Is Due Process all that important

Massachusetts Governor Signs Gun Seizure Bill


Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill on Tuesday allowing for temporary gun confiscation without any due process in Massachusetts.
Bill H4670 enables the police, a family or household member, including roommates, relatives or significant others, to remove firearms, firearm identification cards and ammunition from any individual deemed to be a danger to oneself or others.
Surrendered goods can be confiscated for up to one year, with the ability to renew the order, but an individual can try to appeal the ruling. Baker defended the so-called ‘red flag law’ over twitter calling it a “model for the nation.”

dailycaller.com...


So "Due Process" has to be followed if it's illegals sneaking over the border, but no due process for people others may deem a risk to themselves and others.


I can see the applications and how it might prevent shootings, I can also see how this can be grossly abused.

DO we have "Due Process" in this country? Or is it arbittrary?


Oh the conundrm!

a reply to: DBCowboy


Yes, Due Process is important. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this bill won't see the light of day. I'ts unconstitutional and the NRA won't stand for it. It will be stalled in the courts. Mark my words!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

12 other states already have it in place.

What the actual hell?!?! Do these people enjoy wipping their self entitled rearends with the constitution? Trying not to let this ruin my 4th....
By all means let’s save the children from their future freedoms...
*Shakes my head in shame*
For a centerpoint in the creation of this nation I find it very distasteful to stomp on the constitution without batting an eye.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Red flag laws, like the other states have in place, required judicial consent, so Due Process remains in place. So, if the Massachusetts law requires judicial consent, then Due Process is not suspended, and your article and your thread title are misleading.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Hey I have said it many times before, just give me your guns and I will protect you.....This Is for your protection.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy


Red flag laws, like the other states have in place, required judicial consent, so Due Process remains in place. So, if the Massachusetts law requires judicial consent, then Due Process is not suspended, and your article and your thread title are misleading.

But it doesn't require judicial consent.

a reply to: DBCowboy

This is disgusting and obvious.

Apparently that's what works these days.

a reply to: DBCowboy


Yeah they do, just like a restraining order.

Red flag laws, sometimes called extreme risk protection order laws, allow a judge to issue an order that enables law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. Since the Parkland shooting, at least two dozen states have considered enacting similar laws in their states. In Vermont, a red flag law has already passed the both the Senate and House.

www.motherjones.com...

The Massachusetts process for seeking an order for extreme-risk protection looks a lot like it does in other states that have red flag laws. Once a petition is filed against a gun owner, a judge must hold a hearing within 10 days to determine if that person poses a valid risk. If so, the judge will order the person to surrender all firearms and stay away from guns for 12 months. The subject must turn over firearms ID cards and permits, and will be entered into a federal database barring them from purchasing guns elsewhere.

The Massachusetts law also allows emergency extreme-risk protection orders that can be approved without notice to the gun owner. Under this process, firearms are immediately removed for up to 10 days ahead of a hearing, where a judge decides whether to extend the order for a full year.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So according to your source, due process exists after they've already confiscated the firearms.


Isn't that like saying you can have a trial after we've proved you guilty?

a reply to: DBCowboy

So according to your source, due process exists after they've already confiscated the firearms.

No different than being arrested first, and then scheduled to appear before a judge.

*AHEM*

The 6th amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I can see the applications and how it might prevent shootings...

Well at least someone is trying something to bring this problem under wraps. I'm curious to see how this pans out. And who would know better than those close to someone that one could be dangerous.

a reply to: JinMI


Is 10 days speedy enough for you?

Once a petition is filed against a gun owner, a judge must hold a hearing within 10 days to determine if that person poses a valid risk. If so, the judge will order the person to surrender all firearms and stay away from guns for 12 months.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

So according to your source, due process exists after they've already confiscated the firearms.

No different than being arrested first, and then scheduled to appear before a judge.

But you have to have committed a crime in order to be arrested.

Not just your neighbor thinking you're weird and wants to remove your guns.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI


Is 10 days speedy enough for you?

Yes. If you can prove in a court of law within those 10 days that the subject has broken a law that necessitates the need for the removal of firearms. That would be great. Sooner even.

Until then, you can't take citizens items.

a reply to: intrepid

In all mass shooting cases the suspect was known to LE agencies.

If something is to be done, there would be a grand place to begin.

What if they're cops?
Federal agents?
Does this also cover armed security for people who've had their guns taken away?

originally posted by: JinMI
Until then, you can't take citizens items.

Car keys are taken off of drunk people daily. Why? Because they are dangerous.

a reply to: DBCowboy


You don't have to necessarily have to have committed a crime for someone to get a restraining order either. They just have to prove a credible threat.

Is there room for abuse? Sure.