In other words, the system these worry-warts feared did NOT happen. A judge stopped it, just as reasonable people would expect. And when it got stopped by a judge, THAT represents "a lack of reason and practicality in enforcement of these red flag laws?" Geeze, what would you call it if the judge DIDN'T stop it?The judge did not accept the order, but the fact that it was made at all signals a lack of reason and practicality in the enforcement of these red flag laws, echoing a concern that many opposers to the statute have voiced.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There is no evidence of aliens, so aliens don't exist.)Let's see if I have these right...
Oh, NO!!! Now every ex-wife and ticked off girlfriend in FL will be jamming the courts trying to get their man's guns confiscated on a bunch of BS (i.e.- made up, no evidence) charges. Just don't ask us to produce one because we don't have ANY... at all! In fact in complaining about this, we actually present a REAL case where a judge threw out the request because it didn't rise to the appropriate level. This is the equivalent of a prosecutor presenting evidence the suspect was out of town on the day the crime happened.
So now our legislature and executive, believing this law will "fix" the problem, enacts that law despite all the ex-wife screaming and due process nonsense continually bleated out by groups who, if they had even the slightest possible case where due process was denied would have filed it a YEAR ago.
You seem to have an erroneous understanding of what constitutes due process. When a warrant is issued, either for a search or an arrest, the target of said warrant is not notified in advance, nor are they privy to the proceedings that occur to obtain said warrant. I don't understand why anyone would think that an ERPO would be handled any differently, or how that amounts to a lack of due process.https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/red-flag-sheriff-ordered-to-surrender-weapons-after-estranged-wife-files-for-divorce/
So, she files for divorce. THEN she files an additional complaint / restraining order based on the allegation that he choked her TWO YEARS ago. He has to surrender his firearms BEFORE Due Process.
No provision to face your accuser or contest the decision (to seize your property).... until later... sometimes much later... at the discretion of the government, eh?You seem to have an erroneous understanding of what constitutes due process. When a warrant is issued, either for a search or an arrest, the target of said warrant is not notified in advance, nor are they privy to the proceedings that occur to obtain said warrant. I don't understand why anyone would think that an ERPO would be handled any differently, or how that amounts to a lack of due process.
Florida's red flag law has been challenged as a violation of due process...and that challenge has been rejected.
You get to face your accuser within 14 days, per the statute:No provision to face your accuser or contest the decision (to seize your property).... until later... sometimes much later... at the discretion of the government, eh?
The property to be seized under eminent domain is unlikely to be used to cause harm to others.Even with Eminent Domain cases, the land owner gets to present his case before they just knock down his house.
It is until a higher court overturns that decision.That the argument has been rejected (by a particular court or judge) is not an absolute determination of truth.
And what exactly are your credentials to determine the constitutionality of any given law? It seems that there are plenty of people who are actually licensed to practice law that disagree with you on this topic.Appeal to authority, eh? The Constitution's language is really not vague or obtuse. It's pretty clear and written in rather plain language.
Being licensed to practice law makes you a Constitutional expert or scholar?? I took gross anatomy (same as med students) and then head & neck anatomy (which even the med students didn't have to take). I guess that makes me an expert on brain surgery??You get to face your accuser within 14 days, per the statute:
(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.
That's encouraging, though I wonder if they truly adhere to it or find ways to delay it. Admittedly speculative (and pessimistic) on my part.
You're unlikely to ever be tried in court that quickly for a criminal offense.
The property to be seized under eminent domain is unlikely to be used to cause harm to others.
Red herring. We're talking about Due Process. DP shouldn't be variable depending on the allegation. It should be the same regardlesss. I don't believe the Constitution makes exceptions for certain offenses or charges or other punitive government actions.
It is until a higher court overturns that decision.
And what exactly are your credentials to determine the constitutionality of any given law? It seems that there are plenty of people who are actually licensed to practice law that disagree with you on this topic.
You think I'm "ranting???"You can believe whatever the hell you want; it's not me you have to convince that red flag laws are unconstitutional. Ranting about it here isn't going to accomplish squat.
:thumsupBill Clinton was licensed to practice law until he was disbarred. So much for integrity of lawyers. Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar and is a f***ing idiot who believes we are a democracy. I'll stick with the opinions of the likes of Cruz, Jordan and such
I think every person has the right to a black powder pistol.If you think every person in this country should be allowed to have a firearm.....you are an idiot. If you think Red Flag Laws...(the way they are written and enforced at the p[resent time) are exactly perfect....you are an idiot. So, now that we have set the margins...what we need in this country is to find a way to insert a means of taking away the firearms from those that present a danger to their selves and to others....then we need to figure out a way to ensure every citizen not a danger to anyone maintains the right to own a firearm. Well, that should be easy....right? .......NOT! Anyone that can come up with a way to do this is the person we need as president or AG or on the Supreme Court.