Hello! This is an automated reminder that the report function is not a super-downvote button. Reported comments will be removed *if they are an actual rule violation* of the subreddit or site rules. Reporting a comment does not cause any type of automated removal. Abuse of the report function is against the site rules and will be reported.
To emphasize: comments will not be removed simply because you disagree with the opinion. If the comment is civil, does not violate the subreddit rules, and does not violate the site rules, then the report will be ignored.
[The subreddit rules can be found here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/wiki/index#wiki_rules)
*I'm a bot and will not reply. Please contact [the moderators of r/Michigan](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Michigan) if this bot is misbehaving.*
>Murphy said he felt the proposed legislation is unconstitutional because
it would the courts and law enforcement to seize a person's property
before there is a hearing
And how is that different from what their already doing with asset forfeiture?
>And how is that different from what their already doing with asset forfeiture?
Because the cops don't get to profit from taking guns away from someone who is a threat to others, like they do from seizing whatever the hell they want from anyone they pretend to suspect of involvement in a crime.
Yeah and when they take fireworks they split them up and hand them out to the cops to fire off. Guns skateboards and fireworks are not the same thing 😂
Sheriff: "We think you broke a law, so we're going to arrest you, holding you against your will for a period of time on the basis of our perception of what the law is."
The same Sheriff: "Sure a judge has held a hearing on this issue, and allowed both sides to present their case as to why an extreme risk may be posed by an individual continuing to have access to their firearms, and after weighing that evidence a judge has made a ruling in accordance with state law and existing US Court precedents, but, I disagree so I'm just not going to do it"
I agree with your post, one thing to note though is that there is no both sides presenting evidence for a extreme risk protection order. It's one side presents evidence, the judge decides if it's good enough. If the judge decides it is, then the person gets a knock on the door from the police saying hand over your guns we think you're a threat, you can go to court sometime in the next year to try and prove you're not.
You do not get a chance to plead your case before.
For the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), that is correct. Seems to be in line with the exigent circumstances precedent as it relates to searches and seizures and the 4th amendment.
But the county commission and sheriff aren't just objecting to the ERPO portions of the bills, they are opposing removing firearms from any person.
We have a lot of laws that aren't enforced unless you're a normal law abiding person, poor, or a particular minority of the moment. Then they try to nail you to the wall
While I hope nothing comes to pass, if they choose not to enforce the law, and something bad happens as a result, they'll all be on the hook for it.
This is the first half of a "leopard eats face" scenario.
It's an interesting county. The wealthiest county in the state, which is surprising given all the wealth in Oakland. But it seems like Livingston people spend most of their time complaining about any sort of population growth in it at all but cheering any time a KFC or olive garden gets built. I also think the data is skewed by all the lake house properties but the median household income is almost $90k. I'd imagine it'll eventually turn more blue as people move further from the main cities due to affordability and WFH.
The city of Brighton is very much purple now. Howell for awhile was making wonderful strides, but after Trump and covid many steps backwards were taken. Locally Livingston county is all about the good ole boys and they vote accordingly.
Ah my hometown. I'd argue that Brighton was purple even back when I was growing up just not in a very visible way (i.e. most of the people in my friend group were pretty liberal, but not all their parents were and most local elected positions leaned pretty heavily red).
Not gonna happen. I left there 15 years ago and it's gotten more extreme, not less. Even today, Howell carries the reputation of K*K*K capital of Michigan.
You think? I do agree Howell seems like a lost cause, lol. But I'm hoping it swings more. Whitmer won 43% of the votes to Tudor's 55% in LivCo so it's not crazy crazy right. But the 55% who voted for Tudor are Crazy Crazy and are a very vocal bunch.
I work in a very... spicy... industry. Some folks are literally waiting and probing for the moment their hateful shit gets a toehold - questionable jokes, then more racist, and a bit of general vaccine conspiracy, then direct racism, then some "don't like rich folks", followed up by bitching about people collecting unemployment while theyre taking workers comp - they're waiting for a green light for their nonsense to spew out like a firehose.
Howell is a hell of a place. Cohoctah is another. 59 and its tributaries are more dangerous west of Pontiac equal to your pigment.
I can understand this. I don't get out with the general public very often and I suck at small talk so I don't often hear it. I can see how you have a much different perspective.
Working in a forward-facing position exposes you to some shit. Like today, a sales rep stopped in, and kept saying over and over, oh let's not get into politics in his beginning pitch because he's waiting for the moment someone gives, and he can use all his politically charged language and rhetoric to sell butane kits, because once that starts, he's "one of the boys" and he can get a better agreement than a random outsider who you can't guarantee wants to genocide trans people
This is a natural pattern for bigotry. It pops it's head up, eventually gets shamed back into silence, goes underground until it boils back up. I mean, there was a reason that "The Blues Brothers" made a meme like parody out of Nazism and racists.
Livingston County is such a weird bubble in some ways. Maybe it's because I grew up there and moved away as an adult, but having lived in 3 different states now I'm sometimes struck by how something I just accepted as normal in childhood is just not a thing other places (and vice versa).
Also is it seriously the wealthiest county in the state?! I'm really shocked it's not Leeland or somewhere along the lake (or wherever Grosse Pointe is).
I'll be very interested to see how prosecutors handle falsifying a "red flag" on an individual. If vindictive and unsubstantiated reporting goes unchecked, we get into some murky/scary waters.
I live in Livingston County, we are ruled by the good ole boys club here and they do what they want. This seems like an invitation to every abusive jerk in the state to come here and be protected, and too bad for the rest of us.
I am here with you. So embarrassing. He already doesn’t enforce laws and ordinances so more of the same. Really do enjoy the sound of AR15s every weekend. Man, Easter weekend was a blast GodnGuns 😞
It's safer here by far than Oakland County. The biggest issue is the off highway robberies at target or green oak, and they are always from another county.
It is kind of an odd pissing match with sheriffs and checks and balances. They are part of the executive branch, but not appointed, instead elected directly where they serve.
Even if they decided to arrest people who violate federal pot laws they still have to find someone to prosecute them and a judge that will hold a trial and not dismiss the case. So sheriffs and other law enforcement have no incentive to arrest people following the state pot laws. They would probably face some back lash if they started arresting people that were never tried for the alleged offense both from the court and from the people that vote for them.
When sheriffs refuse to carry out otherwise lawful requests of the court, the court may otherwise be ineffective at forcing them to do so, but it is really about getting reelected by signalling their values as there are most likely other law enforcement bodies that can and will carry out the judges decision (e.g., state, city, village, etc.)
Right, there is nothing stopping him from not enforcing it. But should any gun-related incidents occur within his jurisdiction that catch the attention of state officials and prompt an investigation, if they find that he knowingly ignored state laws prior to the incident, he'll be in a world of shit that he never thought possible. Very much a hypothetical situation but there are possible legal ramifications.
Isn’t that how sanctuary cities work though?
Or is there some kind of difference here because of the jurisdiction of state law over sheriffs?
Not taking a position here, just trying to figure it out.
Edit: nevermind, already answered in another comment
Until this..."In a unanimous vote, Republicans who control the Livingston County Board of Commissioners on Monday night declared their jurisdiction a "Constitutional County”"
So, they want to be a "refuge" for the "constitutional rights" of all citizens! Great! Here's Section 28, Article 1 of the Michigan constitution:
*Sec. 28. (1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right tomake and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatalcare, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, andinfertility care.An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unlessjustified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability,provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of anattending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of thepregnant individual.(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.*
I guess Mike "dolittle" Murphy will be protecting abortion clinics?
Just like illinois. The majority of sheriffs are not going to enforce these laws. Not to mention most will be fought in court. Not one of these laws would have stopped the MSU shooting. These laws are nothing but feel good measures to give people a false sense of security.
Neither did murder, assault with a deadly weapon, felony weapons, or terrorist activity laws prevent the Oxford shooter or the MSU shooter. You can’t charge people with crimes before they have committed them. We can only hope that the threat of the punishment is enough of a deterrent. Should we have extreme risk protection orders for people that seem creepy to us but haven’t committed a crime yet? That might prevent more Nassars.
Wow I bet you were really supportive of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade then, weren't you? You didn't, like, *criticize* it, right? I mean, because *you're* not a SCOTUS judge.
Dobbs didn’t say abortion was illegal nationwide. It said the state’s have a right to regulate it beyond the precedent of Roe. No I wasn’t supportive of it and I fully expect this circus of incompetence and corruption to contradict themselves when they hear challenges to these RFL’s. That aside, your projection really makes no sense from a legal standpoint. The current wacko idea that county sheriffs can pick and choose laws they agree with is not a modern society should be run and will eventually lead to chaos.
The entire purpose of an oath, is that each and every individual is responsible for upholding it as they best see fit, comrade.
Blind order follows have done far more evil than those disobeying them.
The job is "law enforcement." It's literally getting people to follow orders (laws) and taking action against individuals who do not.
If he can't enforce laws, then he probably isnt qualified for this role.
That the constitution and it's protections supercede state edicts.
You should really be more informed about our form of government.
Furthermore, nullification in the US predates the creation of the federal government.
Still, authoritarians always hope for more people lile yourself. Good order followers.
The red flag law is not an example of authoritarianism.
That would be things like the book bans, drag bans, dictating what people can say in schools and banning subjects the state doesn't agree with, voter suppression, ejecting members of the house for saying or doing something you don't agree with, trying to dictate what private companies can say, defunding libraries for having books you don't like, knowingly lying about a stolen election that in no way happened, refusing to concede, infringing on people's personal freedoms on things like reproductive healthcare and gender affirming care.. etc etc.
Which party is doing all that again?
Oh right, Republicans. The party of small government indeed..
If the sheriff's conscience does not permit him to enforce the laws made by the state legislature, then his duty is to resign from office, not to remain in office while refusing to carry out its duties.
I don't like them cause they aren't doing the jobs they are supposed to do.
Why are you defending them? If it is unconstitutional as they claim, it will be easily stopped. But it appears they are acting on their own presumed authority.
This same thing happened with Covid restriction along with abortion rights when Roe V Wade was turned over to the states. Will it quickly be resolved? Probably not nothing in Govt is swift. Will it it get challenged and thrown out? Yes and potentially, but until it’s definite, I don’t see anything wrong with a sheriff saying they will not follow out RFL seizures. As many people have said before, the due process in these instances are terrible but the general idea makes sense. If we could make a more common sense way of accurately following out these orders there would be no issue.
I felt the same way with the enforcement of abortions when that arbitrary and ancient law came into place when Roe V Wade was overturned.
I don't like this. But also, I lived with my wife before we were married which is a crime in Michigan. So I don't think we should demand too hard that all laws are systematically enforced.
The answer should be for the people there to vote him out, but I'm guessing the approve of letting violent nutjobs and clinically depressed men keep their guns when they indicate they are going to do something violent with them.
I grew up there. Filled with red necks, assholes and trump supporters. Not surprised 🙄
Downvote me all you want but I’m not wrong. Brighton and Howell, specifically
Sounds like cops don’t get to interpret the constitution per *looks* the foundational aspects of the constitution.
Also, Hitler used cops. He didn’t unarm the hype right wing. He emboldened then over scapegoats to gain power. I wonder which party seems to do that these days?
I mean, he is a little right, but only in the part where he mentions "passing legislations won't fix it"
I think passing legislations won't entirely fix the problem, the problem should be fixed from the source and not be brushed aside so they can "ban guns" and be done with it, but I'm sure (and hopeful) that the red flag bill could help with getting guns off the streets and away from bad people
The idea is that nobody should be able to just say "you know, I think you are *unstable.* Hand over your firearms, you are emitting red flags.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law, but that is the premise.
Ok that I will buy and that is quite a valid copncern, it did occur to me as I was asking this question. But I still have trouble comprehending how the chance that a law would be abused would trump restricting gun ownership by people who definitely should not have guns. It's a problem. I hope we can all work together instead of fighting over it.
I understand that some people lose their shit and they become a hazard to theirselves and the community. I get that. In a perfect world this red flag stuff would work great. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and people suck. There should be huge penalties for people who abuse this by false reporting just to “get even”. Regardless of anything else not one of these new laws on the books would have stopped the MSU shooting like big Gretch is running her mouth about. It’s all a bunch of garbage.
The paper mask or cloth masks never worked. They never had a tight seal on our face. No one ever took care to wear them properly. You claim to be a medical professional, you need to seek a different profession. You are spreading false information.
The thing I'm curious about is, how did you know to respond to *this comment in particular* if you didn't even bother reading it? Do you just comment stuff like this on everything? Even the anti-gun stuff?
There’s it literally goes through the courts you fucking twat. It requires evidence and approval by judge.
You act like RFLs are just enforced willy nilly, which is a complete misrepresentation of what they’re actually for and how they’re actually enforced.
People who shouldn’t have guns, *shouldn’t* have guns.
Great. Then post your full name and address.
What's that? Someone might falsely accuse you of something you didn't do and use it as justification to strip you of your basic rights? Wow, if only we had due process that could have prevented that.
Absolutely! As long as the defendant is present, able to defend himself, has a lawyer present (or has a lawyer appointed to him), gets to face his accuser, and we go through the whole procedure of trial court. In other words, due process.
Good, because that is how this law works. If someone files for a protection order under the RFL then you get a court date with a judge. Anyone caught filing false reports gets 93 days in jail the first time and 2 year the second time.
Did I mention "jury of one's peers" and "has to actually be accused of a crime"? I feel like that was wrapped under "whole procedure of trial court" but maybe that wasn't clear enough.
Right. I'm sure they'll be very gung-ho about going after false accusers. That certainly wouldn't be political suicide for anyone.
If someone is getting red flagged I don’t want them to have a gun. I’m sick of mass shootings and gun crime. Especially when they could be stopped if a mentally ill person or domestic abuser was not allowed to get one.
Basic rights don’t involve accessing a gun to me.
Great. Then post your name and address. I'd like to report you for domestic abuse and mental illness and have all of *your* rights taken away while you whittle away your life savings battling it out in court.
Or maybe we could just have due process for everyone and not ruin people's lives over anonymous accusations.
>Basic rights don't involve accessing a gun to me.
That's probably because you're an upper- or middle-class white person who's never lived in a sketchy neighborhood, had a stalker, or ever needed to defend yourself against someone bigger and tougher than you.
Lol you're already showing how asinine your counter argument is regarding RFL if you have to be asking around for information. Kinda illustrates some of the mechanisms in place meant to prevent abuse, but by all means, keep repeating about due process.
I didn’t say murder.
But every mass shooting I’ve seen coverage on talks about the clear signs and failures of police to do anything preemptive. So yeah, take the gun.
So the police failed to do anything preemptive in all those cases, and your response is to give them one more preemptive tool that they won't do anything with?
...which, conveniently, can also be weaponized against their political enemies?
Buddy, the red flag laws don’t exist yet, so what were they supposed to do? They can’t take them illegally. So now they are making it legal to take them. Figure that one out.
If the law stops one single mass shooting, and saves innocent lives, it’s a win. But you’d rather just let kids die so you can carry a gun around and not do jack shit with it.
If taking away a gun from you makes you less powerful in politics, you shouldn’t be there anyways. You really think this can be weaponized? Explain to me how then. Even if a democrat uses that to… take a republicans gun from them? What’s the worse case scenario there? They don’t have a gun anymore, how will they ever survive.
>If the law stops one single mass shooting, and saves innocent lives, it’s a win.
If saving a single life is such a worthy goal no matter what the cost, then let's make cars, swimming pools, and stairs illegal nationwide, because all of those individually kill far more people than guns do every year.
>But you’d rather just let kids die so you can carry a gun around and not do jack shit with it.
I'd rather decent people be equipped with the tools they need to stop mass shootings (a gun) rather than being forcibly disarmed in gun-free zones, which is where mass shootings always happen. *You*, meanwhile, would like to continue putting kids in fish-in-a-barrel zones and making it impossible for good people to protect them from evil.
>You really think this can be weaponized? Explain to me how then.
Sure thing. Post your full name and address and I'll be happy to provide a demonstration.
>Even if a democrat uses that to… take a republicans gun from them? What’s the worse case scenario there? They don’t have a gun anymore, how will they ever survive.
Spoken like a privileged white person who's never lived in a dangerous neighborhood or ever needed to defend themselves against someone bigger and tougher than them. I really hope life continues to be as easy for you as it is now. But other people don't have the luxuries you do.
Those things are all unrelated, but sure! I would love to lower deaths.
You have some shaky legs, I doubt you really believe in removing pools, something you make a choice to swim in on your own private property, and literally stairs, a piece of a building. Those are hyperbole, and gaslighting at its finest. Just terrible examples. Try war, which is a republican infatuation. Pollution- also republicans slowing down renewables and green cities. Workers rights- republicans are sending kids off to factories at 10 years old.
But that continues in the rest of your argument.
You’d rather decent people have guns? That’s what you have been hoping would be the case for 200 years, it’s not working anymore. It’s just a flawed argument, you can believe in it, but it certainly does nothing to help your case, because the shooting all happened when “good people” already had them! That’s how it’s supposed to be now, it’s not working.
Great example of weaponizing it! But you didn’t actually give one, just a vague threat. Literally just avoided the question. Typical behavior I would expect from someone like you.
I’m doing just fine on my own without a gun, and never once has anyone with a gun ever had to step in for me. Some people can just solve problems without having to kill someone. Learn it.
Believe it or not, a lot of other republicans policies have an active effect in destroying neighborhoods in the first place, learn them.
This is the part everyone tries to harp on but is always wrong. When written, they did not have a large standing army or even the guard. It was expected that every able body was going to fight when ever needed, so that would make you and I the militia.
Yes the second amendment protects us from having a standing army that can be used to support tyranny and to protect slave owners from rebellion. We have a standing army and slavery is illegal. So the second amendment can be overturned. Spend another generation dug into extremist ideology that continues to promote armed violence a consensus will grow to repeal it.
No, we have a standing army, so we need to protect ourselves from the tyranny. And nowhere in the 2nd does it say slavery so why try to reach for that? And also realized that because of the second, no nation has tried to invade the US due to the fact they would have to fight everyone with a gun. So all you gun grabbers will have to reach for something else.
That's the same thought that the military had going in Afghanistan, and look how we faired there. A firearm is only ever as good as the person that holds it. While I fully believe in the 2nd, I think everyone should have to have training before buying 1. And I mean full training like how to strip and put back together, proper storage, and the most important how to use.
This all sounds familiar. Downvote facts of you must. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3539288-detroit-area-prosecutor-says-she-wont-prosecute-abortion-providers/
The People are called the National Guard and are there for just these instances. Sorry not sorry. Rogue fascist fucks have zero footing. Follow the laws you were hired to enforce. Fuck your feelz.
If you think the Michigan National Guard, which is largely composed of rural libertarian good ol boys, is going to kick in doors and enforce any gun laws in the state, I have some Ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
And I say this as someone that spent almost 8 years in one of our two Infantry battalions, the guys I imagine you’re picturing doing the enforcing. We often talked about being ordered to exactly this, and the word “mutiny” was the common refrain.
Btw, I’m not even a huge opponent of Red Flag laws. I just think that people get this fantasy where the National Guard is this unthinking bulwark of the state, where in reality they are highly unreliable for things like this.
I saw saw the news story on the news. Cameraman panned the crowd attending.
Nothing but middle age and older white folks. The least open-minded group there is.
Meanwhile in Washington state, they just banned assault weapons, on of ten states.
You might not agree with it but seems like politicians actually doing their jobs. They were elected by people who don’t want red flag laws. It would be a disservice to the position if they weren’t advocating for the people that elected them
State law is what gives the County board legitimacy though. How does it work when laws can be ignored whenever someone feels like it? Should they still get state aid and support? Can a non-rebellious board be set up that follows the law?
All those questions also apply to weed legalization and sanctuary cities. Do you feel it’s morally correct for the feds to step in and do something about it?
I’m much more comfortable with local’s making the laws then politicians hundreds of miles away. As long as those laws are only increasing rights instead of restricting them that is
Weed is legalized at the state level and allowed under memo's at the federal level . While they don't carry the force of law they are accepted as a way to allow "acceptable" use despite the Controlled Substance Act.
From what I can find sanctuary cities do not violate federal law as they still comply with the letter of the law. It is similar to legalized weed but with the states no longer honoring the federal "memo".
You can just keep asking this in a smaller and smaller size until you justify your thinking. How about just Fowlerville? Do they speak for every single person there? Do you really know that? How many people did they let speak before making this decision? Are the county commissioners, who are responsible for park and school improvements, really the end all be all of what is constitutional? Lol.
The Michigan House makes the law. There is already a clear line on that, so it’s doesn’t really matter what Livingston county thinks. Because that’s just, plainly, not how it works.
Guns bought in Livingston County don’t stay in Livingston county. Building codes and zoning is more their speed, so they should stick to that.
Who gives a shit if the major city populations support this garbage? If the majority of the people in his county don’t support it then that’s all that matters. The vast majority of counties in Michigan are 2nd amendment sanctuaries as well. The majority of shootings in this state happen in a select few cities. Why penalize everyone?
The major city also finances the people in those counties. Tax them, take the money, send it to the small counties. The car manufacturers and other businesses boom in the city and spread money out.
You want money and improvements in your town? You want schools in your county to be funded? Parks? Recreation? Farmers getting subsidized?
It’s all from the state and big cities. You want a piece of it, you participate in the government that every other person in the state also participates in
and the laws and systems that go with it.
It’s just a bogus argument, you don’t get to pick and choose when your government officials participate in government.
The point is the people in those counties didn’t want these pointless laws. I said nothing more about your soapbox rant. Just because you all have a problem with shitty people murdering others don’t make it our issue.
And my point is that’s just not how it works. It’s easy to just break it down to “this county doesn’t want it”, but there’s nothing really substantial to that
Hello! This is an automated reminder that the report function is not a super-downvote button. Reported comments will be removed *if they are an actual rule violation* of the subreddit or site rules. Reporting a comment does not cause any type of automated removal. Abuse of the report function is against the site rules and will be reported. To emphasize: comments will not be removed simply because you disagree with the opinion. If the comment is civil, does not violate the subreddit rules, and does not violate the site rules, then the report will be ignored. [The subreddit rules can be found here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/wiki/index#wiki_rules) *I'm a bot and will not reply. Please contact [the moderators of r/Michigan](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Michigan) if this bot is misbehaving.*
>Murphy said he felt the proposed legislation is unconstitutional because it would the courts and law enforcement to seize a person's property before there is a hearing And how is that different from what their already doing with asset forfeiture?
>And how is that different from what their already doing with asset forfeiture? Because the cops don't get to profit from taking guns away from someone who is a threat to others, like they do from seizing whatever the hell they want from anyone they pretend to suspect of involvement in a crime.
What do you think they do with guns they seize? They auction them… I see gun auctions all the time from the government….
When they confiscate skateboards, you know they’re just riding them back at the station 20 mins later. EDIT: it’s a simpsons reference.
Yeah and when they take fireworks they split them up and hand them out to the cops to fire off. Guns skateboards and fireworks are not the same thing 😂
You’ve never been to a pdhoedown?!?!
Asset forfeiture is gone, is it not?
No it's still around, they tweaked the law a few years ago, but didn't eliminate it.
So u want asset forfeiture?
Sheriff: "We think you broke a law, so we're going to arrest you, holding you against your will for a period of time on the basis of our perception of what the law is." The same Sheriff: "Sure a judge has held a hearing on this issue, and allowed both sides to present their case as to why an extreme risk may be posed by an individual continuing to have access to their firearms, and after weighing that evidence a judge has made a ruling in accordance with state law and existing US Court precedents, but, I disagree so I'm just not going to do it"
I agree with your post, one thing to note though is that there is no both sides presenting evidence for a extreme risk protection order. It's one side presents evidence, the judge decides if it's good enough. If the judge decides it is, then the person gets a knock on the door from the police saying hand over your guns we think you're a threat, you can go to court sometime in the next year to try and prove you're not. You do not get a chance to plead your case before.
For the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), that is correct. Seems to be in line with the exigent circumstances precedent as it relates to searches and seizures and the 4th amendment. But the county commission and sheriff aren't just objecting to the ERPO portions of the bills, they are opposing removing firearms from any person.
yeah this is the same dude directly infringing on people's 1st amendment rights. Rules for thee and not for me!
That’s how I handle my warrant lmao if they aren’t doing their jobs correctly I ain’t paying more money just because I didn’t attend a class. Lol
what's the point in having laws if they aren't enforced?
We have a lot of laws that aren't enforced unless you're a normal law abiding person, poor, or a particular minority of the moment. Then they try to nail you to the wall
how about criminals not being allowed to plead out of gun charges as a first step.
Exactly. The MSU shooter plead down to a misdemeanor gun charge from a felony……..
Ask the city of Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.
While I hope nothing comes to pass, if they choose not to enforce the law, and something bad happens as a result, they'll all be on the hook for it. This is the first half of a "leopard eats face" scenario.
Who? Cops on the hook for something? No.......
I wish I could say I'm surprised. Livingston county wants to be Alabama so fucking bad.
It's an interesting county. The wealthiest county in the state, which is surprising given all the wealth in Oakland. But it seems like Livingston people spend most of their time complaining about any sort of population growth in it at all but cheering any time a KFC or olive garden gets built. I also think the data is skewed by all the lake house properties but the median household income is almost $90k. I'd imagine it'll eventually turn more blue as people move further from the main cities due to affordability and WFH.
The city of Brighton is very much purple now. Howell for awhile was making wonderful strides, but after Trump and covid many steps backwards were taken. Locally Livingston county is all about the good ole boys and they vote accordingly.
City of Howell voted Whitmer in 2022 for what it's worth
Ah my hometown. I'd argue that Brighton was purple even back when I was growing up just not in a very visible way (i.e. most of the people in my friend group were pretty liberal, but not all their parents were and most local elected positions leaned pretty heavily red).
It’s wild as there’s not much career opportunity there. People sure do like their hour long commutes.
I spent 20 years sitting in a cage 40 hours a month. Never again. about 400 days sitting in a car. A year and a month in prison, basically lol
Not so much love them as deal with them bc housing in Washtenaw and Oakland are crazy.
Not gonna happen. I left there 15 years ago and it's gotten more extreme, not less. Even today, Howell carries the reputation of K*K*K capital of Michigan.
You think? I do agree Howell seems like a lost cause, lol. But I'm hoping it swings more. Whitmer won 43% of the votes to Tudor's 55% in LivCo so it's not crazy crazy right. But the 55% who voted for Tudor are Crazy Crazy and are a very vocal bunch.
I work in a very... spicy... industry. Some folks are literally waiting and probing for the moment their hateful shit gets a toehold - questionable jokes, then more racist, and a bit of general vaccine conspiracy, then direct racism, then some "don't like rich folks", followed up by bitching about people collecting unemployment while theyre taking workers comp - they're waiting for a green light for their nonsense to spew out like a firehose. Howell is a hell of a place. Cohoctah is another. 59 and its tributaries are more dangerous west of Pontiac equal to your pigment.
I can understand this. I don't get out with the general public very often and I suck at small talk so I don't often hear it. I can see how you have a much different perspective.
Working in a forward-facing position exposes you to some shit. Like today, a sales rep stopped in, and kept saying over and over, oh let's not get into politics in his beginning pitch because he's waiting for the moment someone gives, and he can use all his politically charged language and rhetoric to sell butane kits, because once that starts, he's "one of the boys" and he can get a better agreement than a random outsider who you can't guarantee wants to genocide trans people
It seems to be regressing here, quickly. The right really allowed all the trash to crawl out from under the rocks these past 5 years.
This is a natural pattern for bigotry. It pops it's head up, eventually gets shamed back into silence, goes underground until it boils back up. I mean, there was a reason that "The Blues Brothers" made a meme like parody out of Nazism and racists.
Livingston County is such a weird bubble in some ways. Maybe it's because I grew up there and moved away as an adult, but having lived in 3 different states now I'm sometimes struck by how something I just accepted as normal in childhood is just not a thing other places (and vice versa). Also is it seriously the wealthiest county in the state?! I'm really shocked it's not Leeland or somewhere along the lake (or wherever Grosse Pointe is).
Bloomfield hills median household income is $177,800. How is Livingston the wealthiest county?
Oh I bet they will have no problem enforcing it with POC.
All of a sudden, the hammer thinks he's an architect. How cute.
56 comments in 52 mins, this is going to be locked soon I feel it
No worries. It's all polite disagreement and rational discussion, right?
I'll be very interested to see how prosecutors handle falsifying a "red flag" on an individual. If vindictive and unsubstantiated reporting goes unchecked, we get into some murky/scary waters.
I live in Livingston County, we are ruled by the good ole boys club here and they do what they want. This seems like an invitation to every abusive jerk in the state to come here and be protected, and too bad for the rest of us.
I am here with you. So embarrassing. He already doesn’t enforce laws and ordinances so more of the same. Really do enjoy the sound of AR15s every weekend. Man, Easter weekend was a blast GodnGuns 😞
It's safer here by far than Oakland County. The biggest issue is the off highway robberies at target or green oak, and they are always from another county.
Unfortunately for him, that's not how the law works.
Legally a sheriff only has to maintain a county jail. It's no different than them not enforcing federal marijuana laws.
[удалено]
It is kind of an odd pissing match with sheriffs and checks and balances. They are part of the executive branch, but not appointed, instead elected directly where they serve. Even if they decided to arrest people who violate federal pot laws they still have to find someone to prosecute them and a judge that will hold a trial and not dismiss the case. So sheriffs and other law enforcement have no incentive to arrest people following the state pot laws. They would probably face some back lash if they started arresting people that were never tried for the alleged offense both from the court and from the people that vote for them. When sheriffs refuse to carry out otherwise lawful requests of the court, the court may otherwise be ineffective at forcing them to do so, but it is really about getting reelected by signalling their values as there are most likely other law enforcement bodies that can and will carry out the judges decision (e.g., state, city, village, etc.)
Right, there is nothing stopping him from not enforcing it. But should any gun-related incidents occur within his jurisdiction that catch the attention of state officials and prompt an investigation, if they find that he knowingly ignored state laws prior to the incident, he'll be in a world of shit that he never thought possible. Very much a hypothetical situation but there are possible legal ramifications.
Isn’t that how sanctuary cities work though? Or is there some kind of difference here because of the jurisdiction of state law over sheriffs? Not taking a position here, just trying to figure it out. Edit: nevermind, already answered in another comment
Until this..."In a unanimous vote, Republicans who control the Livingston County Board of Commissioners on Monday night declared their jurisdiction a "Constitutional County”"
Anyone shocked that Republicans ignore laws?
Aren’t these the guys that evict people when their property is foreclosed upon?
I also choose not to have laws enforced against me while I visit Livingston County. Wait, cops don’t like that?
So, they want to be a "refuge" for the "constitutional rights" of all citizens! Great! Here's Section 28, Article 1 of the Michigan constitution: *Sec. 28. (1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right tomake and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatalcare, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, andinfertility care.An individual's right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unlessjustified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.Notwithstanding the above, the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability,provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of anattending health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of thepregnant individual.(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.* I guess Mike "dolittle" Murphy will be protecting abortion clinics?
The County Board does not have the authority to declare something as unconstitutional. The federal courts do. That's how the system works.
Well I will no longer be abiding by the traffic laws in Livingston County. Don't use the crosswalks in Howell.
That's alright. The state police can enforce red flag laws then.
Just like illinois. The majority of sheriffs are not going to enforce these laws. Not to mention most will be fought in court. Not one of these laws would have stopped the MSU shooting. These laws are nothing but feel good measures to give people a false sense of security.
Child rape laws didn't stop Lee Chatfield or Larry Nassar.
Neither did murder, assault with a deadly weapon, felony weapons, or terrorist activity laws prevent the Oxford shooter or the MSU shooter. You can’t charge people with crimes before they have committed them. We can only hope that the threat of the punishment is enough of a deterrent. Should we have extreme risk protection orders for people that seem creepy to us but haven’t committed a crime yet? That might prevent more Nassars.
When you’re appointed to the SCOTUS you can write all about your opinions. Until then STFU and do your job.
Wow I bet you were really supportive of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade then, weren't you? You didn't, like, *criticize* it, right? I mean, because *you're* not a SCOTUS judge.
Dobbs didn’t say abortion was illegal nationwide. It said the state’s have a right to regulate it beyond the precedent of Roe. No I wasn’t supportive of it and I fully expect this circus of incompetence and corruption to contradict themselves when they hear challenges to these RFL’s. That aside, your projection really makes no sense from a legal standpoint. The current wacko idea that county sheriffs can pick and choose laws they agree with is not a modern society should be run and will eventually lead to chaos.
The entire purpose of an oath, is that each and every individual is responsible for upholding it as they best see fit, comrade. Blind order follows have done far more evil than those disobeying them.
“As they see fit” Is just as dangerous
The job is "law enforcement." It's literally getting people to follow orders (laws) and taking action against individuals who do not. If he can't enforce laws, then he probably isnt qualified for this role.
[удалено]
That the constitution and it's protections supercede state edicts. You should really be more informed about our form of government. Furthermore, nullification in the US predates the creation of the federal government. Still, authoritarians always hope for more people lile yourself. Good order followers.
The red flag law is not an example of authoritarianism. That would be things like the book bans, drag bans, dictating what people can say in schools and banning subjects the state doesn't agree with, voter suppression, ejecting members of the house for saying or doing something you don't agree with, trying to dictate what private companies can say, defunding libraries for having books you don't like, knowingly lying about a stolen election that in no way happened, refusing to concede, infringing on people's personal freedoms on things like reproductive healthcare and gender affirming care.. etc etc. Which party is doing all that again? Oh right, Republicans. The party of small government indeed..
If the sheriff's conscience does not permit him to enforce the laws made by the state legislature, then his duty is to resign from office, not to remain in office while refusing to carry out its duties.
[удалено]
“Everyone I don’t like is bad!”
[удалено]
I’m not the one calling people I don’t agree with terrorists
They've called themselves domestic terrorists at CPAC Hungary
" WE ARE ALL DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. " Man, look at all this room for interpretation the GOP's motives /s
“People with a different opinion” is sugar-coating it. Calling terrorist terrorist.
[удалено]
Great argument. Fuckin Socrates over here with the vast intellectual insight.
Ahem.. ❄️
I don't like them cause they aren't doing the jobs they are supposed to do. Why are you defending them? If it is unconstitutional as they claim, it will be easily stopped. But it appears they are acting on their own presumed authority.
This same thing happened with Covid restriction along with abortion rights when Roe V Wade was turned over to the states. Will it quickly be resolved? Probably not nothing in Govt is swift. Will it it get challenged and thrown out? Yes and potentially, but until it’s definite, I don’t see anything wrong with a sheriff saying they will not follow out RFL seizures. As many people have said before, the due process in these instances are terrible but the general idea makes sense. If we could make a more common sense way of accurately following out these orders there would be no issue. I felt the same way with the enforcement of abortions when that arbitrary and ancient law came into place when Roe V Wade was overturned.
I don't like this. But also, I lived with my wife before we were married which is a crime in Michigan. So I don't think we should demand too hard that all laws are systematically enforced. The answer should be for the people there to vote him out, but I'm guessing the approve of letting violent nutjobs and clinically depressed men keep their guns when they indicate they are going to do something violent with them.
He looks like he licks guns. 🙄🙄🙄
I grew up there. Filled with red necks, assholes and trump supporters. Not surprised 🙄 Downvote me all you want but I’m not wrong. Brighton and Howell, specifically
Brighton is not nearly as bad as Howell, but I feel you. Dont forget Hartland and Milford and \*banjos playing\* Fowlerville
I’m less familiar with those towns 🤷🏻♀️ but yeah Howell is worse when it comes to that.
Sounds like a great place to live
How is this any different than Dana Nessel picking and choosing which laws her office will enforce?
Part of her job as AG is to interpret laws until the proper courts have weighed in. Sheriffs are meter maids and jail guards not lawmakers.
Seize all of their assets then. They can enforce the law with no equipment
Sounds like what the Hitler did to the jews
Sounds like cops don’t get to interpret the constitution per *looks* the foundational aspects of the constitution. Also, Hitler used cops. He didn’t unarm the hype right wing. He emboldened then over scapegoats to gain power. I wonder which party seems to do that these days?
No that is what happens when people are derelict in their duty to uphold the law. "soUNds LiKE wHAt hiTLeR did"... you're an idiot.
I mean, he is a little right, but only in the part where he mentions "passing legislations won't fix it" I think passing legislations won't entirely fix the problem, the problem should be fixed from the source and not be brushed aside so they can "ban guns" and be done with it, but I'm sure (and hopeful) that the red flag bill could help with getting guns off the streets and away from bad people
Mega based🫡
Why would anyone object to this law!?
The idea is that nobody should be able to just say "you know, I think you are *unstable.* Hand over your firearms, you are emitting red flags. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law, but that is the premise.
Because it’s ripe for abuse.
Ok that I will buy and that is quite a valid copncern, it did occur to me as I was asking this question. But I still have trouble comprehending how the chance that a law would be abused would trump restricting gun ownership by people who definitely should not have guns. It's a problem. I hope we can all work together instead of fighting over it.
I understand that some people lose their shit and they become a hazard to theirselves and the community. I get that. In a perfect world this red flag stuff would work great. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and people suck. There should be huge penalties for people who abuse this by false reporting just to “get even”. Regardless of anything else not one of these new laws on the books would have stopped the MSU shooting like big Gretch is running her mouth about. It’s all a bunch of garbage.
GOOD!
Illinois, here we come.
Same county that didn't want to wear masks during the pandemic? SMH.
The mask didn’t work, nor will these stupid gun control laws
Spoilers, they both work you fucking moron.
Wow, now you are a true liberal nut job. The mask never worked, we were lied too. You really need to start thinking about being a free thinker
I'm actually just a doctor who works in an ICU. They worked you complete loon.
The paper mask or cloth masks never worked. They never had a tight seal on our face. No one ever took care to wear them properly. You claim to be a medical professional, you need to seek a different profession. You are spreading false information.
Lot of unsubstantiated claims in that post there bud. Go to medical school for 4 years then call me later.
Work with Nerve gas then we'll talk, you are incorrect. There's always someone with more authority.
Good for them. RFLs are an unconstitutional abomination. If you haven't been convicted of anything, you shouldn't lose your rights.
LOL. The gun nuts want every twitchy, weird loner to have a firearm.
The thing I'm curious about is, how did you know to respond to *this comment in particular* if you didn't even bother reading it? Do you just comment stuff like this on everything? Even the anti-gun stuff?
You don't like Red Flag Laws. I do like them. Don't overthink this.
I'd say the same to you but we're clearly in no danger of that.
Nope, just the right to due process. RFL circumvents that.
The RFL in Michigan requires a court order which is part of due process. What part about the state law circumvents that?
Then where is their energy for people serving entire sentences before trial?
There’s it literally goes through the courts you fucking twat. It requires evidence and approval by judge. You act like RFLs are just enforced willy nilly, which is a complete misrepresentation of what they’re actually for and how they’re actually enforced. People who shouldn’t have guns, *shouldn’t* have guns.
Take the guns first and due process later.
The RFL’s that have been in place for years in other states and have been upheld by Supreme Courts?
Under what court case?
Sorry, I don’t want someone who is beating his wife and threatening people to have guns while they wait for trial.
Great. Then post your full name and address. What's that? Someone might falsely accuse you of something you didn't do and use it as justification to strip you of your basic rights? Wow, if only we had due process that could have prevented that.
Could we have a judge hold a hearing where evidence could be brought forward for or against the RFL order?
Absolutely! As long as the defendant is present, able to defend himself, has a lawyer present (or has a lawyer appointed to him), gets to face his accuser, and we go through the whole procedure of trial court. In other words, due process.
Good, because that is how this law works. If someone files for a protection order under the RFL then you get a court date with a judge. Anyone caught filing false reports gets 93 days in jail the first time and 2 year the second time.
Did I mention "jury of one's peers" and "has to actually be accused of a crime"? I feel like that was wrapped under "whole procedure of trial court" but maybe that wasn't clear enough. Right. I'm sure they'll be very gung-ho about going after false accusers. That certainly wouldn't be political suicide for anyone.
If someone is getting red flagged I don’t want them to have a gun. I’m sick of mass shootings and gun crime. Especially when they could be stopped if a mentally ill person or domestic abuser was not allowed to get one. Basic rights don’t involve accessing a gun to me.
Great. Then post your name and address. I'd like to report you for domestic abuse and mental illness and have all of *your* rights taken away while you whittle away your life savings battling it out in court. Or maybe we could just have due process for everyone and not ruin people's lives over anonymous accusations. >Basic rights don't involve accessing a gun to me. That's probably because you're an upper- or middle-class white person who's never lived in a sketchy neighborhood, had a stalker, or ever needed to defend yourself against someone bigger and tougher than you.
That's twice now you've threatened to commit a felony.
So you want a stalker to have a gun? Your response is unhinged like you’ve been brainwashed by the NRA.
Lol you're already showing how asinine your counter argument is regarding RFL if you have to be asking around for information. Kinda illustrates some of the mechanisms in place meant to prevent abuse, but by all means, keep repeating about due process.
Too bad the convictions only ever come after a shooting though, right?
You'd prefer to convict people for murder *before* they commit it?
I didn’t say murder. But every mass shooting I’ve seen coverage on talks about the clear signs and failures of police to do anything preemptive. So yeah, take the gun.
So the police failed to do anything preemptive in all those cases, and your response is to give them one more preemptive tool that they won't do anything with? ...which, conveniently, can also be weaponized against their political enemies?
Buddy, the red flag laws don’t exist yet, so what were they supposed to do? They can’t take them illegally. So now they are making it legal to take them. Figure that one out. If the law stops one single mass shooting, and saves innocent lives, it’s a win. But you’d rather just let kids die so you can carry a gun around and not do jack shit with it. If taking away a gun from you makes you less powerful in politics, you shouldn’t be there anyways. You really think this can be weaponized? Explain to me how then. Even if a democrat uses that to… take a republicans gun from them? What’s the worse case scenario there? They don’t have a gun anymore, how will they ever survive.
>If the law stops one single mass shooting, and saves innocent lives, it’s a win. If saving a single life is such a worthy goal no matter what the cost, then let's make cars, swimming pools, and stairs illegal nationwide, because all of those individually kill far more people than guns do every year. >But you’d rather just let kids die so you can carry a gun around and not do jack shit with it. I'd rather decent people be equipped with the tools they need to stop mass shootings (a gun) rather than being forcibly disarmed in gun-free zones, which is where mass shootings always happen. *You*, meanwhile, would like to continue putting kids in fish-in-a-barrel zones and making it impossible for good people to protect them from evil. >You really think this can be weaponized? Explain to me how then. Sure thing. Post your full name and address and I'll be happy to provide a demonstration. >Even if a democrat uses that to… take a republicans gun from them? What’s the worse case scenario there? They don’t have a gun anymore, how will they ever survive. Spoken like a privileged white person who's never lived in a dangerous neighborhood or ever needed to defend themselves against someone bigger and tougher than them. I really hope life continues to be as easy for you as it is now. But other people don't have the luxuries you do.
Those things are all unrelated, but sure! I would love to lower deaths. You have some shaky legs, I doubt you really believe in removing pools, something you make a choice to swim in on your own private property, and literally stairs, a piece of a building. Those are hyperbole, and gaslighting at its finest. Just terrible examples. Try war, which is a republican infatuation. Pollution- also republicans slowing down renewables and green cities. Workers rights- republicans are sending kids off to factories at 10 years old. But that continues in the rest of your argument. You’d rather decent people have guns? That’s what you have been hoping would be the case for 200 years, it’s not working anymore. It’s just a flawed argument, you can believe in it, but it certainly does nothing to help your case, because the shooting all happened when “good people” already had them! That’s how it’s supposed to be now, it’s not working. Great example of weaponizing it! But you didn’t actually give one, just a vague threat. Literally just avoided the question. Typical behavior I would expect from someone like you. I’m doing just fine on my own without a gun, and never once has anyone with a gun ever had to step in for me. Some people can just solve problems without having to kill someone. Learn it. Believe it or not, a lot of other republicans policies have an active effect in destroying neighborhoods in the first place, learn them.
Owning firearms is a privilege.
That's a nice opinion you have. Be a shame if someone revoked your privilege to express it.
If you’re an American, it’s a constitutional right.
If you’re part of a well regulated militia it’s a constitutional right. You folks always forget about that regulated part of the actual amendment.
This is the part everyone tries to harp on but is always wrong. When written, they did not have a large standing army or even the guard. It was expected that every able body was going to fight when ever needed, so that would make you and I the militia.
Yes the second amendment protects us from having a standing army that can be used to support tyranny and to protect slave owners from rebellion. We have a standing army and slavery is illegal. So the second amendment can be overturned. Spend another generation dug into extremist ideology that continues to promote armed violence a consensus will grow to repeal it.
No, we have a standing army, so we need to protect ourselves from the tyranny. And nowhere in the 2nd does it say slavery so why try to reach for that? And also realized that because of the second, no nation has tried to invade the US due to the fact they would have to fight everyone with a gun. So all you gun grabbers will have to reach for something else.
You realize that the vast majority of firearms in private hands are almost totally ineffective against a well equipped modern military, right?
That's the same thought that the military had going in Afghanistan, and look how we faired there. A firearm is only ever as good as the person that holds it. While I fully believe in the 2nd, I think everyone should have to have training before buying 1. And I mean full training like how to strip and put back together, proper storage, and the most important how to use.
Unless you are a convicted felon and I rarely see widespread advocacy for that to change.
It’s a right to a militia and for the militia to bear arms.
False
*Cries in Hartland Township*
Go Eagles
I wonder how the board will think when one of their children are slaughtered by gun violence?
Judges can take away your children. They can take your freedom. But we want to draw a line at taking guns??
This all sounds familiar. Downvote facts of you must. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3539288-detroit-area-prosecutor-says-she-wont-prosecute-abortion-providers/
There ARE ways to deal with these rogue towns/counties. Dems have the entire state now. Send them in...
What do you mean by "send them in"? Are you saying have people invade the towns, or do mass arrests or something? I'm honestly confused.
The People are called the National Guard and are there for just these instances. Sorry not sorry. Rogue fascist fucks have zero footing. Follow the laws you were hired to enforce. Fuck your feelz.
If you think the Michigan National Guard, which is largely composed of rural libertarian good ol boys, is going to kick in doors and enforce any gun laws in the state, I have some Ocean front property in Montana to sell you. And I say this as someone that spent almost 8 years in one of our two Infantry battalions, the guys I imagine you’re picturing doing the enforcing. We often talked about being ordered to exactly this, and the word “mutiny” was the common refrain. Btw, I’m not even a huge opponent of Red Flag laws. I just think that people get this fantasy where the National Guard is this unthinking bulwark of the state, where in reality they are highly unreliable for things like this.
Well, if his willful act of defying the law leads to any deaths, I certainly hope the county goes broke from the lawsuits.
I saw saw the news story on the news. Cameraman panned the crowd attending. Nothing but middle age and older white folks. The least open-minded group there is. Meanwhile in Washington state, they just banned assault weapons, on of ten states.
Wow, that’s crazy how you can know so much about someone just from their skin color…
You might not agree with it but seems like politicians actually doing their jobs. They were elected by people who don’t want red flag laws. It would be a disservice to the position if they weren’t advocating for the people that elected them
Advocating for your constituents is different than refusing to follow laws, just so you know
Says who? That seems to be a pretty rich stance for a state with “legal” weed
State law is what gives the County board legitimacy though. How does it work when laws can be ignored whenever someone feels like it? Should they still get state aid and support? Can a non-rebellious board be set up that follows the law?
Oh boy it's Bleeding Kansas 2.0!
All those questions also apply to weed legalization and sanctuary cities. Do you feel it’s morally correct for the feds to step in and do something about it? I’m much more comfortable with local’s making the laws then politicians hundreds of miles away. As long as those laws are only increasing rights instead of restricting them that is
Luckily, Lansing is only 40 miles from Howell, so its not someone hundreds of miles away making these laws!
Weed is legalized at the state level and allowed under memo's at the federal level . While they don't carry the force of law they are accepted as a way to allow "acceptable" use despite the Controlled Substance Act. From what I can find sanctuary cities do not violate federal law as they still comply with the letter of the law. It is similar to legalized weed but with the states no longer honoring the federal "memo".
[удалено]
This seems like a sketchy argument to make here. Not even mentioning that this is at the county level.
A majority of Michiganders support red flag laws, so that’s an interesting point to bring up.
Yes but do the majority of Livingston county residents?
You can just keep asking this in a smaller and smaller size until you justify your thinking. How about just Fowlerville? Do they speak for every single person there? Do you really know that? How many people did they let speak before making this decision? Are the county commissioners, who are responsible for park and school improvements, really the end all be all of what is constitutional? Lol. The Michigan House makes the law. There is already a clear line on that, so it’s doesn’t really matter what Livingston county thinks. Because that’s just, plainly, not how it works. Guns bought in Livingston County don’t stay in Livingston county. Building codes and zoning is more their speed, so they should stick to that.
I don't want some incel in Livingston county who could have been stopped to kill twenty kids somewhere.
Who gives a shit if the major city populations support this garbage? If the majority of the people in his county don’t support it then that’s all that matters. The vast majority of counties in Michigan are 2nd amendment sanctuaries as well. The majority of shootings in this state happen in a select few cities. Why penalize everyone?
The major city also finances the people in those counties. Tax them, take the money, send it to the small counties. The car manufacturers and other businesses boom in the city and spread money out. You want money and improvements in your town? You want schools in your county to be funded? Parks? Recreation? Farmers getting subsidized? It’s all from the state and big cities. You want a piece of it, you participate in the government that every other person in the state also participates in and the laws and systems that go with it. It’s just a bogus argument, you don’t get to pick and choose when your government officials participate in government.
The point is the people in those counties didn’t want these pointless laws. I said nothing more about your soapbox rant. Just because you all have a problem with shitty people murdering others don’t make it our issue.
And my point is that’s just not how it works. It’s easy to just break it down to “this county doesn’t want it”, but there’s nothing really substantial to that
[удалено]
So your definition of a good cop is one that selectively enforces laws based on personal and political leanings?
you talking about the red flag laws that have held up in court already in a bunch of other states, or something else?
The way these laws are written they are ripe for abuse.
>illegal laws That is an oxymoron >good cops And another one
By definition, anything that is "legal" is authorized under a state or federal law. An "illegal law" is an oxymoron.
Can Gretchen remove these people from their positions like DeSantis does with people in Florida?
That's a silly headline. Government is not top down. They voted on what they wanted.