Posted on Jan 13, 2023
Judge Strikes Down New York “Red-Flag” Law - Guns in the News
374
24
4
10
10
0
It happened in December, but I don't recall seeing it in print, until now. It's a win toward re-establishing the 2A to it's original intent.
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, SSG William Jones,
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
Judge Strikes Down New York “Red-Flag” Law - Guns in the News
Posted from gunsinthenews.com
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
5
5
0
"In late December, a New York Supreme Court judge ruled that the state’s so-called “red-flag” law, which lets the government confiscate guns from lawful citizens without due process, is unconstitutional."
And therein lies my objection to the "Red Flag" laws I've seen. Taking away an individual's constitutional right without due process is a heinous violation of the law. Try and take someone's driver license under a "red flag" type law and just watch the populace go up in flames.
And therein lies my objection to the "Red Flag" laws I've seen. Taking away an individual's constitutional right without due process is a heinous violation of the law. Try and take someone's driver license under a "red flag" type law and just watch the populace go up in flames.
(5)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
On principle I absolutely agree with you that the entire notion of an ex parte procedure without due process must be considered unconstitutional and a complete anathema to our entire legal system (on a par with asset forfeiture laws)
On the other hand, my personal objection to so-called Red Flag laws is more pragmatic: (1) They simply don't work and (2) they are completely unnecessary.
Such laws sound great if you ignore the fact that the process encourages abuse, but if you look closer, let's assume that we are talking about a real instance of a person who actually is a "danger to self or others." The premise of the Red Flag law is that someone will recognize the danger, report the individual, and that taking away their guns will somehow magically eliminate the danger. Can anyone really be naive enough to believe that?!? What stops the person from using a knife, or a car, or gasoline and a match, or any of dozens of other ways to do harm?
Such laws are completely unnecessary! EVERY state already has laws allowing an individual to be locked up if they are found to be a threat to self or others! These mental inquest laws are vastly more effective because they address the actual danger (the person) not just one particular method. The "problem" with these laws is that they generally set a higher legal standard to trigger the law. That standard is still lower than ought to be acceptable in a free and law-abiding society.
On the other hand, my personal objection to so-called Red Flag laws is more pragmatic: (1) They simply don't work and (2) they are completely unnecessary.
Such laws sound great if you ignore the fact that the process encourages abuse, but if you look closer, let's assume that we are talking about a real instance of a person who actually is a "danger to self or others." The premise of the Red Flag law is that someone will recognize the danger, report the individual, and that taking away their guns will somehow magically eliminate the danger. Can anyone really be naive enough to believe that?!? What stops the person from using a knife, or a car, or gasoline and a match, or any of dozens of other ways to do harm?
Such laws are completely unnecessary! EVERY state already has laws allowing an individual to be locked up if they are found to be a threat to self or others! These mental inquest laws are vastly more effective because they address the actual danger (the person) not just one particular method. The "problem" with these laws is that they generally set a higher legal standard to trigger the law. That standard is still lower than ought to be acceptable in a free and law-abiding society.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P
MSG Thomas Currie - Spot on sir. The Boston bombers used pressure cookers with household chemicals, McVeigh used diesel fuel and fertilizer, Cain used a rock. Evil lies in the heart of the person, not the tool they choose to utilize.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google