How did i get in this group?

@BohemianBabe i do not support red flag laws as they violate the constitution

@Ozuye502 Not really. You can have a militia without owning a gun yourself. Just like you can have a state military without being in said military yourself.

@BohemianBabe
Red flag laws? do violate the constitution.
So does the NFA and ATF
Militia although directly mentioned in 2A it is a separate subject.
The whole premise of it is the government can have a military for the security of a free state it clearly stated.
However there's a second clause that clearly states the right of the people (us citizens) that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. That has been legally affirmed by heller v DC and NYSR v Bruen among other cases but those are the biggest 2 at least on the federal level.
Also you can make the argument that red flag laws result in unlawful searches and seizure of private with out due process.
Not only that but you have to sue to get it back which puts the burden of proof on the citizen not the government which is the whole point of the legal system. I see you are only 18-21 so i am going to take it easy on you because i know for a fact that history class lied to you.

@Ozuye502 The constitution says the people should have a well-regulated militia. Do you know what a militia is?

@BohemianBabe
Ah yes the well regulated argument.
You have to look into the virbage of the day. It means uniformly traned and armed. Now that doesn't account for specialized jobs today but all troops go through a basic training so that is covered. Nice try.
If written today it would read a uniformly armed and trained militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to own and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Notice how there is a separation between the militia and right of the people? "Regulations" only applies to militia not the right of the people. I understand that education in the US is terrible but damn English class and history class taught nothing?

@Ozuye502 Once again, do you know what a militia is? I know you're ignorant, but you could have googled it when I asked you that.

@BohemianBabe yes it is a military force composed of the citizens...
Wait i see what you are trying to argue here.
You are saying that because the militia is well regulated and citizens make up the militia that civilians access to sufficient arms and ammunition should be regulated because the militia is regulated?
However that is not what the framers intention was. Actually that is the current interpretation according government since they passed the NFA in 1934. And only furthered infringement since. But funny how the militia run by government gets all the shit that i would like to have at my disposal incase something pops off on home soil???

@Ozuye502 No, I'm saying that the people can have a militia without literally every person being allowed to be part of said militia.
And given the Founders did believe in gun control laws, they probably understood this.

@BohemianBabe you do realize the first true gun control laws were based on race right? (At least at the local level)
Which is why the NRA came to be?
But i get it being most of the current military operates in logistics roles now.
But most laws passed shortly after were fighting aged men were REQUIRED to own a rifle a belt powder ammunition and bayonet.
Ah if only that was true today the day you turn 18 you had to buy a m4 ammo and mags this conversation would be null and void...
But in all seriousness the first gun control laws passed on a federal level was the NFA in 1934... so did the framers believe in gun control when the first gun control act took place 147 years after the ratification of the constitution? Hmmm im going to say no. Especially if you read the federalist papers you will see the truth my friend.

@Ozuye502
So what? That doesn't mean today's laws need to be based on race.


The framers generally left gun control laws up to the colonies. And sure enough, every colony had some form of gun control. As far as I know, the framers didn't complain that this was unconstitutional.

@BohemianBabe just pointing some facts and no law should be based on race.
Eh i would not say that because in some there were arguments not different from today. Hell the Supreme Court ruled on a few recently. One being that using medical Marijuana should not restrict access to firearm ownership and NYSR&P ASS. v. Bruen were ruled on with in the last 12 months or so. Hint both were ruled in favor of gun ownership and Bruen was a case for carry permits.
Now you are arguing for states rights which i would be in total agreement with however those state laws and regulations should agree with the federal constitution.

@Ozuye502 Like I said, red flag laws wouldn't stop states from having a militia. And we just established that the founders were alright with local governments having gun control.

So what's the problem exactly?

@BohemianBabe
Are you familiar with Heller v DC?
Or the fourt ammendment?
How about the 14th?
Im saying that red flag laws are in violation of those as well.
And given world history do you honestly trust government having a monopoly on firearms?

@Ozuye502
The 4th Amendment says "unreasonable searches and seizures." If a person had several visits from cops because they posted direct violent threats on social media, is it unreasonable to say they can't own a gun?


Red flag laws would not cause that. Neither would closing the gun show loophole.

@BohemianBabe
There is no gun show loop hole my guy its a myth perpetuated by the gun control lobby. Ive done background checks at gun shows.
Now if you are referring to private transactions that is a different story can they happen at gun shows yes and no but vendors at gun shows are dealers who are licensed through the feds.

The problem i have is that anyone can abuse the law to push their agenda... how do i know because it happened to a customer of mine. His neighbor made a up a bunch of bullshit because he was a hunter and this karen didn’t like he was processing harvests in his back yard. He had to spend thousands in legal fees to get his shit back. You have also had law enforcement and civilians killed because of baseless caims. Yes it happened on more than one occasion.

@Ozuye502
That is the gun show loophole. The reason it's called that is because these private transactions usually happen at gun shows.


That can happen with any laws, though. If a person has a criminal record, they're more likely to get arrested if the cops are called on them, even when they didn't do anything wrong. If child service is called on them, they more likely to have their kids taken away.
There are plenty of problems with people abusing the law, systemic bias within policing, a lack of transparency, and so on. But the solution to that isn't to just not have laws. If we're not going to have red flag laws because people could theoretically abuse them, why have child service? Why have laws at all?

@BohemianBabe
Child services is a joke more often abused by mothers who aret happy with their custody arrangements and law enforcement has no say in civil matters.
However red flag laws are criminal issues. + didnt they prove to be a failure in Florida with that school shooter? The one made David Hogg a student at Harvard.

@Ozuye502
By we do have to have child services, right? There are cases where kids are being abused and need to be taken away.
So the issue isn't the law itself, it's that we need to make the law better. I think law enforcement in general should have as much transparency as possible. We can also have penalties for people who abuse the law, much like we have laws against frivolous lawsuits.


Florida enacted red flag laws after that shooting.

@BohemianBabe law enforcement is beyond messed up in this country

@Ozuye502 So should we just not have laws?
Or should we try to improve policing and the judicial system?

@BohemianBabe
Yes laws should be put inplace and improvements on law enforcement and the judicial systems need to be at the forefront of every political asshats agenda. However, it is rarely in expanding liberties but governmental power. Red flag laws are just an expansion of governmental power. Which is why i shifted away from the republican party and lean more libertarian than anything else.
Because red flag laws are entirely dependent upon hearsay and violate due process.
Look into Colion Noir hes great hes an actual lawyer and gun rights advocate. Yes he had ties to the NRA but those have long been broken off.
If someone has documented threats charge them with threatening terrorism its a felony offense and bars them from legally owning a firearm if the conviction sticks. That is due process. But just stripping a person of the tools to defend themselves and possibly putting food on their table that they legally own based on hearsay is a good thing? (Hearsay is admissible in court) how does that not violate due process its unreasonable search and seizure of private property and it violates the right to keep and bare arms.

@BohemianBabe
I'll give you the link
https://youtu.be/7JCyEEpBcdE

@Ozuye502
Wouldn't more transparency help expand liberties? It would reduce the amount of corruption.


So it sounds like you're alright with red flag laws, you just want there to be due process and set criteria, which every state with red flag laws has. And you can also petition to get your guns rights back. It's not like someone calls the cops on you once and then you can never own a gun again.

@BohemianBabe
I will agree with you on that.
Documented threats are way different than hearsay most red flag laws allow for hearsay and i was using current law that i also dont agree with. That having a felony charge on your record bars you from firearms ownership. Non violent felony charges like should not hold against you in the basic natural right of self defense. Making a terroristic threat that is documented is vastly different. Charge and conviction must come first. Like i said my customer spent well over 10,000$ in legal fees just to get his tools back. That turned his right into a privilege. If he didn't have the privilege to afford that he wouldn't have gotten his tools back.
Yes I refer to firearms as tools.