Virginia Gun Rights Rally

[VikingsGuy]

Probably around the time when we started letting attorneys and thugs in black robes "interpret" what was written in plain, easily understandable English in our founding documents.

First, lawyers can be a pain, but they aren’t the reason people replace an actual understanding of our history and laws with bumper sticker slogan logic.

Second, only a fool believes that writings about complicated values are “simple” and allow for only one reading. If that were true we would have 1 bible translation and 1 denomination of Christians. And you can’t blame the lawyers or judges for the fractious nature of Christianity. Two readers often take different things from a writing, just as two eye witnesses often have conflicting recollections of shared experiences.

Finally, I am a big fan of Heller, but there is nothing “plain” about the interpretation of English offered by the majority or the minority. It is an very poorly worded provision.

 

[bushman13]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

On a more serious tip, please follow these 2 youtube channels. There isn't much good content left on youtube anymore and I find these guys extremely important.

Iraqveteran8888

www.youtube.com

Mrgunsngear Channel

Here on the channel I do reviews of firearms and related gear. I'll probably throw in the occasional how-to video here and there as well. I'm a graduate of t...

www.youtube.com

 

[VikingsGuy]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

I love a good lawyer joke, another time I will share my favorite.

 

[Nick87]

I’d be the first to agree that lawyers are a pain (unless my wife beat me to it )

Lawyers, nobody likes em until they need em.

 

[Tradewind]

Well written, legally incorrect.

The new band-width thief. Taking space away from wllm1313.

 

[Tradewind]

I love a good lawyer joke, another time I will share my favorite.

Business must be slow. It took you 4 responding lines to finally get to the meat of your response.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Business must be slow. It took you 4 responding lines to finally get to the meat of your response.

I wished that were the case - but work is always there - we live in busy times.

 

[OldTexicanNewMexican]

Vikingsguy,
"

Two problems with your comments here -- first, the 4th amendment does not use the word crime at all; and second, you are mixing up criminal procedure and civil procedure which have different constitutional standards. For example, under civil fortiture the governement can take personal property without winning a criminal conviction. Also, by way of further example, (while not a 4th amendment issue) you can be civilly committed without a jury trial, but not criminally incarcerated without one (except by defendant waiver)."

You're speaking in broader terms and not specific to Red Flag Laws. Yes, a civil commitment is possible and there is a mechanism in place in each state to allow for one when a person demonstrates that they are a danger to themselves or others. In Texas it is called and "Emergency Detention" and mostly used for those in an acute mental/emotional episode and allows for a medical/psychiatric evaluation and potential longer commitment. I'm sure you're very familiar with the procedure and process, given your profession. ​

I'm certain that you and I agree in regards to mental health commitments. But these RFL's aren't being used to aid someone in the midst of a breakdown or psychotic episode. They're specifically intended to seize guns based upon an affidavit sworn out by someone that has no specific training in identifying mental/emotional health.

Even in the realm of civil forfeiture there is a procedure and hearing before the court before property can be seized.

Red Flag Laws are not including this process. Just recently a mad mom in Colorado filed an affidavit under it's RFL against the police officer that shot and killed her son, who charged the officer with a knife. My point being is that anyone could file such an affidavit against anyone based solely upon their feelings, beliefs and opinions. ​

I don't want criminals or mentally disturbed people having access to guns, but there needs to be a process in place to deal with it legally. RFL's are not the answer. Not as they are currently structured.

I recognize and understand that legally speaking, the SCOTUS is where laws are judged on their constitutionality. No Sheriff's do not have a legal obligation or authority to do this, but they do have a moral obligation to not subject the public to these questionable statutes. I have personally witnessed the passing of questionable laws that were deferred to the state Attorney General for opinion and in the meanwhile went unenforced. As you know, it can take years for a case to make it's way in front of the SCOTUS. Citizens should not be subjected to such legislation during the interim. And that's my feelings of moral obligation and duty, understanding that it may not be legally correct.

 

[Bigjay73]

I love a good lawyer joke, another time I will share my favorite.

What's the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?

A rooster clucks defiance

 

[VikingsGuy]

Red Flag Laws are not including this process. Just recently a mad mom in Colorado filed an affidavit under it's RFL against the police officer that shot and killed her son, who charged the officer with a knife. My point being is that anyone could file such an affidavit against anyone based solely upon their feelings, beliefs and opinions.

I haven’t read the VA specific law, but have read a few others and they include notice and hearing procedures not unlike civil commitment or TROs. Those I have read I haven’t liked because they allowed too much time between temporary order and relief hearing, as well as squishiness as to who can raise and what the legal standard of evidence will be, but that is true of many legal regimes, so while I wouldn’t vote for them, they whole idea isn’t inherently unconstitutional out of hand as often seems the suggestion in these discussions.

As for your example, if instances of misuse rendered a law entirely unconstitutional I am not sure we would have any laws left. The human condition is messy.

I recognize and understand that legally speaking, the SCOTUS is where laws are judged on their constitutionality. No Sheriff's do not have a legal obligation or authority to do this, but they do have a moral obligation to not subject the public to these questionable statutes. I have personally witnessed the passing of questionable laws that were deferred to the state Attorney General for opinion and in the meanwhile went unenforced. As you know, it can take years for a case to make it's way in front of the SCOTUS. Citizens should not be subjected to such legislation during the interim. And that's my feelings of moral obligation and duty, understanding that it may not be legally correct.

In modern jurisprudence most clear unconstitutional overreaches are stayed by lower courts before the laws are even put in effect, so this is less worrisome given that active 2A litigators.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We are only at 185, it will die well before 250.

 

[Addicting]

 

[VikingsGuy]

And everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi - take that Mr. Goodwin.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi - take that Mr. Goodwin.

 

[BigHornRam]

And everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi - take that Mr. Goodwin.

What do you call a lawyer in a Cadillac that goes off a cliff?

Room for more!

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Vikingsguy,
"
. . .

Red Flag Laws are not including this process. Just recently a mad mom in Colorado filed an affidavit under it's RFL against the police officer that shot and killed her son, who charged the officer with a knife. My point being is that anyone could file such an affidavit against anyone based solely upon their feelings, beliefs and opinions.
. . .

Just because I have nothing else to add and this wasn't addressed already, her request was basically thrown out because it was completely invalid. Because she's a moron (that part is my opinion).

Unfortunately there will likely be many requests that are completely unfounded. But, based upon limited history, the courts will hopefully handle them appropriately.

 

[memtb]

Just because I have nothing else to add and this wasn't addressed already, her request was basically thrown out because it was completely invalid. Because she's a moron (that part is my opinion).

Unfortunately there will likely be many requests that are completely unfounded. But, based upon limited history, the courts will hopefully handle them appropriately.

Though I haven’t actually attempted to verify the several uses of the “Red Flag” laws.... I have heard of firearm confiscation, without “said” due process. After which, the gun owner must prove of his competence, prior to having his firearms returned. This smell like “guilty until proven innocent”! There will be abuses, no matter how good the intentions! Especially if, the firearms owner resides in one of the “socialist states”! memtb

 

[88man]

@VikingsGuy So we all agree that we should build bridges so that everyone can use them. They are a public asset, there is no need to make a profit off of them.

How does the delta created by this profit fit into your narrative?

I would argue in a fully realized sense the largest cost isn’t the personnel it’s the profit margin.

My reservations echo your own, but I’m curious you views in this part of the conversation.

When there is no profit the labor/design/material/etc sum of all were to high. See the management that assures profit assures the costs are inline. In your utopia who is doing this?? Whats google say today?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In your utopia who is doing this??

Eh, I kinda have a hobbesian outlook on the world. So to be clear there is a huge difference between what I believe will happen - what I will advocate for - and what I am interested in hypothesizing about. I engage in these discussions, because I like to pose a question and then hear peoples reasoning for various opinions. I'm a moderate pragmatist and I share many of your's and others complaints with various politicians and their proposals.

Sometimes I think this gets lost of folks here; my argument is that "Gun reform" as a broad topic is problematic. There are constitutional issues, their are practical issues ( how would you even get rid of 300 million guns/ enforcement issues/etc.), and there are political issues (lots of people want guns for protection and sporting purposes and vote accordingly). Therefore I am pro 2A, but at same time recognize that there are in fact gun problems, high murder rates, suicide rates, mass shootings etc.

I like many others are interested in thinking about how you tackle these problems; what are the conditions that create them, and how to you change those conditions. Mental health is something thing that is discussed a lot, so is criminals won't follow laws. Therefore I think the conversation very inevitably turns to how do we address mental health, how do we address crime.

Lots of economic research has looked at the cost of prescriptive solutions versus punitive solutions. So in the long term is it cheaper for society to keep someone from becoming a criminal (education, economic dev, etc) or cheaper to just arrest them and lock them up. A lot of the research seems to suggest the former.

An example of how it might work out... it costs society $1,000,000 when someone murder someone; to catch them, to prosecute them, and then to incarcerate them. So if 10 people commit murders and are put in jail that might cost us $10,000,000 over the offenders lifetime. If instead of spending this $10,000,000 on just reacting to a crime and instead we spend money on various measures to help people avoid a life of crime, say, for instance, we spend $1,000,000 on those 10 people over the course of their lifetimes; on schooling (college or trade school), better healthcare, helping find opportunities, whatever... (so $100,000 per person) perhaps, maybe you keep 3 of those 10 people from becoming murders. So that's $7,000,000 in cost because of those that became murders despite your best efforts + $1,000,000 in your initial investment on prescriptive solutions. In the end you spent $8,000,000 instead of $10,000,000. So therefore it's actually $2,000,000 cheaper to spend the money on sending people to trade school or whatever for free.

Therefore, I postulated per another HT member's request on what might be a pragmatic solution to some of the issues surrounding guns, that 1. actually work and/or 2. aren't just gun bans.

I'm not painting a utopia, I am suggesting maybe we need to change the way we think about problems, and address them proactively rather than re-actively, with the knowledge that we won't know if we were right or wrong for 20-30 years.

Honestly, I don't take umbrage with anyone on the forum shooting holes in anything I suggest, that's the whole reason I post. I legitimately want to hear the criticism. If some of my ideas seem half baked it's because they are, "peer review" is part of the process of a good idea right?

At the same time there is a necessarily level of respect required to have this kind of discourse and if various people are just going to name call and attack people personally I'm just going to post poop emojis, as those two things have the same relative value.

When there is no profit the labor/design/material/etc sum of all were to high. See the management that assures profit assures the costs are inline.

That's a good point. In the case of medicine I'm interested in the insurance, medical equipment and executive management side of the equation. I don't think provider compensation, the "labor force" @VikingsGuy alluded is the issue, or where you could save money. I'm just not sure if a for profit insurance industry helps anyone? (because I literally don't know, like how is that system better than say medicare or the veterans system )

Whats google say today?

Not a liberal not a conservative, just a guy who is interested in the best way of solving problems and who thinks the bible has some great advice about how you should treat people.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Though I haven’t actually attempted to verify the several uses of the “Red Flag” laws.... I have heard of firearm confiscation, without “said” due process. After which, the gun owner must prove of his competence, prior to having his firearms returned. This smell like “guilty until proven innocent”! There will be abuses, no matter how good the intentions! Especially if, the firearms owner resides in one of the “socialist states”! memtb

“Confiscation” is a loaded word used to spread fear. And to one extent or another red flag laws have “due process”. But folks have to understand that due process does not mean a process that makes me happy. So, if I said a spouse could request request emergency commitment due to suicide concerns basis affidavit and that this affidavit needed one supporting clinician’s recommendation and upon receipt and consideration of these two papers a court could order immediate commitment pending a 3 day psych eval followed by a first multiparty hearing within 5 days of the eval report being submitted. Is that due process to you? It is under the law. Probably great process if you are the wife, maybe not so much if you are the husband. Could there be misuse? Probably. How does a judge know the wife isn’t being vindictive? Sometimes it will be clear, sometimes not. But this is reality. I have never heard this process discussed with the fear and vitriol of red flag laws even though it takes away a much bigger right (freedom).

And at that (now day 8) hearing the court has to decide if the committed individual is “safe” to be released. Is that “guilty until proven innocent”? First, that term is irrelevant as this is not a criminal proceeding (and neither would be a red flag law). But semantics aside, does it feel like the burden is now unfairly on the husband to prove he is well? Maybe it feels that way to him, but the standard the judge must apply is whether the medical professionals have carried the burden. Of course many patients will have their own view and feel like the burden on them is to prove the negative, but that’s not how it actually works when judges do it right. The presumption is to allow release unless the other evidence stacks up against that result. Does this feel like due process? Maybe not but it is. In the red flag scenarios, the burden will have to remain with the state to keep the guns or the laws will be tossed.

As far as varying by location, such is the nature of life. Every state/city/region tends to have different approaches to civil commitment, TROs, education, criminal justice, etc. Yes a judge in WY may set the bar higher on the state than a judge in NYC, but that is true of many areas of the law. Life is complicated and messy, and this is no different.

But again, I am against red flag laws not because they are unconstitutional (because when properly written they are probably just an allowable subset of civil commitment and TRO laws), but because I think they are unnecessarily duplicative with the existing commitment laws, and I think they are currently too politically charged to be used lawfully and effectively. There are lots of good reasons to argue against red flag laws, but screaming “confiscation”, “4th amendment”, “2nd amendment”, “guilty having to proving innocence” while walking through town holding a 50BMG is not accurate or helpful in my opinion.

Given the general discussion on this thread, other threads and in public in general I really wish the pro-2A folks and conservatives in general would get better informed about our actual history and how the law actually works before they jump to bumper sticker slogans. I don’t wish the same for anti-2A folks and liberals in general because I like when they overstate the case and look foolish or Henny-penny-like - this detracts from their agenda, but I prefer we not detract from the pro-2A just as foolishly.