Investing in precious metals 101

Guns already being confiscated without due process

Home Forums DISCUSS Current News & Events School Shooting, More Red Flags Guns already being confiscated without due process

  • Wed, Mar 07, 2018 - 01:27pm

    #92

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1446

    count placeholder

    Guns already being confiscated without due process

Here’s Portland, OR television station KATU’s reporting on guns being confiscated from a citizen in Seattle without any crime being committed or alleged, without any mental health ruling or diagnosis, or any other due process.

http://katu.com/news/nation-world/seattle-police-first-in-state-to-seize-gun-under-mental-health-law

KATU doesn’t come right out and scream “GUNS ARE EVIL!” so maybe you can say they are trying to be objective. But the article only quotes police and civilians who think the law is a good idea and more importantly doesn’t mention the controversy surrounding this issue. MSM usually loves to play up controversial subjects in order to generate interest and advertising revenue but here they are unusually silent.

Well, here’s a guy who’s not silent and who raises the Constitutional issues:

https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/tyranny-begins-seattle-man-broke-no-laws-guns-confiscated/

In what many believe is the beginning of a Constitutional crisis, Seattle police have taken the distinct honor of being the first law enforcement agency in the state to put an extreme risk protection order, or “erpo,” into practice by forcibly confiscating the guns belonging to a Seattle resident without a warrant, arrest, or even criminal charges.

The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous.

A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in the state to have his firearm confiscated without any formal arrest or charges.  The man was not identified by authorities.

But, what were the reasons police acted like the East German Stasi in a raid on a citizen’s home who hadn’t broken any laws?

Neighbors complained that the man stared at people through storefront windows while wearing a holstered firearm, even though open-carry was legal in the jurisdiction and he was well within his rights.  I don’t know if there are anti-staring laws in that part of Washington state.

Resident snowflakes of the knee-jerk town complained that the man openly carrying made them feel uncomfortable and unsafe.  I looked for and could not find anything in the open carry statutes that mentions a prohibition of making other people feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

“He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic,” Tony Montana recalled, showing his total ignorance of open carry laws and of guns since handguns are not automatic, but semi-automatic. “And it created a lot of fear obviously because I didn’t know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up.”

OMG!  Seriously?  A man who did nothing more than what the law allowed him to do caused another man to soil his shorts?

These are the legal standards for police to use the new state law to forcefully violate a man’s Second Amendment rights even though he did nothing wrong and posed no threat to anyone.

It would be one thing if the man brandished his weapon, but there is no account that he did.  He simply open carried his firearm, which is the law in his town.

This sets a precedent that government can now forcefully take guns away from an individual without a crime being committed or an arrest being made.

I’m hoping some here on PP.com who are supportive of using mental health as a reason to prohibit purchasing a firearm will weigh in on this issue of whether or not the government should be able to confiscate already owned firearms without a crime being committed, without a psychiatric commitment, and without a warrant.

Imagine these two scenarios if the one above isn’t enough:

Should the government be able to confiscate the guns of a 40 year old woman going through a divorce who was beaten by her husband and was in the hospital three days, got a protection order against her husband, got a gun and carry permit, has been heard screaming at someone on the phone, and has been seen just bursting into tears for no apparent reason?

Should the government be allowed to confiscate the guns of a Muslim man who recently returned from a month long visit to Pakistan, attends a mosque where a visiting imam recently preached a sermon urging the listeners to engage in jihad in America against Islam’s enemies, and has a green and white bumper sticker on his car with an unknown message in Arabic?