Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader

link requires registration, care to provide another source?

old lady new shooter said:

Interested to hear if folks here think this was an appropriate use of a red flag law.

Click to expand...

That depends how you're defining "appropriate". An unconstitutional law can be used for "good" things, but that doesn't make it "appropriate". If a law allowing restriction and monitoring of "hate" speech on personal communications led to the arrest of a person who was intending to become the next mass killer, would that be an "appropriate" use of a 1st amendment restriction?

Remember that guy who attacked an ICE facility in WA and wanted to blow it up? He belonged to a "gun club" made up of antifa types (who interestingly enough got a sweet puff piece on CNN) who plainly state they want to burn it all down.

Any chance the state used red flag laws abd took all their guns away?

1. The judge in the case appears to waffle. Then law enforcement presented more evidence the Nazi was a credible threat. The judge ordered the mans guns confiscated.

2. The Nazi may have prevailed had he bothered to appear in court.

3. Think about a man accused of stalking his brunette knockout neighbor. If one party skips the court hearing, he/she loses.

4. i cry no tears for this guy.

There will always be quite a bit of conflict between our rights to free speech - and the rights of neighbors to live in peace... and as usual law enforcers will be right in the middle of it all.

In today's world where not only educators are willing to allow their emotions and biases to color what they teach - but mass media outfits perfectly willing to put their thumb on the scales for one side of a question or other.... This particular topic will always get propagandized from one side or another. You can see it every day on one media site or other. All of us need to pay close attention to each incident and push hard whenever we see someone's basic 2nd amendment rights abridged. On the other side of the question I don't believe anyone here supports having violent extremists with firearms.... allowed to make their plans - then we wait to act until after a tragedy of some sort occurs...

Glad I'm long out of police work.

Freedom isn’t free.

Even more importantly it is not without risks.

Our Country has a long disgraceful history of violating the rights of individuals and groups the Government and media do not like.

Neo-Nazis have been in our country even before W.W. 2 began. Now that we are coming on 75 years since W.W. 2 ended why are they such a threat now?

Muslim extremists have murdered more Americans in this country than Neo-Nazis. They are better organized, trained and armed but I guess it is easier to go after individual citizens and be politically correct by not going extremist Muslims.

old lady new shooter said:

I think that is a different question. In this case he was not stopped from saying (posting) whatever he wanted to, however his statements were deemed to be a credible threat justifying confiscation of his weapons.

Click to expand...

You missed my point. I'll put it a different way. Do you think that an unconstitutional law can be used "appropriately"?

Simply put: The "Red Flag Laws" foisted on society by utopians are DESIGNED to be abused and then, when they are, we're all (mostly all) shocked.

This should have significantly less to do with the individual's particular political leanings than it does to do with the fact that political leanings may have swayed he argument in the first place.

Replace "Nazi" with; NeoCon, Arch Conservative, Nationalist, ANTIFA, Occupy, Black Panther and the like and we see an opportunity for any power holders to disarm individuals or groups aligned politically against them or even merely not aligned in the first place.


Todd.

BSA1 said:

Freedom isn’t free.

Click to expand...

When this quote becomes used all the time and to make excuse for every ****** bag, just b/c he is a "fellow" gun owner it becomes old, worn out "blah, blah, blah"

Regardless of how abhorrent his ideology might be this is a real slippery slope moment. But if he refuses to appear to appeal the order seizing his weapons/ccw permit would anyone else have standing to do so on his behalf? I don't see how. So this stands as an example of how the red flag law 'works' and the public can feel a warm fuzzy because Nazis are allowed to be deplored freely.....my question is who might next be singled out for ideological reasons alone in place of a credible threat? This is the sort of case that, apologies in advance, the ACLU might take up despite its historical disdain for the RKBA.

old lady new shooter said:

My personal opinion is that expressing a threat to exterminate a particular individual or group and exhorting others to join in this activity, is a lot different than expressing an opinion as to what political system is best. For a "red flag law" not to run the risk you describe above, the criteria would have to be very clearly delineated, and a court proceeding PRIOR to confiscation would have to be required, where the accused would have all normal constitutional rights including that of confronting and rebutting his or her accuser.

Click to expand...

Right, and as such, the implied Nazi affiliation should have NO bearing on the decision, the reporting nor the final outcome.
Jack-wagon laws putting people like me in the position of defending odious stands like Nazism really tweak me.

Todd.

dekibg said:

When this quote becomes used all the time and to make excuse for every ****** bag, just b/c he is a "fellow" gun owner it becomes old, worn out "blah, blah, blah"

Click to expand...

old lady new shooter said:

I could instead ask whether 2A support means supporting allowing a person who publicly calls for exterminating certain population groups and publicly exhorts others to join in this activity, to own deadly weapons.

Click to expand...

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns away from those who express hate towards others and I did not speak out because I don't hate anyone.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

old lady new shooter said:

I think it could be possible to write a "red flag" law that would not be unconstitutional, the biggest criterion would be a court trial with normal rules of evidence, right of the subject to confront/rebut the accusers etc, BEFORE confiscation. To do that there would probably have to be a special court just for that purpose, because if the person is really that dangerous time would be very much of the essence. The second criterion would be predefined rules (if such don't already exist) as to what constitutes a "credible threat".

Click to expand...

That's not what most people, on either side if the issue, are talking about when "red flag" laws are discussed. This is a good example of why it's so critically important for people to define their terms when having these discussions though.

old lady new shooter said:

I could instead ask whether 2A support means supporting allowing a person who publicly calls for exterminating certain population groups and publicly exhorts others to join in this activity, to own deadly weapons.

Click to expand...

2A support means that if an adult person cannot be trusted to own firearms, they should not be living unfettered in society either. If their espoused ideology justifies confiscating their firearms, it should also justify imprisonment or some level of strict supervision.

old lady new shooter said:

My personal opinion is that expressing a threat to exterminate a particular individual or group and exhorting others to join in this activity, is a lot different than expressing an opinion as to what political system is best. For a "red flag law" not to run the risk you describe above, the criteria would have to be very clearly delineated, and a court proceeding PRIOR to confiscation would have to be required, where the accused would have all normal constitutional rights including that of confronting and rebutting his or her accuser.

Click to expand...

That legal standard already exists It is called Conspiracy. Since Conspiracy is based on the thought of the accused it requires a high burden of proof.

What "Red Flag" laws do is to lower the burden of proof to merely the accusation by another individual.

ApacheCoTodd said:

Replace "Nazi" with; NeoCon, Arch Conservative, Nationalist, ANTIFA, Occupy, Black Panther and the like and we see an opportunity for any power holders to disarm individuals or groups aligned politically against them or even merely not aligned in the first place.

Click to expand...

One of the things that strikes me is that it isn't necessarily the nazi part of the equation that's the problem.

It's the threats.

A better comparison would be "replace 'Nazi' with 'NeoCon who advocates violence against minorities, the violent overthrow of our government, wants to start a 'race war' and has been linked to several murders...'"

You're responsible for what you say. That's the other part of the right, the part no one likes.

Threaten me in my presence and you will get my attention. Threaten me while you're holding a weapon and you will get my undivided attention. If I can resolve these situations with a piece of paper from a judge, and you give up your weapon until we meet in court, that's probably by far the best outcome.

If these clowns want to run off at the mouth, fine. But there are bodies on the trail that got them here, and they won't shut up about laying more people down. So yes, it's appropriate to take their weapons until we can figure out who's who, what's what, and whether we have all the right people locked down.

Personally, I bet that without weapons, none of them will have anything to say.

P.S. I don't see anything "unconstitutional" about red flag laws. They are not without due process anymore than a no-knock warrant is without due process. Both involve a judge, and both have remedies for mistakes or abuse. If these red flag laws are "without process", then so are search warrants.

When I read "no due process", I know I'm reading something written by someone who doesn't know what due process is.

BSA1 said:

First they took the guns from felons and I did not speak out because I was not a felon.

Then they took the guns from those 21 and younger and I did not speak out because I was not that young.

Then they took the guns from those with mental illness and I did not speak out because I was not mentally ill.

Then they took the guns away from those who express hate towards others and I did not speak out because I don't hate anyone.

Then they took the guns from those who opposed reasonable gun control and I did not speak out because I was not unreasonable.

Then they took the guns away from me and there was no one left to speak for me.

Click to expand...

Yes! It’s absolutely horrid a convicted murder or rapist can’t have a gun! Same with mentally retarded people with IQs of 7! If anyone should have a gun, it’s those who have been proven to either not care about consequences or those who do not understand them.