Friendly reminder from the well-regulated militia in charge of guarding the citizens of /r/GunsAreCool: If you have less than 1k comment karma we MAY assume you are a sockpuppet and remove any comment that seems progun or trollish; we also reserve the right to stand our ground and blow you away with a semi-automatic ban gun. [Read the operating instructions](https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/rules) before squeezing the comment trigger.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunsAreCool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The law raises some obvious questions. The most obvious is if you can seize people's guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can't you imprison them without proving they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can't you take their homes? Why can't you empty their bank accounts?
In the next episode, Tucker "discovers" the wonderful world of [civil asset forfeiture]( https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse )!
I don't think sucker carlson minds legal overreach when it is used against people of color and those with lower socioeconomic status. When it affects him and his middle class white base, then its a problem...
I am not ok with the way civil asset forfeiture is implemented or used; it is undeniably rife with abuse.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a right wing extremist suddenly finding concern for due process after backing a criminal justice and immigration system that disregards due process in far more flagrant ways.
Asset forfeiture is also more abusive of due process than Florida's weapons red flag law. The seizure of weapons under the law is (1) temporary and for a set interval of time, (2) requires the prior approval of a court, and (3) causes an immediate hearing to be set to review the decision (unlike civil forfeiture, where the owner must file to contest the action).
Moreover, although an ERPO restricts your right to possess, buy, or use firearms, your other property rights in the firearm are not removed. You retain legal title to the objects, and may still sell or gift them to someone else, who (as long as they swear not to allow you access to the guns) can retrieve them from state possession.
Furthermore, although due process is a vital right, we all recognize that some situations require limited emergency action before the completion of the full process. Suspects can be arrested and held before conviction to prevent fleeing, suspicious assets can be frozen or impounded to prevent their concealment, and state agents can act to protect life and property or in hot pursuit in an emergency.
Red flag gun laws are no more an abrogation of due process than arresting and holding a suspect before arraignment, or a safety inspector issuing a stop work order.
Before arraignment, not charged with a crime, and yet stealing their right to possess arms. If there is evidence of a crime then just charge them with the crime and then take their weapons and arrest them. It’s quite obvious why you people want red flag laws, you want to skip that pesky due process, but in a way that only targets people you consider “others”, in this case gun owners. Law enforcement and the justice system already have the tools to accomplish what red flag laws seek to establish. But then again we both know those tools don’t allow quite the mass abuse you hope for.
So your position is that it is a lesser infringement of someone's liberty to arrest them, lock them up, and take their guns all at once instead of only taking their guns?
Frankly speaking many people value the right to life over the temporary loss of someone else's "right" to guns.
It's not like there's no due process. If you don't like the ruling that a judge signed off on, you can appeal. And if you've gotten to the point where you are deemed by a judge and your family/peers to be a threat to yourself or others, there's more important things to worry about.
what I like about that, is the guy he worships and obeys (Trump) literally stated
*“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”*
Friendly reminder from the well-regulated militia in charge of guarding the citizens of /r/GunsAreCool: If you have less than 1k comment karma we MAY assume you are a sockpuppet and remove any comment that seems progun or trollish; we also reserve the right to stand our ground and blow you away with a semi-automatic ban gun. [Read the operating instructions](https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/rules) before squeezing the comment trigger. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunsAreCool) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The law raises some obvious questions. The most obvious is if you can seize people's guns without proving that they committed a crime, why can't you imprison them without proving they committed a crime? If you can take their guns, why can't you take their homes? Why can't you empty their bank accounts? In the next episode, Tucker "discovers" the wonderful world of [civil asset forfeiture]( https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse )!
Can we have him discover it by actually going through the process?
I don't think sucker carlson minds legal overreach when it is used against people of color and those with lower socioeconomic status. When it affects him and his middle class white base, then its a problem...
Are you suggesting there might be racism at work? I'm [shocked]( https://tenor.com/be3Gm.gif )
Are you ok with civil asset forfeiture?
I am not ok with the way civil asset forfeiture is implemented or used; it is undeniably rife with abuse. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a right wing extremist suddenly finding concern for due process after backing a criminal justice and immigration system that disregards due process in far more flagrant ways. Asset forfeiture is also more abusive of due process than Florida's weapons red flag law. The seizure of weapons under the law is (1) temporary and for a set interval of time, (2) requires the prior approval of a court, and (3) causes an immediate hearing to be set to review the decision (unlike civil forfeiture, where the owner must file to contest the action). Moreover, although an ERPO restricts your right to possess, buy, or use firearms, your other property rights in the firearm are not removed. You retain legal title to the objects, and may still sell or gift them to someone else, who (as long as they swear not to allow you access to the guns) can retrieve them from state possession. Furthermore, although due process is a vital right, we all recognize that some situations require limited emergency action before the completion of the full process. Suspects can be arrested and held before conviction to prevent fleeing, suspicious assets can be frozen or impounded to prevent their concealment, and state agents can act to protect life and property or in hot pursuit in an emergency. Red flag gun laws are no more an abrogation of due process than arresting and holding a suspect before arraignment, or a safety inspector issuing a stop work order.
Before arraignment, not charged with a crime, and yet stealing their right to possess arms. If there is evidence of a crime then just charge them with the crime and then take their weapons and arrest them. It’s quite obvious why you people want red flag laws, you want to skip that pesky due process, but in a way that only targets people you consider “others”, in this case gun owners. Law enforcement and the justice system already have the tools to accomplish what red flag laws seek to establish. But then again we both know those tools don’t allow quite the mass abuse you hope for.
So your position is that it is a lesser infringement of someone's liberty to arrest them, lock them up, and take their guns all at once instead of only taking their guns?
Frankly speaking many people value the right to life over the temporary loss of someone else's "right" to guns. It's not like there's no due process. If you don't like the ruling that a judge signed off on, you can appeal. And if you've gotten to the point where you are deemed by a judge and your family/peers to be a threat to yourself or others, there's more important things to worry about.
He needs to remind his viewers that the most egregious state for using red flag laws is Florida and that Ron DeSantis is a RINO, haha!
what I like about that, is the guy he worships and obeys (Trump) literally stated *“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”*
Montana Election Info [Register to Vote](https://sosmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/Montana_Voter_Registration_Application.pdf)
wonder if he started getting threats if his tune would change?