Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Coincidence?

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Your butt.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

It seems like ignorant losers who are about as bright as a cat turd seem to not understand.

Triple G

You say it’s people problem; not a gun problem, but then you want to prevent laws that would weed out the problem people. That’s circular logic indicating that people slaughtering people with guns is perfectly okay with you.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

There are ways to solve the problem.
Red F**g laws are too vague and can be applied to anyone who is not PC .
Of course that is what libs and fools want.

Triple G

So,describe the red f**g laws you’d support instead of saying they’re N**i-like and other laws, in your opinion, that would “solve” the problem.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Misleading

Red f**g laws require a judge. To implement . Due process!!.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Let's see, a lib corrupt POS in the tank for the DNC judge you mean?

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

In the United States, a red f**g law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.

Where is "due process" missing? What DNC judge? Chump installed unqualified red judges all over the country.

You c****es constantly berate the government but yet, you need them for all the handouts you receive.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

PS,
For the history impaired the Soviets, Chi Coms and N**is had judges doing the same as you suggest.
How did that turn out?

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Loonie Tunes!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

We know that there is judge shopping.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

So the t***h is loony?

pendennis

I have no problem with so-called "Red F**g" laws with the following caveats:

*All persons identified as "offenders" or "respondents" under Red F**g laws, must be represented by counsel (free, if unable to afford one).
*Hearings must be conducted within thirty days of the "f**g"; complainants or witnesses against the offender, or respondent, must appear in court.
*Defendant or respondent may request a jury of peers or an en banc hearing, their choice.
*All medical/psychiatric/psychological testing costs must be borne by the court, or by complainants/prosecution if defendant/respondent is found not to be a danger to himself/others. Respondent/Defendant may also have his/her own professionals, paid for by the court(s).
*If charges/complaints against defendant/respondent are found in favor of defendant/respondent, the records shall be completely expunged at the end of the court session.
*If found in favor of prosecution/complainant, the "NICS" system shall be immediately updated before trial/hearing is adjourned, with confirmation of that update delivered to all concerned parties.

You get the picture.

btbg

Not all current Red F**g Laws do not require a judge to implement. A few allow law enforcement to take your guns first and then you have to go to a judge to try to get them back. That's not due process.

But, even if it was the other way around in all cases, that's still not due process, because the laws are designed to take away an individual's property before they have committed a crime. That's not due process. Remember, unlike France, who's law is guilty until proven innocent our law is innocent until proven guilty. If you take someone's guns before they have committed a crime you have violated the very principle first principle of our justice system.