Having to wait isn't infringed. He bought 2 weapons, I believe 600 rounds of ammo and committed the shooting within 6 days of turning 18. Being flagged for a delay and having that processed and checked into is the definition of due process.
Then stop just giving them and do something that actually might help. While we are at it, I guess we should give Justice Kavanaugh our thoughts and prayers for having to deal with someone walking with an unloaded gun close to his house and actually calling the police on himself. That had to be so traumatizing. Not as traumatizing as having to play dead as a 3rd grader while many of your friends were actually dead, though.
The urge to “do something” is one of the most dangerous there is.
The difference is we’ve had years to “do something” about these shootings. Decisions on the virus had to be made fairly quickly on the fly.
You do understand what red flag laws are, correct? It gives the government, the ability to take someone’s guns without due process.
I’m not advocating for doing nothing, but my hat won’t hang on the nail supporting empty actions. Guard the schools, hold people accountable for passively abetting crimes by not pointing out those presenting imminent danger.
Wrong...Red flag laws allow the government to investigate a person deeper than just a background check. It is no guarantee that you will be denied the ability to purchase. You just must show you meet qualifications to own them...that again is the definition of due process.
Not preaching...pointing out the facts...you on the other hand are preaching...I believe it was you that said give it a rest already...that is preaching.
Didn't say anything about the burden of proof. In fact, in those situations, it is reasonable for the government to enforce a delay in purchasing in order to prove the person shouldn't possess a weapon. The person can defend himself but the government should prove that he can't purchase for whatever reason just like the government has to prove guilt of crime. It can and should work the same way. Either the govt proves it's case and the person is denied the ability to purchase a weapon or they don't and the person is able to purchase the weapon. His rights have not been infringed upon in the least.
Since I'm not a lawyer I can't really comment on this other than, the 15th Amendment did make it illegal to deny the right to vote due to race or past servitude etc, and SCOTUS decisions have reinforced the right to vote, but the founders left it up to the states to establish the criteria for voting, and every state has it's own policies regarding registration, IDs, in-person vs. mail in voting, past criminal records, etc.
Who's grabbing guns, regulating, background checks, take weapons of war off street. People have to be aware of the numbers, and how we stack against other countries
just like you show in court that you aren't guilty of the crime. The burden of proof is still on the state but you do everything you can to prove your innocence. There is a huge difference between the two. As an attorney, I would expect you to realize that.
A state does not have to have an election, for example, to choose its Senators. Arguably, the constitution says if there is voting, there cannot be denial based upon immutable characteristics.
That's not true. The "government" being the police force cannot confiscate guns without a court order. That's due process. Red flag laws are an important tool that the police need to fight crime and protect citizens.
Yea that's a little known fact, the Constitution provides that State Legislatures can choose their reps to federal office, there is no requirement to even have an election. In fact at one time Senators were chosen by the state legislatures without elections.
No. The burden in criminal court is NOT on you to show you did not commit a crime. The burden is always on the government to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the crime. You have no burden to put on any evidence whatsoever. In fact, the procedure affords you the right to ask the court to dismiss the case after the government’s case-in-chief when the government does not carry its burden as a matter of law.
And I repeatedly said the government has to prove that you can’t purchase weapons. The defense doesn’t have to prove innocence but ultimately they are trying to do just that.
You don’t see the issue with the government confiscating citizens guns based on the complaint of another citizen? For example, a woke liberal activist making a false complaint about a gun toting red blooded American. Don’t think it happens? It already happens to an extent, and it’s called swatting. Look it up on YouTube.
Again it's the police not some liberal government bureaucrat. Anyone that makes a false charge like that perjures themselves which is a crime for which they can get jail time. Like any legal proceeding, a judge considers the evidence which must be things like witnesses, post on social media, threats etc. and if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt he or she issues the order. If there isn't enough evidence to support the charge the individual is allowed to keep their weapons.
It needs to be deeper than some random accusation…supported by witnesses or social media comments. Simply pointing a finger opens the door to chaos
That’s the problem. It’s taking away someone’s constitutional rights without actually committing a crime.
That’s simply and totally false. Expanded background checks and red flag laws are taking anything away from anyone. They might delay a purchase. They might prevent someone from buying a gun who isn’t legally allowed to but they aren’t taking away a right from anyone.
Love how liberals try to downplay the Kavanaugh incident. If some right wing nut had a gun, ammo, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, and zip ties and is in the neighborhood of Justice Sotomayer, admitting he had a plan to kill the Justice, TC would not downplay the incident. Hypocrisy.
If that guy wanted to cause damage, he never would have called the cops on himself. Also there was an arrest in the past after a man made threats against Sotomayor that I bet you never heard about. I didnt see Mitch or anyone else ever make a plea for extra security at that time. Hello pot meet kettle. If it wasn’t for double standards, you’d have no standards.
