Disappointed Dana!

[Fx51LP308]

Dana Loesch was discussing the confirmation hearings of Pam Bondi. Basically, she stated that she like what she saw of Bondi's performance, but that she wished at least one GOP Senator would quiz her on her support for Red-Flag laws and her work with Rick Scott on that same issue. She advertised that her "2nd hour" would be an interview with Gov. Ron DeSantis and that she would inquire with him about the state of red Flag laws in Florida.

Well, the interview came and went and not a peep about Red-flag laws. She asked several generic questions about the border and Sanctuary Cities, etc. and just let let him bloviate about that for about 20 minutes. Narry an inquire about Red flag laws.... none at all.

I wonder what happened. Was she "advised" by producers not to bring it up with DeSantis (more than iikely his people not hers)? This tells me that the resistance to Red-flag law elimination is greater than originally thought. I hope that's not the case and we get something done before DeSantis leaves office, but I'm starting to get discouraged. Why didn't you follow through Dana and ask him???? Disappointed!

We need to start primarying some of these "alfa hotels..."

 

[mvphilly]

Red flag laws are there to protect the politicians more than the general public.Think about it. Who gets threatened on a more constant basis than the so called "public' servants?What better way to protect themselves than a preemptive strike on peoples 2nd amendment rights?

 

[Fx51LP308]

Red flag laws are there to protect the politicians LEOs more than the general public.Think about it. Who gets threatened on a more constant basis than the so called "public' servants?What better way to protect themselves than a preemptive strike on peoples 2nd amendment rights?

FIFY. Red flag laws, as currently written, offer LE a mechanism to effect an "underlying objective..." permanently disarming the public by getting weapons off the streets. I think the politicians care only enough to get the support of those who are in the "anti-2A" community (LE< "The Rodent," FRF, etc.).

 

[Mwalex]

FIFY. Red flag laws, as currently written, offer LE a mechanism to effect an "underlying objective..." permanently disarming the public by getting weapons off the streets. I think the politicians care only enough to get the support of those who are in the "anti-2A" community (LE< "The Rodent," FRF, etc.).

Red flag laws also makes it open hunting season on gun owners.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Red flag laws also makes it open hunting season on gun owners.

Right. Dana even made the comment about those groups that stood up at BOE meetings and voiced their displeasure. A bunch of them got "Red flagged." And many of them didn't even own weapons! They can weaponize anything!

 

[375fan]

Red flag laws are (IMO) extremely dangerous and are borderline unconstitutional. Easily used and abused by spouse, relative, anyone who has a beef with you, and of course POLITICIANS!! I do believe at times they probably can be useful in protecting people from others or themselves. I believe that it should be done with a judges ok after solid evidence is provided that its necessary, on the flip side an individual should be able to have quick recourse if a red flag law has been filed against them.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Red flag laws are (IMO) extremely dangerous and are borderline unconstitutional.

Not just "borderline." They *are* unconstitutional. They violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

2A)They generally violate the "Right to keep and bear arms."

4A) They violate the "Illegal Search and Seizrure" provisions.

5A) & 14A) Due Process violations for both. "No citizen shall be denied Life, Liberty and/or 'Property' without due process of law." And I'm truly
sorry but an "Ex Parte" hearing where the defense isn't allowed to be present before the order is authorized and the seizure occurs is,
just, simply not due process.

Easily used and abused by spouse, relative, anyone who has a beef with you, and of course POLITICIANS!!

You're forgetting the primary abusers... LE. Remember, it provides them the perfect mechanism to effect an underlying objective... "Disarming the public by getting weapons off the streets."

I do believe at times they probably can be useful in protecting people from others or themselves.

If a person is that "critical" (i.e. that much of a danger to themselves or others) then there are other mechanisms for that (ie. "Baker Act" in Fl or "section 5150" in California). Take the person out of the house, not the guns. Once it all gets sorted out, they can return to their home and their guns. But. again, that mechanism would deprive LE of accomplishing their underlying objective... disarming the public.

I believe that it should be done with a judges ok after solid evidence is provided that its necessary,

It is done that way. It's just that the judge never hears from the defense side. Only the "petitioner's side." The judge relies on the petitioner to be "forthright and honest..." yeah, right! These order hearings are "ex parte..." only one side present.

on the flip side an individual should be able to have quick recourse if a red flag law has been filed against them.

Doesn't matter. By then it's too late. LE has your guns/ammo. The damage is done. And even if you are, eventually, cleared of the ERPO, do you really think LE is going to just hand them back to you, all in one swoop (which is how they took them)? They know the system and they know a zillion different ways to keep you from getting you property back. Like I said, it's all about that "underlying objective."

 

[mosin46]

same as resource confiscation related to supposed drug dealing. cash esp a target. "where did you get this cash BOY? must be from drug sales. we'll keep it." can get i t back after about 2-3 years of paper work jacking off and lawyer's bills.

back the blue!

 

[Fx51LP308]

same as resource confiscation related to supposed drug dealing. cash esp a target. "where did you get this cash BOY? must be from drug sales. we'll keep it." can get i t back after about 2-3 years of paper work jacking off and lawyer's bills.

back the blue!

Precisely. And another tactic they are using is that they take the cash/property from "Civil Asset Forfeiture" and transfer it to the Feds.... Then they tell the owner, "Well, we don't have it anymore. We gave to the Feds! Go get it from them." Of course, understanding that recovering it from the Feds is like 100 times more a Herculean effort.

If eliminating Red Flag laws is the #1 priority, Eliminating / Felonizing "civil asset forfeiture" is #2.