United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
They have a warrant.
I don't think either of those rights would apply to that circumstance. They mean the firearm owner had a right to go to a judge and argue to have his gun returned, but you can't invoke that to counter a court order saying thry should be seized. It'd be like arguing that the police can't execute a search warrant on your house without informing you and giving you a chance to argue that they're wrong to think you have anything to to do with whatever they suspect.
So if you invoked that arguement against a red flag seizure, they'd kick your door down anyway, search your house for the guns, and then probably arrest you for not complying with a court order.
Ixian
Well-known member
Sure, but the firearms aren't there, and the accused has invoked their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. What can the police actually do at that point?
Like, sure they can search the house/property, but they won't find anything and the 5th says the accused doesn't have to talk to them.
You're right and I'm certainly not praising the man for this either. Just that he managed to muster up a tiny fraction of courage.
The one that he seems to continue to delay at all costs
They can use mental health laws to nullify your constitutional rights.
Psyche holds essentially turn you into human property of the hospital and officials that hold you in bandage pending a determination.
So your assertion of your rights can become further evidence of your mental illness necessitating further evaluation.
Yeah you don't have to talk.
They have a warrant for search, if it is a warrant to confiscate your weapons then you have to tell them
If the cops show up with a court order demanding you turn over your firearms and you try to turn it into a scavenger hunt, they will throw you in jail for refusing to follow a valid court order.
That is not at all what the 5th amendment says. Pleading the 5th invokes your right to not testify against yourself in a criminal proceeding, it doesn't mean you can just refuse to cooperate with the police on anything. The police can require that you identify yourself (usually), provide access to an area they have a warrant to search, turn over property thry have a court order to seize, etc.
If you try this, the police will throw you in jail and charge you with contempt of court, and you will get convicted, and you'll have that conviction on your record forever. They'll also maybe kick down your door and tear your house apart looking for your guns, and you'll be on the hook for damages. And when they find those guns, good luck getting them back. And they will find them, because noatter how well you hide them, the cops can and will just hold you in jail until you comply.
Don't try and get clever with the cops. They might not win in the end, but you will always lose.
Doomsought
Well-known member
the problem is that someone is being served a punishment without a trial and that there is a conflict of interest preventing the courts from correcting it.
Speaking as a Florida man, the Baker act which is something comparable to the mental health based red flag laws that seem to be championed. Was abused to ludicrous degrees.
It was essentially a license to steal children and Jackson Hospital's pediatric psyche ward in Miami was supposedly a carnival of horrors.
Like orderlies gang raping patients then their stay being extended for further observation if they spoke out and kids being strapped and sedated until they OD'd or skin grew over the straps.
Anyone who spoke up about abuse was dismisses by the shrinks as crazy and post Columbine special Ed departments just used it as a means to retaliate against the parents of kids they didn't like.
We are supposed to trust the left not do this on a national scale to adults? Not to weaponize this?
Er.....not really? There's no conflict of interest in reversing a red flag order, the court gains nothing by seizing firearms and loses nothing by returning them.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The courts loose power if they get rid of red flag laws.
Also the courts consider it legal for the FBI to just steel your shit on an accusation, and you never get it back.
The reality of the situation is that either some cops like what is in your collection and these items "go missing," they end up getting sold illegally and thus "go missing," or the cops just end up destroying them. Seriously, it's ridiculously hard to get any property of yours back from law enforcement after they've seized it, and that goes double for guns, even if there is a court order to return it.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Are you joking? The government practices civil asset forfeiture on the regular. Even if a specific court where you try to get your guns back isn't in on it someone they know is.
Last edited:
Ixian
Well-known member
I suppose if you have been hit with a Red Flag claim that would qualify as a reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime, which is what is required before they can force you to identify yourself. That isn't really what I asked however, perhaps I have a misunderstanding, but doesn't the right to remain silent
Sure they can arrest you, but you aren't really required to speak with them even then, you have the right not to incriminate yourself.
And the DoJ just unmasks even more.
Doomsought
Well-known member
That is either insurrection or conspiracy against rights.
And who's going to hold the DoJ accountable? Oh, right, no one.
They've decided to take the Andrew Jackson approach, and now well, without DoJ cooperation, a SCOTUS ruling doesn't mean much.