Hawaii isn't interested in our Constitution

a reply to: network dude

I think the gun arguments, control and laws are probably the best way to frame the argument of SCOTUS not having the power people thinks it does.


There is no enforcement arm.

Get all of the state courts to just say "no" and done.

Especially in the light of Bruen, Macdonald and Heller.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Vermilion

I find it funny. That whole not be infringed is ignored when it comes to voting in the 15th.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

Even stronger is the denied language. But with voting we actively put some sensible roadblocks in the way. Sometimes some unreasonable ones too.

If people don't like what the HSC determined as a right for the state to regulate. Then they can take it so the SCotUS.

I thought people were for state rights?

States don’t have the right to take anybody’s constitutional rights away.
Do you think they should?

Fun fact: Hawaii has the longest waiting period of any state. Ridiculous and an infringement.

a reply to: network dude

Speaking in public and voting are not dangerous to others.

Someone else said this was infringement. I don't see it. No one is saying you can't own your guns, just that you need to fill out paperwork for them. To me the more we can track guns and assess people who are trying to buy them, the better. Less guns end up in the hands of nutbags.

I just don't see it. You need to fill out paperwork to get a driver's license, why not for a gun? I'm not dumb but I sincerely don't see how that infringes on 2A at all.

a reply to: network dude

Hawaii isn't interested in our Constitution

Neither is this Federal Government.

It's just an inconvinient nuisance at this point.

a reply to: Vermilion

So in the OP it says this.

the court determined that states "retain the authority to require" individuals to hold proper permits before carrying firearms in public.

I'm originally from Florida. And for years you could not legally carry a weapon on you. Until they came out with a concealed carry permit. And then Rick Scott singed Red Flag laws into being. Which have been used to take away weapons from people that should not be carrying them ie: felons, mentally unstable, ect. Florida and other states with Red Flag laws and other gun restriction laws. Will take away your right to owning a firearm if there is a good reasons for you not to have one. So yeah. States can and will infringe and take away your 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

a reply to: grey580

You think it's just fine for the gov't to take away someone's property without due process?

originally posted by: VoiceofReality
a reply to: network dude

Speaking in public and voting are not dangerous to others.

Someone else said this was infringement. I don't see it. No one is saying you can't own your guns, just that you need to fill out paperwork for them. To me the more we can track guns and assess people who are trying to buy them, the better. Less guns end up in the hands of nutbags.

I just don't see it. You need to fill out paperwork to get a driver's license, why not for a gun? I'm not dumb but I sincerely don't see how that infringes on 2A at all.

you have to fill out paperwork, have a background check, all before you can take possession of a weapon. A weapon isn't dangerous, just as speech isn't dangerous. Unless it's used in an unsafe way.

There is a .45 about a foot away from me right now. It's been there all day. It has not harmed anyone, and I'd bet my life on that it won't harm anyone by itself ever.

But if you walk into a bank and tell everyone you have a gun and you will start shooting people if they don't give you money. Sure you have free speech to say that, but you used it wrong, and you are going to jail.

If you don't want the right to free speech or the right to vote hampered to the point you have to get a license to use those rights, but you are wanting to make a gun owner get a special license, you are missing the point of the COTUS and should probably do a little more research so you DO understand it.

Now if you want to change it, there is a process. But to ignore it, or just do whatever you want and disregard it, will be a problem and something you would likely regret.

a reply to: JinMI

Nope.

Red Flag laws do go through due process though. A judge has to sign off on it. Police have to show evidence etc.

Apparently the Republicans in Florida thought that it was a good idea.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

Nope.

Red Flag laws do go through due process though. A judge has to sign off on it. Police have to show evidence etc.

Apparently the Republicans in Florida thought that it was a good idea.

In your scenario, what part does the person who owns the property play?

You said, judge, you said police and what we can also assume to be a claimant.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

Nope.

Red Flag laws do go through due process though. A judge has to sign off on it. Police have to show evidence etc.

Apparently the Republicans in Florida thought that it was a good idea.

There should be an extremely high super duper hurdle for any government to jump to take somebody’s rights away. Convicted felon level high hurdle.
Making one’s exercise of their rights dependent on a permit is the very definition of infringement.

a reply to: JinMI

So here in this article it goes through a small explanation.

www.cbsnews.com...

In Florida, law enforcement agencies can advocate for judges to temporarily bar dangerous individuals from possessing or purchasing a firearm through a provision known as a "red flag" law. From its inception following the Parkland high school massacre in 2018 through mid-2022, it was invoked more than 8,000 times to restrict gun ownership of people authorities deemed a risk to themselves or others. The law is supported by many Florida sheriffs.

It sounds like the person plays 0 role. But it's supported by the cops. You guys are pro cop right? If they like it. So should you. lol

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

So here in this article it goes through a small explanation.

www.cbsnews.com...

In Florida, law enforcement agencies can advocate for judges to temporarily bar dangerous individuals from possessing or purchasing a firearm through a provision known as a "red flag" law. From its inception following the Parkland high school massacre in 2018 through mid-2022, it was invoked more than 8,000 times to restrict gun ownership of people authorities deemed a risk to themselves or others. The law is supported by many Florida sheriffs.

It sounds like the person plays 0 role. But it's supported by the cops. You guys are pro cop right? If they like it. So should you. lol

Exactly. They play no role so there can't by definition be due process. So not only do red flag laws violate peoples 2nd amendment but hey also violate their 5th amendment rights. Could even stretch it to 1st amendment violations by removing the ability to speak up and out about it.


I like cops who stay in their lane and do their jobs inline with the authority vested in them by the people.
Especially those where they swear an oath to the Constitution.

a reply to: Vermilion

You'll have to speak with the Republicans in Florida and the Senator that signed that into law, Rick Scott.

Here is the Statute.

www.flsenate.gov...#:~:text=%E2%80%9C(1)%20Section%20790.401%2C,poses%20a%20significant%20danger%20to

a reply to: JinMI

You'll have to complain to the Republicans there in Florida running the show.

Apparently they thought it was a good idea.

Here is the text of the law for your viewing pleasure.

www.flsenate.gov...

It seems that

790.401 Risk protection orders.—
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Petitioner” means a law enforcement officer or a law enforcement agency that petitions a court for a risk protection order under this section.
(b) “Respondent” means the individual who is identified as the respondent in a petition filed under this section.
(c) “Risk protection order” means a temporary ex parte order or a final order granted under this section.
(2) PETITION FOR A RISK PROTECTION ORDER.—There is created an action known as a petition for a risk protection order.
(a) A petition for a risk protection order may be filed by a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency.
(b) An action under this section must be filed in the county where the petitioner’s law enforcement office is located or the county where the respondent resides.
(c) Such petition for a risk protection order does not require either party to be represented by an attorney.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, attorney fees may not be awarded in any proceeding under this section.
(e) A petition must:
1. Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent;
2. Identify the quantities, types, and locations of all firearms and ammunition the petitioner believes to be in the respondent’s current ownership, possession, custody, or control; and
3. Identify whether there is a known existing protection order governing the respondent under s. 741.30, s. 784.046, or s. 784.0485 or under any other applicable statute.
(f) The petitioner must make a good faith effort to provide notice to a family or household member of the respondent and to any known third party who may be at risk of violence. The notice must state that the petitioner intends to petition the court for a risk protection order or has already done so and must include referrals to appropriate resources, including mental health, domestic violence, and counseling resources. The petitioner must attest in the petition to having provided such notice or must attest to the steps that will be taken to provide such notice.
(g) The petitioner must list the address of record on the petition as being where the appropriate law enforcement agency is located.
(h) A court or a public agency may not charge fees for filing or for service of process to a petitioner seeking relief under this section and must provide the necessary number of certified copies, forms, and instructional brochures free of charge.
(i) A person is not required to post a bond to obtain relief in any proceeding under this section.
(j) The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction over proceedings under this section.
(3) RISK PROTECTION ORDER HEARINGS AND ISSUANCE.—
(a) Upon receipt of a petition, the court must order a hearing to be held no later than 14 days after the date of the order and must issue a notice of hearing to the respondent for the same.

a reply to: grey580

I'm not in Florida.

I'm talking to you on a website.

Do you support red flag laws?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

You'll have to complain to the Republicans there in Florida running the show.

Apparently they thought it was a good idea.

Here is the text of the law for your viewing pleasure.

www.flsenate.gov...

I live in Texas.
Come and take it.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm on the fence about it. I can see reasoning for it though.

If it's use is limited strictly limited to taking away weapons from someone who is abundantly a clear danger to someone else or themselves. Then yes.

But not to take away weapons from someone who hasn't done anything.

a reply to: Vermilion

That sounds like a hold my beer challenge.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: JinMI

I'm on the fence about it. I can see reasoning for it though.

If it's use is limited strictly limited to taking away weapons from someone who is abundantly a clear danger to someone else or themselves. Then yes.

But not to take away weapons from someone who hasn't done anything.

"abundantly a clear danger" is rather subjective, no?

I implore you to think long and hard on advocating for the removal of peoples Constitutional rights and liberties sans due process.

a reply to: JinMI

Certainly can be subjective. Agreed.

I am neither for nor against this type of law. I am merely stating the facts. And you are imploring to the wrong person. I am neither a governor nor a part of a legislative body.