Itd be a shame if the entire bill is nullified because of the SC rulings this week.
(06-24-2022 02:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Itd be a shame if the entire bill is nullified because of the SC rulings this week.
If not now, it will be at a later date. Just despair from the Left before an election. Obama had a Super Majority for two years and all he could get done is a Healthcare Law that has become useless. If the Left has a problem, protest his ass and Hillary for that matter because she was too bad to beat Trump. They have no mirrors.
Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
A bright spot on a dark day! Nice timing by Speaker Pelosi.
(06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
The red flag law stuff. The SC ruled this week that it is unconstitutional to force a citizen to prove they are entitled to a right guaranteed in the constitution. Red Flag laws basically do that.
If thats the case, and they dont word the bill properly, if any part of the bill is invalid, the entirey of the bill is invalid and the parts that werent unconstitutional have to be re-passed into law.
(06-24-2022 04:58 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
The red flag law stuff. The SC ruled this week that it is unconstitutional to force a citizen to prove they are entitled to a right guaranteed in the constitution. Red Flag laws basically do that.
If thats the case, and they dont word the bill properly, if any part of the bill is invalid, the entirey of the bill is invalid and the parts that werent unconstitutional have to be re-passed into law.
This. All of it. They'd have to word it in such a way that the Supreme Court declares that it doesn't violate the Second Amendment.
(06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
(06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
(06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
It that is true, then the NRA doesn't need to wait to fund a lawsuit. 19 states already have red flag laws on the books. Including Connecticut since 1999 and Indiana since 2005.
(06-24-2022 04:26 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]A bright spot on a dark day! Nice timing by Speaker Pelosi.
Sick of your ass, go fuq yourself. There's not one thing in that bill that will save one single life.
(06-26-2022 07:09 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 04:26 PM)Gamenole Wrote: [ -> ]A bright spot on a dark day! Nice timing by Speaker Pelosi.
Sick of your ass, go fuq yourself. There's not one thing in that bill that will save one single life.
Tiger, instead of that... how about asking gamenole...
Hey Gamenole, what part of that bill will guarantee that you're saving one single life?
When you can answer that question _Honestly_, I think you'll be taken a little more seriously.
(06-24-2022 03:07 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 02:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Itd be a shame if the entire bill is nullified because of the SC rulings this week.
If not now, it will be at a later date. Just despair from the Left before an election. Obama had a Super Majority for two years and all he could get done is a Healthcare Law that has become useless. If the Left has a problem, protest his ass and Hillary for that matter because she was too bad to beat Trump. They have no mirrors.
The actual left does blame those things. Liberals have spent the last 6 years blaming "Bernie Bros" for Trump instead of blaming their own failures for decades.
(06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
Thats where we are. The bill itself doesnt lay out any specifics. It will depend on the manner that each state implements a "red flag" law. We regularly trample on the enumerated Constitutional rights of individuals every day---and its allowed by the Constitution as long as there was "due process" . Good examples are when we put someone in prison or when we institutionalize someone against their wishes. The key for red flag laws is there will have to be a process that alerts the individual of an allegation of being unfit to hold firearms has been filed against them along with giving those individuals the right to defend against it---including the right to confront their accuser. I also think there should be a substantial penalty for any "red flag" accuser who levels an "unfit to own fire arms" accusation at someone simply to annoy or attack that individual. For it to be constitutional---they will need to PROVE you unfit beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE depriving you of your ability legally own fire arms.
(06-26-2022 11:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
Thats where we are. The bill itself doesnt lay out any specifics. It will depend on the manner that each state implements a "red flag" law. We regularly trample on the enumerated Constitutional rights of individuals every day---and it allowed by the Constitution as long as there was "due process". Good examples are when we put someone in prison or when we institutionalize someone against their wishes. The key for red flag laws is there will have to be a process that alerts the individual of an allegation of being unfit to hold firearms has been filed against them and that they have a right to defend against it---including the right to confront their accuser. I also think there should be a substantial penalty for any "red flag" accuser who levels an "unfit to own fire arms" accusation simply to annoy or attack an individual.
Agree. Without due process rights it is un-American. Your second point is a great one. We need to put criminal penalties in place for false allegations, similar to filing a false police report, but perhaps even a little tougher because they are attempting to remove a Constitutional right from somebody.
(06-26-2022 11:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
Thats where we are. The bill itself doesnt lay out any specifics. It will depend on the manner that each state implements a "red flag" law. We regularly trample on the enumerated Constitutional rights of individuals every day---and its allowed by the Constitution as long as there was "due process" . Good examples are when we put someone in prison or when we institutionalize someone against their wishes. The key for red flag laws is there will have to be a process that alerts the individual of an allegation of being unfit to hold firearms has been filed against them and that they have a right to defend against it---including the right to confront their accuser. I also think there should be a substantial penalty for any "red flag" accuser who levels an "unfit to own fire arms" accusation at someone simply to annoy or attack that individual. For it to be constitutional---they will need to PROVE you unfit beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE depriving you of your ability legally own fire arms.
I suggested the same
False accusations should lead to penalty and those falsely accused should be able to seek compensation for their wasted time and legal expenses
Quote:False accusations should lead to penalty and those falsely accused should be able to seek compensation for their wasted time and legal expenses
Seeing as how somebody accused of being a danger would need legal representation, I agree. This is also a form of lawfare, accusing somebody of something so they have to spend $ to hire representation.
(06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
IMO, the problem is that by giving states a federal incentive (i.e. FEDERAL tax monies) to create laws that violate due process, even if you and/or I reside in a state without anti-constitutional laws, OUR tax money is paying incentives to states such as CA, NY, and others who will.
That, in my opinion, creates a legal problem in which ALL of us by default remain affected.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
(06-26-2022 01:26 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 08:33 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 07:56 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2022 03:10 PM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Its mainly a financial bill, no?
What in it could the SC nullify
You could start with the part that declares people unconstitutionally guilty and forcing them to prove innocence and go from there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with that.
But this bill doesn't do that
It gives financial incentive for states to do so, but this bill doesn't "do the dirty work"
A state will have to act before the court can take action
IMO, the problem is that by giving states a federal incentive (i.e. FEDERAL tax monies) to create laws that violate due process, even if you and/or I reside in a state without anti-constitutional laws, OUR tax money is paying incentives to states such as CA, NY, and others who will.
That, in my opinion, creates a legal problem in which ALL of us by default remain affected.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I hear ya and don't necessarily disagree. But red flag laws have been around since 1999 at the state level including red states like Indiana and Florida. They are there to be challenged if anyone wants to do so.
Until the Court rules on their constitutionality the finance bill that just passed would be hard pressed to be found as unconstitutional
![[Image: kEHdFqtG5rdc.jpeg]](https://media.patriots.win/post/kEHdFqtG5rdc.jpeg)