I will never understand you defending an illegal act upon free men who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.I give up Trying to get you to understand how your actions affect others and why one day the person you cause harm to comes back and does something stupid bad to you or others around you. leaving you wondering why that someone did such a hanous act.
By that standard, no one is innocent. No one is perfect so we've all done things wrong. I'm trying to remember forum rules and common courtesy in my reply but it almost sounds like you're fishing for media material of a sort that's not even permitted here. So even if you're fishing, you won't find what you're looking for here.@popeye
I did not say they deserved death by his hands EVER. I flatly said I did not agree with his actions. When bad things happen it not always involving that very moment. What we saw was the tipping point of a ongoing problem. That may not have even been about the individuals involved.
I didn't say they were not innocent either. I said we don't know they were innocent therefore we should not call them innocent. This blow up was accumulating over time. That goes beyond Walmart.
Ever see the movie Minority Report? It's where people are punished before they commit a crime. Which is the same reasoning behind red flag laws.At the state level, red flag laws for guns are not unconstitutional, right?
We already have too many laws based on what might happen.Ever see the movie Minority Report? It's where people are punished before they commit a crime. Which is the same reasoning behind red flag laws.
The SCOTUS should find red flag laws unconstitutional because they are, in fact, taking away people's rights based on something that "might" happen.
There's no telling what the Courts will say but I will say they are absolutely unconstitutional. The Constitution expressly forbids infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.Let's grind on this one, OK?
FEDERAL red flag laws for guns do not exist. It's not accurate to assign attributes to the vacuous. There are many proposals on the table, and what any final ones will actually contain is not known.
At the state level, red flag laws for guns are not unconstitutional, right?
We can place our bets and await the outcome. :wink:There's no telling what the Courts will say but I will say they are absolutely unconstitutional. The Constitution expressly forbids infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
We can have the whole "incorporation" debate here but there's not a real need. Incorporation or not, the 2nd Amendment applies to the States.
Yes, we'll have to wait.We can place our bets and await the outcome. :wink:
We agree. YAY!Yes, we'll have to wait.
Just keep in mind, though, your question was not about what the Supreme Court would rule. It was about whether state red flag laws are constitutional. Those are two very different things.
We've been having these constitutional law classes here since my first day, I think. Problem is, you're not doing your homework. Like many failing students, you're copying the work of others and turning it in as your own.We agree. YAY!
That is exactly what I asked. It was rhetorical in that I didn't expect an answer, because the answer is pretty obvious.
There are 17 states with some FORM of red flag gun laws. They are on the books. They exist. They are Constitutional.*
*Any law that is in existence is Constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Let's get something straight, OK, Levant? Popeye clued me in about red flag gun laws. I have come to appreciate that red flag gun laws are, in some cases, present and not being used. In other cases, family and close acquaintances are reluctant to report because things can get awkward, if not downright dangerous.
In a credible survey (I really like credible surveys, shout out to Popeye) red flag (non-gun) laws are shown to have some positive effect with mental issues, but don't change anything for gun violence.
As for this new FEDERAL attempt at same, I predict infant mortality and, if that's not the case, a whole lot of court contests up to SCOTUS.
What is this supreme law of the land thing mentioned in American Jurisprudence above?16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance oflaw constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and anystatute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a lawviolating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law isin reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionalitydates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute notbeen enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords noprotection, and justifies no acts performed under it
The Constitution is always the highest law of the land. It's not set aside in between when Congress, your state legislature, or your city counsel, creates an unconstitutional statute until such a time as it gets to the Supreme Court.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.