It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky to becomes the latest state to debate "Red Flag" firearm legislation;

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket




Im against red flag laws of every kind...no due process equals BS

Doesn't due process mean going through the court?
Pretty sure judicial review of a Red Flag request is required. It is in ours. I checked.

§134-C Commencement of action; forms. (a) In order to seek a gun violence protective order or make an ex parte motion for a gun violence protective order, the petitioner shall file a written petition for relief on forms provided by the court. The court shall designate an employee or appropriate non-judicial agency to assist the petitioner in completing the petition.

(b) The petition shall allege, under penalty of perjury, the grounds for issuance of the order and shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath or a statement made under penalty of perjury containing detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent's self or another person by owning, purchasing, possessing, receiving, or having in the respondent's custody or control any firearm or ammunition, and specific facts and circumstances in support thereof, as well as the number, types, and locations of any firearms or ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. The petition shall also state, if known to the petitioner, whether there is an existing restraining order or protective order in effect governing the respondent and whether there is any pending lawsuit, complaint, petition, or other action between the parties under the laws of this State. The judiciary shall verify the terms of any existing order governing the parties. The court shall not delay granting relief because of the existence of a pending action between the parties or the necessity of verifying the terms of an existing order. A petition for a gun violence protective order or an ex parte motion for a gun violence protective order may be granted regardless of whether there is a pending action between the parties.

(c) All health records and other health information provided in a petition or considered as evidence in a proceeding under this part shall be sealed by the court, except that the identities of the petitioner and respondent may be provided to law enforcement agencies as set forth in section 134-I. Aggregate statistical data about the numbers of gun violence protective orders issued, renewed, denied, dissolved, or terminated shall be made available to the public upon request.

(d) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall set a date for hearing on the petition within fourteen days, regardless of whether the court issues an ex parte gun violence protective order pursuant to section 134-D. If the court issues an ex parte gun violence protective order pursuant to section 134-D, notice of the hearing shall be served on the respondent with the ex parte order. Notice of the hearing shall be personally served on the respondent by an officer of the appropriate county police department.

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...

Not due process?


edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

not, if you dont have the right to face the accuser in a trial prior to removal of firearms. There are varying qualities to each states "red flag" laws.

Its utterly bubkus



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket



if you dont have the right to face the accuser in a trial prior to removal of firearms.

Um. See item (d)



There are varying qualities to each states "red flag" laws.
Can you provide an example of one which precludes due process? That would indeed be bad. Seems such a law wouldn't stand a snowball's chance of being upheld in court.

edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

rather than getting caught up in minutia...does congress have the right to pass such a law?

The Founding Fathers clearly enumerated the powers of the federal government in the Constitution. Among the powers granted in Article I, Section 8 are “the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office.”



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket




does congress have the right to pass such a law?

I don't know. But we're talking about state laws, aren't we?



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well here you go:
California, Washington, Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others. Lawmakers in 18 other states — including Florida — plus the District of Columbia have proposed similar measures.
www.washingtonpost.com... -11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

Yes. But for some reason they missed Hawaii.

Now, which of those states has laws which bypass due process? Hawaii certainly doesn't.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I just gave ya 5?

" The approach of the red flag laws is to seize guns from people who have them and to restrict their access until they are no longer deemed dangerous."


edit on 24-11-2019 by BlueJacket because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

No. You gave me a list (incomplete) of states that have red flag laws. Not states in which due process is not called for. Can you provide an example of that?
edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The laws allow family members or law enforcement officers to ask a judge for a “gun violence restraining order”www.pewtrusts.org...


If there is an immediate risk of harm, a court can issue a temporary ex parte order to seize guns from people for up to 14 days in most states. Other states range from two days to 45 days. At those hearings, a judge can issue the order by listening to evidence from the petitioner.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

make sure you read that last sentence a couple times...thats NO due process



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

Yes. That is what Hawaii law says too. It's similar to other restraining orders, it requires going before a judge and presented good cause that it be granted. Courts. Due process.

With Hawaii's law, a hearing is held within 14 days an ex parte order. I would think the same is true elsewhere. Here's part (d) again:


(d) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall set a date for hearing on the petition within fourteen days, regardless of whether the court issues an ex parte gun violence protective order pursuant to section 134-D. If the court issues an ex parte gun violence protective order pursuant to section 134-D, notice of the hearing shall be served on the respondent with the ex parte order. Notice of the hearing shall be personally served on the respondent by an officer of the appropriate county police department.



Here are the requirements for obtaining an ex parte order, a temporary removal of guns.

(c) Before issuing an ex parte gun violence protective order, the court shall examine under oath the petitioner and any witnesses the petitioner may produce. The court may also:

(1) Ensure that a reasonable search has been conducted of all available records to determine whether the respondent owns any firearms or ammunition; and

(2) Ensure that a reasonable search has been conducted for criminal history and mental health records related to the respondent that are readily available to the court.

(d) In determining whether sufficient grounds for an ex parte gun violence protective order exist, the court shall consider all relevant evidence presented by the petitioner, and may also consider other relevant evidence, including evidence of facts relating to the respondent's:

(1) Unlawful, reckless, or negligent use, display, storage, possession, or brandishing of a firearm;

(2) Act or threat of violence against the respondent's self or another person, regardless of whether the violence involves a firearm;

(3) Violation of a protective order or restraining order issued pursuant to chapter 586 or section 604-10.5, or a similar law in another state;

(4) Abuse of controlled substances or alcohol or commission of any criminal offense that involves controlled substances or alcohol; and

(5) Recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.

(e) The court shall also consider the time that has elapsed since the events described in subsection (d).

(f) If the court finds probable cause to believe that the respondent poses an imminent danger of causing bodily injury to the respondent's self or another person by owning, purchasing, possessing, receiving, or having in the respondent's custody or control any firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue an ex parte gun violence protective order.

Court. Due process. Judges decide such matters quite often. That's their job, to look at evidence presented and make a judgement.


edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Right, but we are refering to the bill of rights, this doesnt refer to the court's process, the constitution protects all citizens and affords THEM due process.

Fact is I gave you an example, and it should cause anyone pause.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket


...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Who administers the law?

Of course, the court could also invalidate the law if it is found to not provide sufficient protections. That's another thing courts do.


I think our law provides sufficient protections, particularly when the stakes are considered. But I'm not a judge.


edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd




Yes, if the shooter had been (a common scenario) a violent ex who lived in Kentucky and was stalking their former spouse who worked in Ohio.


Under both the GCA and the BRHPA viloent offenders,stalkers,nuts are verboten from owning firearms.

ATF form 4473.

Which by law in both Ohio/Kentucky has to be filled out.

Anyone that lies on it is a crime.

And no it wouldn't.

Because I just named two existing laws.
edit on 24-11-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join