-and-such OUGHT to be in legal pergatory in perpetuity?
Denying a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is such a serious action that our constitution itself was written to hamstring the government on multiple levels with respect to the ability to do so with impunity.
We have a portion of the population which clearly is in opposition to capital punishment, because it's "wrong" for the state to do this and it's "cruel and inhumane" to put a person through the process of taking their life.
Well, I say that at least capital punishment has an ultimate ending orchestrated by the State. Denying a person's liberties and rights, however, is a form of torture and punishment in perpetuity, deliberately inflicted through the rest of a person's natural life.
Another thought: if a person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with the RKBA, then why are they ever released from imprisonment in the first place?
The logic is anything BUT logical.
Yeah...a case can obviously be made for certain violent felony acts, like murder, manslaughter, various assaults, etc. But a lot of the others? Nope. Sorry...not seeing why the State is justified in denying their RKBA (among other rights) for these issues.
I think that's a big under-recognized issue.
It's very tempting to do it, because of basic math. We know that the majority of discrete crimes (i.e., each instance of an act) will not result in a conviction. For most discrete crimes, there's not even anyone arrested. Now, assume for a moment that most crimes are utility-positive for the offender (pretty much always for intentional crimes). The combination of these two factors means we have to grossly "overpunish" discrete crimes when they are actually detected and prosecuted to a conclusion in order to have any prayer of rational-behavioral deterrence.
Example: Consider the crime of stealing a cash drawer from a store's cash register via strong arm robbery or deception. (E.g., while cashier is making change, criminal points over their shoulder and shouts "look out behind you," and then just grabs the cash drawer and runs). Let's say that averages $200 in cash to the criminal. Now let's imagine that 10% of the time the person doing this gets apprehended and punished. If the punishment for getting caught doing this is a fine of $1000, the criminal can have a fairly good positive net cash flow by simply upping the volume. Sure, out of 10 crimes and $2000 gross revenue, they'll lose $1000. But they'll be up $1000. Can't have that - making crime pay is a good way to get more of it. So we try dialing up the penalty to the point where, even accounting for low apprehension rates, the expected value (in the mathematical sense) of the crime is negative.
Of course, criminals don't typically do this sort of math, and the deterrence effect of our criminal justice system is subject to vigorous debate. But the game theory requirement to over-punish crimes (particularly those crimes that are unlikely to be detected and prosecuted a high percentage of the time) is part of how we get the proliferation of acts that are not just banned/prohibited, but are made into full-blown felonies.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Agreed. It should be called "served his/her time". I don't get the post-jail time punishments of gun rights loss and lack of voting rights. It's unfair and discriminatory. The crime committed shouldn't even matter if someone has served the time handed down to them by the courts. If they can't be trusted with a firearm (or a vote, LOL) then why are they allowed back on the streets? Some of the people attempting to remove themselves from the gang lifestyle upon release and turn a new leaf over are the people who might benefit most from rights restoration. Or perhaps I'm crazy and need a right good red flagging for mentioning it.
I don't think that is the way to say it. More accurately, Freedom is 100,000 people not getting their guns taken away at all because the judge denied the red flag seizures with a chance that a few of them would commit a crime with the guns. Remember, everyone that gets Red Flagged isn't a danger. That is the injustice of all this.
That doesn't necessarily make sense. The punishment for some crimes is X amount of jail time and $Y fine/restitution and various permanent/indefinite losses of rights. You haven't "paid your debt to society" just because you have completed one or more of the elements of your punishment.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
True. But they are mostly nonsensical bureaucratic hurdles that are used politically for power and control of ex-cons, not because it makes the con a better human being. Various/permanent/indefinite is what the problem is. Nothing is clear cut yet constitutional rights seem clear, do they not?
theotherwaldo
Member
Personally, I don't think that folks should lose the right to vote and the right to self defense for non-violent crimes, once their time (if any) is served.
-But that's a case for the law-makers and courts, not me.
-But that's a case for the law-makers and courts, not me.
Or they're just more punishment. Retribution and deterrence of others are completely valid justifications for punishments or components of punishment. We talk a lot about "rehabilitation," but our system was never actually built, much less run, with rehabilitation as the primary goal. (Juvenile justices programs are nominally more focused on true rehabilitation, and in practice are further down that continuum... and it provokes outrage when the punishments they dole out are insufficient to satisfy the perceived need of victims or the community for retribution.)
Someday maybe we'll blank-slate the whole criminal justice program. I doubt confinement for a period of years is something that we would come up with from scratch as being either the most humane or rehabilitative or most satisfyingly-retributive solution. But that's most of what we've got.
Just to be clear - I don't like a lot of things about our CJ system, including the way that loss of some constitutional rights is imposed by default on huge numbers of people. I just don't think saying "they paid their debt to society" is the reason that it's unfair/unwise. Sitting in prison doesn't generally do anything productive for society, so I don't think doing that "pays a debt." What people do after prison is what either does or, more often, does not "pay their debt to society."
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A lot of valid points have been brought up on both sides of this issue, with respect to how the criminal justice system works (and does not work).
It is fair to say that one could undertake to obtain a master's degree on this subject and still not cover every aspect of this. Which is why, for example, I prefaced some of my own opinions on the matter as "I do not hold with the general concept of..."
Debating any one aspect of the CJ system is an open invitation, therefore, to expound upon all the OTHER "stuff" that is messed up in some tangential fashion.
How to fix this isn't just a matter of "fixing the criminal justice system", however.
Why?
Because the whole issue with respect to the criminal justice system revolves around one key word: "criminal".
Human behavior is predicated upon individual character traits. From a psychological stand point, our core values, upon which all our behavior is based upon, is well established before we reach double digit age. From that point, we are essentially exploring the world around us based upon those core values in a fashion which further cements them in our minds. THIS IS WHY A STABLE AND WELL GROUNDED FAMILY IN THE FORMATIVE YEARS OF CHILDREN IS SO CRITICAL.
By core values, I mean behavioral and value concepts such as "honesty", "integrity", "empathy", "right and wrong", etc.
Core values, however, are NOT subject to change on a whim. This is both a blessing and a curse.
If you are an honest person (truth has a high value with you and how you interact with others) with integrity (does the right thing, even when nobody else is around to see it), then this is how you tend to view and interpret the world around you as well. You are this way, so your basic assumption is that most others also behave this was as well. This affects the way you interact with others and is typically an excellent type of person to be socially.
If you are NOT an honest person and have little integrity, this is likewise how you tend to view other people around you: your assumption is that most others are this way as well, which motivates you to assume the worst in them...and you tend to take advantage of those who are otherwise honest using their values against them.
These core values, being ingrained at an early age and constantly reinforced throughout life, DO NOT CHANGE without a deliberate, and concerted, effort on the part of the individual. And many times it take a pretty significant traumatic event to cause a person to question their core values enough to WANT to change them.
So the curse, with respect to criminals, is that their core values are NOT subject to easy change AND that change MUST COME FROM WITHIN. It cannot possibly come from without.
Which means "The System", whatever that system may be, can neither force a change, nor can they produce a reliable and predictable change EVEN FOR THOSE WHO MAY WISH TO CHANGE.
NOTE HERE:
I'm deliberately addressing criminal behavior which is "malum in se" (wrong because the behavior itself is bad/evil) as opposed to "malum prohibitum" (wrong only because the act is forbidden). (Also, keep in mind that just because a behavior is "malum prohibitum" does not mean laws about such acts are "wrong". But that's not germane at this point and would be more appropriate for another time.)
A lot of people do not understand this...that you cannot change people who do not want to be changed; that even if they DO want to change, it's not easy and they may not be able to no matter how much they might wish; that instituting ever increasing punishments will not change the underlying issue with human behavior in general and typically has the effect of increasing the cost to society in both resources and sacrificing of principles as a result, and that "The System", being designed, made up of, and run by people are ALSO subject to the full spread of human behavioral characteristics as well.
What does that last part mean?
It means that "The System" itself is just as susceptible to criminal behavior as what most people consider to be "criminals".
Only, in the case of "The System", you're talking about the full power and authority of the State itself.
THIS is the problem I have with criminalizing more and more human behavior, as well as the tendency to up the ante through ever increasing punishment. We're intentionally empowering an already hugely powerful entity, with all the same faults as any other member of humanity, and expecting it to be "perfect", "just", "honest", and of solid "integrity".
It is fair to say that one could undertake to obtain a master's degree on this subject and still not cover every aspect of this. Which is why, for example, I prefaced some of my own opinions on the matter as "I do not hold with the general concept of..."
Debating any one aspect of the CJ system is an open invitation, therefore, to expound upon all the OTHER "stuff" that is messed up in some tangential fashion.
How to fix this isn't just a matter of "fixing the criminal justice system", however.
Why?
Because the whole issue with respect to the criminal justice system revolves around one key word: "criminal".
Human behavior is predicated upon individual character traits. From a psychological stand point, our core values, upon which all our behavior is based upon, is well established before we reach double digit age. From that point, we are essentially exploring the world around us based upon those core values in a fashion which further cements them in our minds. THIS IS WHY A STABLE AND WELL GROUNDED FAMILY IN THE FORMATIVE YEARS OF CHILDREN IS SO CRITICAL.
By core values, I mean behavioral and value concepts such as "honesty", "integrity", "empathy", "right and wrong", etc.
Core values, however, are NOT subject to change on a whim. This is both a blessing and a curse.
If you are an honest person (truth has a high value with you and how you interact with others) with integrity (does the right thing, even when nobody else is around to see it), then this is how you tend to view and interpret the world around you as well. You are this way, so your basic assumption is that most others also behave this was as well. This affects the way you interact with others and is typically an excellent type of person to be socially.
If you are NOT an honest person and have little integrity, this is likewise how you tend to view other people around you: your assumption is that most others are this way as well, which motivates you to assume the worst in them...and you tend to take advantage of those who are otherwise honest using their values against them.
These core values, being ingrained at an early age and constantly reinforced throughout life, DO NOT CHANGE without a deliberate, and concerted, effort on the part of the individual. And many times it take a pretty significant traumatic event to cause a person to question their core values enough to WANT to change them.
So the curse, with respect to criminals, is that their core values are NOT subject to easy change AND that change MUST COME FROM WITHIN. It cannot possibly come from without.
Which means "The System", whatever that system may be, can neither force a change, nor can they produce a reliable and predictable change EVEN FOR THOSE WHO MAY WISH TO CHANGE.
NOTE HERE:
I'm deliberately addressing criminal behavior which is "malum in se" (wrong because the behavior itself is bad/evil) as opposed to "malum prohibitum" (wrong only because the act is forbidden). (Also, keep in mind that just because a behavior is "malum prohibitum" does not mean laws about such acts are "wrong". But that's not germane at this point and would be more appropriate for another time.)
A lot of people do not understand this...that you cannot change people who do not want to be changed; that even if they DO want to change, it's not easy and they may not be able to no matter how much they might wish; that instituting ever increasing punishments will not change the underlying issue with human behavior in general and typically has the effect of increasing the cost to society in both resources and sacrificing of principles as a result, and that "The System", being designed, made up of, and run by people are ALSO subject to the full spread of human behavioral characteristics as well.
What does that last part mean?
It means that "The System" itself is just as susceptible to criminal behavior as what most people consider to be "criminals".
Only, in the case of "The System", you're talking about the full power and authority of the State itself.
THIS is the problem I have with criminalizing more and more human behavior, as well as the tendency to up the ante through ever increasing punishment. We're intentionally empowering an already hugely powerful entity, with all the same faults as any other member of humanity, and expecting it to be "perfect", "just", "honest", and of solid "integrity".
Side note, and a thing to be considered: honesty does not mean "truth teller".
There are flat-out times to lie.
The classics, Jews in the attic and the Bloody Lady. (Lady runs in, bleeding from several cuts, and screams help me, he's going to kill me and runs out the back. A few seconds later, a huge man with a large, bloody knife runs in and asks where is that bitch? At that point, I lie. Not only do I lie, but I lie well, like a born liar, I make it work, and I keep lying until I get the result I want. No matter how many additional lies it takes.)
I expect the phrase Jews in the attic to be self explanatory. Again, I lie as much and as well as it takes.
And I consider myself an honest man. I place that high value on truth-- right up to the point where truth doesn't serve what's right. (That's "right" by my judgement. I can only decide for myself. You are responsible and will be held responsible for deciding what's right for yourself. Whether you do or not.)
These are the decisions that make us adults, this is the judgement borne of experience that is lacking in children and why we don't let them vote; this judgement is what makes us either worthy of praise or worthy of something else.
But Chief, remember that when you're cutting and pasting your own posts, "honesty" may or may not be the word, the concept or the value that you are looking for.
Carry on.
There are flat-out times to lie.
The classics, Jews in the attic and the Bloody Lady. (Lady runs in, bleeding from several cuts, and screams help me, he's going to kill me and runs out the back. A few seconds later, a huge man with a large, bloody knife runs in and asks where is that bitch? At that point, I lie. Not only do I lie, but I lie well, like a born liar, I make it work, and I keep lying until I get the result I want. No matter how many additional lies it takes.)
I expect the phrase Jews in the attic to be self explanatory. Again, I lie as much and as well as it takes.
And I consider myself an honest man. I place that high value on truth-- right up to the point where truth doesn't serve what's right. (That's "right" by my judgement. I can only decide for myself. You are responsible and will be held responsible for deciding what's right for yourself. Whether you do or not.)
These are the decisions that make us adults, this is the judgement borne of experience that is lacking in children and why we don't let them vote; this judgement is what makes us either worthy of praise or worthy of something else.
But Chief, remember that when you're cutting and pasting your own posts, "honesty" may or may not be the word, the concept or the value that you are looking for.
Carry on.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I get the idea with respect to "honesty". And with any number of other character traits as well.
There's a whole lot that can be discussed on such values, and it's important in both moral decisions and philosophy. One can, indeed, present any number of conundrums...like it is wrong to steal, but what about a homeless mother who is trying to feed her child? There are any number of such examples, and plenty of historically famous ones as well. One must weigh the relative importance of one's various values when navigating an appropriate moral course of action. This is part and parcel of life.
As for the meaning of a particular word or phrase, such as "honesty" here, meaning is inherent not only in definition, but in context. And if the meaning is either not understood or misunderstood, this is where further discourse comes in. I'm all about discussing, clarifying, and learning. (Though I dislike people who will point out errors or miscommunication and then totally disregard clarification or explanations of the intended meaning, preferring instead to dwell on arguing how one was "wrong" in a given statement of contention.)
BUT...what the heck do you mean by "cutting and pasting your own posts"? A euphemism for "drafting your posts"? I haven't heard that one before...I'll have to stash that in my personal lexicon.
Gumby0961
Member
My brothers ex called the cops because she "feared for her life" he beat the hell out of a bag of dog food with a golf club.(she was cheating) Cops confiscated his guns and a couple of mine that he borrowed. He was deemed mentally stable after 3 weeks and was given back the guns. My Ruger 3 screw SBH came back scratched and one grip was missing a corner. It would be nice if they could be held accountable.....
No, I thought I read part of your post twice, in two different posts that you made. Now I see that there was only two posts, (well, two posts at the time I made my post) and each contained it's own, separate statements.
(Yeah. Parse that statement. I bet, since there's two variables, it can be read at least four ways. But I digress.)
I leave working out the total number of statements, in all three posts, (four if counting my post, five or six, depending on how many replies one desires to count,) separately or in total, as an exercise for the reader.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
No worries!
dbz77
Member
Agreed.
Wrongdoers must be held accountable- with a fair chance to challenge the accusations.
I am old enough to remember when the Left was artguing that foreign terrorists captured on foreign soil* were entitled to the full protections of the Fifth Amendment, something that soldiers accused of committing crimes in the United States are not entitled to.
apparerntly, due process does not apply to lawful gun owners in the U.S..
* Omar Mateen was a domestic terrorist. Had he survived, he would have been prosecuted for treason in addition to murder, and would have been entitled to the full protections of the Fifth Amendment.
Anchorite
Member
I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a judge that’s not worried about that. The only exception may be Federal appointees.
Ignition Override
Member
They must sometimes deal with just One person, while numerous US cities release rapists, suspected murderers by the dozens, preventing ICE from taking them into custody.
Public safety is the overall priority--if it doesn't reduce the chances of politicians being re-elected.
I'll add the word "gun" here, as they are often acquired by thugs, for the legalistic "gun" requirement on this website.
Public safety is the overall priority--if it doesn't reduce the chances of politicians being re-elected.
I'll add the word "gun" here, as they are often acquired by thugs, for the legalistic "gun" requirement on this website.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
