Doug_Nightmare
Active member
I am a Wikimedia editor. The secret to credibility is to NOT cite the Wikimedia content but to cite the appropriate citation. The ipse Dumb Basses will never know the difference.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Red Flag Bill
- Thread starter poetdante
- Start date
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
The Fifth Amendment says, in part, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”.
That statement is very clear. Until you have your day in court you cannot be deprived of your life, liberty or property. There are no exceptions written anywhere in the Fifth Amendment that says otherwise. Just like there are no exceptions written the First and Second Amendments.
But as all of us know the USSC says otherwise, your rights are not absolute.
Qualified immunity is an exception to your life being taken. The cop is granted the authority, by the court, to be judge and jury; not the constitution, but the court.
The court has declared your liberty can be seized by throwing you into a mental ward for evaluation before you receive due process of law.
So, what makes you think the courts will find that taking your property before you receive due process will be found unconstitutional? Nothing, that’s right, you ain’t got nothin.
About the only thing you got a chance at challenging is: 1) the state being required to present a medical evaluation of your mental condition and 2) if not adjudicated mentally ill that your property must be immediately returned.
Good luck with your fight. I’ll be cheering you on.
That statement is very clear. Until you have your day in court you cannot be deprived of your life, liberty or property. There are no exceptions written anywhere in the Fifth Amendment that says otherwise. Just like there are no exceptions written the First and Second Amendments.
But as all of us know the USSC says otherwise, your rights are not absolute.
Qualified immunity is an exception to your life being taken. The cop is granted the authority, by the court, to be judge and jury; not the constitution, but the court.
The court has declared your liberty can be seized by throwing you into a mental ward for evaluation before you receive due process of law.
So, what makes you think the courts will find that taking your property before you receive due process will be found unconstitutional? Nothing, that’s right, you ain’t got nothin.
About the only thing you got a chance at challenging is: 1) the state being required to present a medical evaluation of your mental condition and 2) if not adjudicated mentally ill that your property must be immediately returned.
Good luck with your fight. I’ll be cheering you on.
The important point in any constitutional discussion is that the Kentucky legislature amends the Kentucky Constitution. Our Kentucky Constitution isn't some immutable set of divine commandments. The legislature ratified our Constitution. Section 1 clearly states that Kentuckians can bear arms for their defense or defense of the state, but the legislature gave themselves permission to regulate concealed carry, which was considered a behavior common to criminals at the time because honest men carried weapons openly. Now, it's considered polite (less antagonistic) to carry concealed. Concealed carry... not just for criminals anymore.
Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution
However, even if the Kentucky legislature hadn't given themselves the ability to regulate concealed carry, they could amend the Kentucky Constitution to allow whatever laws they want to pass. It's more difficult to amend the Constitution than pass a new Kentucky state law, but our Constitution and our laws ultimately reflect the prevailing political will. There are also plenty of examples of governments passing and enforcing blatantly unconstitutional laws without bothering to amend the constitution. This is something that gun rights activists should readily understand. Most anti-gun laws are unconstitutional, because they had the political will to pass a law but not to eliminate the second amendment. They took what they could get, passed their unconstitutional laws and ignore the second amendment.
This is why it's important to educate people about firearms related facts and laws. Politicians implement a more pro-government version of the political sentiments of the voters. Sitting back and thinking that Kentucky is a pro-gun state so we don't need to worry about anti-gun laws allows the sentiment to be pushed in the anti-gun direction, and this is exactly how our entire nation is becoming more anti-gun over time.
If we wait for a red flag bill to have popular support in the legislature before we oppose it, we face an uphill battle. If we wait until that bill is passed and we have a red flag gun confiscation law on the books, the battle is nearly insurmountable.
Prior to the Parkland shooting, five states had red flag laws. Ten more states passed red flag laws in 2018, three more states added red flag laws so far in 2019, and red flag laws have been proposed or are pending in eight more states including Kentucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law#Proposed_or_pending_legislation
Who said wait?
By all means hammef your reps I have.
But fact remains this push for a red flag law isn't going anywhere.
The legislature isn't going to pass some wonk bill they know wont be complied with and will cause many deaths .
It wont stand a legal challenge in THIS state if it was passed.
And no the legislature cannot change the Ky constitution on a whim. It's a bit more complicated than that.
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
I keep trying to explain that attitude matters. Believing it can't happen here ensures that it does happen here. There is a political spectrum. Presumably, people on this forum represent the more ardent supporters of the right to bear arms. I'm bothered by comments designed to disengage the more ardent gun rights supporters and placate us into inaction because "a red flag law isn't going anywhere", when we should be engaged in opposition against such a blatant violation of our rights.
Red flag laws have passed in many states and are being passed in many more, largely because people who support the right to bear arms were confident that a red flag law might pass in New York or California, but not in Florida, or Indiana, or Colorado, or Nevada, or Maryland, or Vermont.... We do not want to add Kentucky to that list. Once passed, it's too late to oppose them. There are at least two Republican state senators who are actively pushing for a red flag law in Kentucky.
Sen Ernie Harris - Oldham County
Sen Paul Hornback - Shelby County
There are probably more, and no telling how many fence sitters waiting to see if there is any loud opposition before they take their 30 pieces of silver and vote for a red flag law as quietly as possible. When most of the Democrat legislators are in favor of a red flag law, (the current anti-gun incremental infringement) it won't take many Republicans to pass the bill and you know our governor elect will sign it.
No doubt, gun owners in many of the red flag states believed the same thing, not realizing that the state supreme court judges are largely political positions and they typically side with the state governments and almost never cross the state legislatures. The legislatures create the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. If a legislature wants a red flag law, the supreme court will almost certainly uphold it. There are countless examples (and very few counterexamples) where a blatantly unconstitutional law was passed and a supreme court tortured the law to pretend it was constitutional. Congress told us that Obamacare wasn't a tax, and the US Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was legal because it's a tax. Or, a supreme court will do as the state legislature did when passing the law and simply ignore the constitution.
Once a red flag law passes in Kentucky, there will probably already be 30 more states with a red flag law and the consensus will rule, not the Kentucky Constitution. The courts will not save us from a red flag law, any more than the courts are stopping red flag laws that are just as unconstitutional in other states.
Please stop putting words in my mouth so you can knock down a straw man. I specifically said that the Kentucky Constitution cannot be easily amended and it's much more difficult than passing an unconstitutional law.
I'm unaware of any constitutional protections against anti-gun laws being amended out of existence. The constitutional protections of the right to bear arms are ignored as unconstitutional anti-gun laws are passed and enforced. That's what will happen if a red flag law is passed in Kentucky. Our legislature won't amend Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution. They'll simply pass a red flag law that viciously violates the letter and obvious intent of our Constitution.
I've plainly said go hammer your reps over this. I have already. And spoken to some.
Raise cain. Never hurts to put gov on notice it governs those who agree to be governed.
That said. This particular unicorn born of the supposedly pro gun Republicans isn't going to see the light of day.
If in some alternate universe it did , it wont be complied with outside of the two metro areas derby and Lex. And the legislature knows it wont
But of course do what I have already done. Raise cain and remind your reps this is a dangerous, unconstitutional law and supporting it is an excellent way to be put out of office.
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
Many gun owners live in Lexington and Louisville, and I think Covington and Bowling Green could have some problems as well, and like all anti-gun measures, the infringements spread out from the initial tumors over time. Best to nip it in the bud before it gets started.
Complete agreement there. In particular, Ernie Harris and Paul Hornback need to feel some political pain on this issue. They need to lose their next elections over this support of gun control. Make them an example for others who would swear an oath to our Constitution and then violate our Constitution once in office.
the standard modality ~ we will ensure the troublesome politicians aren't re-elected...doesn't work as majority of voting citizens [59.1% ky's reg voters who voted in 2016] do not remember good or bad press, only 'something occurred' and the issue must not have been too important as the politician is still running again, the incumbent, yepper leave well enough alone.
if your truly upset and committed liberty4ever, et al., initiation of a recall election of said politicians gets the politicians attention right now. Colorado has had superb results with the process, much to the chagrin of two jokers pushing gun control, which got the entire legislature's attention in 2013. CO courts even denied the politicians injunction relief...quite good to see them brought down and the others reminded who they worked for...the good CO citizens!
wisdom from 1912 Yale Law Journal
During the one hundred and twenty years of its existence the State of Kentucky has had four Constitutions. Each of those Constitutions has provided for the removal, by means other than impeachment, of officers from office before the expiration of the time for which they were appointed or elected. The wisdom of these provisions has been made manifest by the history of the state; and thoughtful Kentuckians in general have been convinced by the local history of their State of the truth of two propositions:
First, that there should be some method other than impeachment for the removal of officers-especially judges from office before the end of the time for which they were appointed or elected.
Second, That a popular election is not a proper method for such removal.
It has been assumed by many advocates of the Recall that the very fact of providing for a removal is a species of Recall; but the history of Kentucky will show the wide difference between the orderly methods provided in its Constitutions and the method of a popular election.
The State of Kentucky had the good fortune to have its frame of government shaped by enterprising, thoughtful, energetic students of the principles of government, who had come from Virginia and other eastern states with a view of bettering their condition. It has been said that the Constitution of the United States is the wisest governmental instrument ever enacted for a federal republic; and that the second Constitution of Kentucky which was in force from I800 to I850 is the wisest instrument ever devised by the wit of man for the government of a republic which is not a federation.
It has also been said that the statutory legislation of Kentucky from 1792 to I842 is the wisest statutory legislation as a whole that the world ever had seen up to that time. While these encomiums may perhaps be to some extent exaggerations due to a pardonable state pride, these encomiums would not have been uttered by thoughtful men unless the laws and Constitution of Kentucky had possessed great excellence.
www.jstor.org
quite an interesting and good read, not translated from some centuries olde ancient language, and pertains to today's discussion...
During the one hundred and twenty years of its existence the State of Kentucky has had four Constitutions. Each of those Constitutions has provided for the removal, by means other than impeachment, of officers from office before the expiration of the time for which they were appointed or elected. The wisdom of these provisions has been made manifest by the history of the state; and thoughtful Kentuckians in general have been convinced by the local history of their State of the truth of two propositions:
First, that there should be some method other than impeachment for the removal of officers-especially judges from office before the end of the time for which they were appointed or elected.
Second, That a popular election is not a proper method for such removal.
It has been assumed by many advocates of the Recall that the very fact of providing for a removal is a species of Recall; but the history of Kentucky will show the wide difference between the orderly methods provided in its Constitutions and the method of a popular election.
The State of Kentucky had the good fortune to have its frame of government shaped by enterprising, thoughtful, energetic students of the principles of government, who had come from Virginia and other eastern states with a view of bettering their condition. It has been said that the Constitution of the United States is the wisest governmental instrument ever enacted for a federal republic; and that the second Constitution of Kentucky which was in force from I800 to I850 is the wisest instrument ever devised by the wit of man for the government of a republic which is not a federation.
It has also been said that the statutory legislation of Kentucky from 1792 to I842 is the wisest statutory legislation as a whole that the world ever had seen up to that time. While these encomiums may perhaps be to some extent exaggerations due to a pardonable state pride, these encomiums would not have been uttered by thoughtful men unless the laws and Constitution of Kentucky had possessed great excellence.
Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.
www.jstor.org
quite an interesting and good read, not translated from some centuries olde ancient language, and pertains to today's discussion...
gutshot II
Regular Member
Paul Hornback is my State Senator. I have known Paul for over 30 years. I have expressed my displeasure over this decision but he is not going to be voted out of office or recalled. He is enormously popular with the voters and there is no alternative except a leftist Democrat. Senator Hornback has admitted to me that the idea of a Red Flag law probably has only a 10 % chance of passing this year. I can't image why he thinks it worth the fight and damage to his reputation. Paul is his own man and he will do what he thinks is right no matter the consequences. Even so, the voters will allow this one blemish on his record as long as it never becomes law.
Then the voters responsible for this kook need their heads examined.
Pretty sure a concentrated effort of the voters in his district can get him out.
I also think hes being real optimistic concerning 10 percent chance this flies.
Even most Democrats are against it, or afraid of it at least.
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
We need some new blood. 30 years is too long to be in office. He may be a friend, Butch, but he's no friend of gun owners or any Kentuckians who care about individual rights. Even if he can't be voted out for carrying water for the anti-gun advocates, he at the very least needs to catch a ton of grief about it from people he knows and respects. Wrong is wrong. He's not a ruler who must convince his subjects to accept his edicts. He's an elected representative of the people, and I'm assuming that most of the people in his district don't want more gun control... not even with his assurances that it's just a common sense safety measure that we need in these dangerous times.
Americans overwhelmingly believe that politicians are bums (plenty of evidence to support that belief) but will typically say their representative is OK. Apparently it's the other bums who are the problem. :-/
Savannah Maddox from Dry Ridge is the only legislator I've heard with the correct message on the recent red flag gun confiscation bill - violates at least three amendments in our Bill of Rights, etc.
I can still remember Norm Davis telling me about a legislator who told Norm that he didn't need to listen to Take Back Kentucky because his seat was absolutely secure and there is nothing they could do about it. Take Back Kentucky members carpooled from west central Kentucky to his district in eastern Kentucky all five weekends before the election and went door to door to educate his constituents. There was a cold miserable rain all five weekends. The people in his district apparently understood that when a group of liberty loving Kentuckians give up five consecutive weekends to go door to door in the rain, their legislator must be some special kind of SOB. He was unelected. The next year, whenever Norm wanted to discuss an issue with a legislator in Frankfort, it was, "Well hello Mr. Davis!" "So nice to see you, Mr. Davis!" "What can I do for you, Mr. Davis?"
Americans overwhelmingly believe that politicians are bums (plenty of evidence to support that belief) but will typically say their representative is OK. Apparently it's the other bums who are the problem. :-/
Savannah Maddox from Dry Ridge is the only legislator I've heard with the correct message on the recent red flag gun confiscation bill - violates at least three amendments in our Bill of Rights, etc.
I can still remember Norm Davis telling me about a legislator who told Norm that he didn't need to listen to Take Back Kentucky because his seat was absolutely secure and there is nothing they could do about it. Take Back Kentucky members carpooled from west central Kentucky to his district in eastern Kentucky all five weekends before the election and went door to door to educate his constituents. There was a cold miserable rain all five weekends. The people in his district apparently understood that when a group of liberty loving Kentuckians give up five consecutive weekends to go door to door in the rain, their legislator must be some special kind of SOB. He was unelected. The next year, whenever Norm wanted to discuss an issue with a legislator in Frankfort, it was, "Well hello Mr. Davis!" "So nice to see you, Mr. Davis!" "What can I do for you, Mr. Davis?"
Last edited:
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
The anti-gun lobby has deep pockets. This is an existential issue for them. They absolutely cannot abide armed citizens. They fundamentally believe that only government should be armed. The anti-gun lobby is willing to make political contributions knowing that an anti-gun bill won't pass this year or next, to move the public opinion slightly, year after year, until they can finally capitalize on a mass shooting to pass their bill and infringe on our rights. At any time, they may be funding two or three different anti-gun initiatives to simultaneously move public opinion in the anti-gun direction on various specific infringements. Red flag laws recently took center stage, but they're still talking universal background checks and outright bans on semiautomatic rifles that they don't like.
It's interesting that they want to ban ARs and AKs even though they're used in less than 1% of violent crimes. If they were interested in crime and believed (incorrectly) that the crime is caused by the guns, they'd want to ban handguns. If they REALLY wanted to reduce crime, they'd focus on the underlying economic and social issues that cause most of the crime, and by far most of that crime happens in inner cities. They can't focus on that, because those high crime zones are all heavily gun controlled, and that proves that gun control doesn't reduce crime. This indicates to me that they're more concerned with Mao's advice that political power flows out of the barrel of a rifle. Their agenda indicates that they want disarmed civilians who cannot resist their tyrannical government.
gutshot II
Regular Member
Bruce, I did not say that Hornback had been in office for thirty years. He hasn't. I said that I have known him for thirty years. I did not say he was a friend. Certainly he could be voted out of office with a concerted effort, any office holder can be voted out. My point is that there is no "concerted effort" and there will not be one. Hornback is secure in his office and this issue is not going to change that. The voters are satisfied with his performance and they are not going to change that over this issue that is not going to go anywhere. He has a distinguished career and this one hiccup will not turn them against him. He will be the only candidate for that seat in the Republican primary. It may be impossible to find a Democrate to challenge him in the general election. The last dem got about 20% of the vote. Nobody wants to do all the work necessary to run for office just to face a certain and substantial defeat. If you know of a potential challenger, let me know who that person is. He must be a person that likes to work hard for no gain and likes to lose. Facts are facts, even if you and others don't like the outcome. Wishing he would go away won't make it happen. Engaginging in fantasy will not make it come true. This district doesn't have a lot of people that want that job and even fewer that are capable of doing the job and even fewer still that could be elected to the job. Hornback will be in that office for as long as he wants to be in that office. There is no alternative and nobody on this forum can demand one come forward. Norm Davis has been gone a long time and I doubt you could find 10 people in this district that could tell you who he was. Unless Norm comes back to life and becomes a resident of Shelby, Henry or Trimble Cos. Hornback will be our Senator.
Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
Butch,
Other than my unwarranted assumption that your senator has been in office as long as you've known him (and that wasn't even a decent assumption), I think I got your meaning in your previous message. I understand the political realities. I don't like them, and that was what I was trying to convey with my rant, but I do understand them. At the risk of making another assumption, I believe I dislike my state senator more than you might dislike aspects of your state senator's representation. My state senator doesn't even pretend to curry favor with gun owners. He's convinced that guns are bad and citizens shouldn't have them. He's a reliable vote for every anti-gun bill.
There is room for a polite difference in opinion on most political issues, but this is not one of them. This is my political litmus test. If a politician doesn't trust me with a firearm, I don't trust that politician to legislate. All anti-2A politicians need to go. They won't, and that's the unfortunate reality. All we can do is keep educating people to the best of our ability, but we're up against many powerful forces in our society that immerse voters in a sea of anti-gun hysteria and that's pushing public sentiment in the wrong direction. The emotional noise leaves little room for a rational discussion.
In many ways, the political situation seems worse. It feels like people are now more resigned to having little representation and no control over our government. Most people seem to have given up on having a voice or being represented. It feels like we're mostly along for the ride, and I don't care for where it's going.
I haven't seen you in forever. Give me a call some time and maybe we can grab some lunch.
Other than my unwarranted assumption that your senator has been in office as long as you've known him (and that wasn't even a decent assumption), I think I got your meaning in your previous message. I understand the political realities. I don't like them, and that was what I was trying to convey with my rant, but I do understand them. At the risk of making another assumption, I believe I dislike my state senator more than you might dislike aspects of your state senator's representation. My state senator doesn't even pretend to curry favor with gun owners. He's convinced that guns are bad and citizens shouldn't have them. He's a reliable vote for every anti-gun bill.
There is room for a polite difference in opinion on most political issues, but this is not one of them. This is my political litmus test. If a politician doesn't trust me with a firearm, I don't trust that politician to legislate. All anti-2A politicians need to go. They won't, and that's the unfortunate reality. All we can do is keep educating people to the best of our ability, but we're up against many powerful forces in our society that immerse voters in a sea of anti-gun hysteria and that's pushing public sentiment in the wrong direction. The emotional noise leaves little room for a rational discussion.
In many ways, the political situation seems worse. It feels like people are now more resigned to having little representation and no control over our government. Most people seem to have given up on having a voice or being represented. It feels like we're mostly along for the ride, and I don't care for where it's going.
I haven't seen you in forever. Give me a call some time and maybe we can grab some lunch.
Very well said. Apathy of " well he" ll have his office as long as he wants an FCC there's nothing to be done " is how we lose rights.
gutshot II
Regular Member
Paul Hornback has helped me immensely over the years that he has been my Senator. He has introduced me to dozens of people and recommended me as a person that could be believed and relied upon. He has done what I asked every time I asked him. He co-sponsored the constitutional carry bill when I asked him to do it. He told me that he was glad to do it because it "is the right thing to do". He is proposing this idea because a constituent asked him to do it and he thinks it is the right thing to do. That is the kind of man that he is. For anyone to suggest that he be voted out of office is farcical. He retains his seat because everybody wants him to. Should he ever decide to resign he would be begged to stay. The only people that want to replace him are the few liberal/leftists that we have our district and a few people here that have never met him. He will retain his seat for as long as he wants because the people like him, trust him and they know that it would be impossible to get anyone close to him as a replacement. Now, I guess it is possible that you people that have never met him and never talked to him and never voted for him know better than the people that live, work and raise our children with him but I am skeptical. I would guess that Paul is far more conservative, better liked and more pro-gun than most of the legislators representing the people that post foolishness without knowing anything about the man but knowing something about a subject stopped being a requirement to post on OCDO about three years ago.