starwatcher

So this went down as; Person likely committed a gun crime. Deputy left, wrote a report about this person pointing a gun at him. Sheriff went to judge to get a red flag order before the individual was in custody. This still doesn't pass the sniff test. They should have gotten a warrant for his arrest if the deputy left the scene without making an arrest, going the red flag route doesn't make sense. Based on my Law & Order: SVU law degree Deputy should have arrested the individual or gotten backup to assist with the arrest. The individual should be booked and arraigned which will strips him of his firearm rights, likely through a search warrant before he his allowed to be bailed out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that crime never happened. Easier for a deputy/sheriff to lie in a red flag hearing than an actual court case

I didn't read the article but why do you need to use a red flag law when clearly a crime has been committed as the Sheriff claims Just charge him for those crimes. This doesn't pass the sniff test, either the Sheriff is incompetent or is using the red flag law to circumvent this possible criminal's due process rights.

If lower courts were blatantly misapplying Heller (someone correct me if I'm wrong) what makes SCOTUS think they will appropriately apply this ruling to other 2A cases?

GLOWS

He saw what the Wayne was doing and wants a piece of that pie for himself?

Maybe what he said is the truth of criminal element fighting amongst themselves. However when he brought up rapes my BS flag was raised. I can see him knowing about shootouts and murders in the streets but the only way he'd hear about rapes would be from unsubstantiated gossip or in the news. Since he didn't didn't mention providing news articles for the rapes I'm going to go with unsubstantiated gossip. Either way he comes across as a rabid anti private gun ownership person. His threshold on calling a regime evil and/or insane is laughably low. Also whens the last time you've read about murder or rapes in Ukraine caused by common criminals? NEVER! The western MSM isn't hiding anything when they would never report on such events in the first place.

LOL at 3:12:28 - 55 I disagree with some of their core arguments that eliminating no knocks will further lead America into a lawless dystopian. Because no knocks didn't exist until Nixon's war on drugs.

It also helps to have concrete identifiable law/policy goals, unlike the majority of BLM protests.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/02/04/2-swat-team-members-involved-in-jaleel-stallings-case-were-part-of-locke-raid/ In my opinion. The defensive shooting at police by Jaleel Stallings is deserving of an entire other thread, but the connection between the two is interesting. Bad tactics.

In my opinion it would be nice to have gun right groups support all gun owners as rabidly as police unions support officers.

In my opinion they directly clash with castle doctrine. In my opinion the officer involved shooting was justified, but every event that lead up to it is a failure of our society at all levels from the shooter to the SCOTUS. I like newsnations take on a few things; https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/what-is-a-no-knock-warrant/

How is that relevant? Lets take George Floyd for example, he was living a life that would have ended the way it did, poorly. That doesn't absolve Chauvin of his actions. No knocks need to end. There is absolutely no reason to have them. All it does is put officers and the public in danger. Simply bad tactics, bad leadership, bad policy, bad laws. If the cops had good tactics this would have never happened. If the leadership would have trained them properly this would have never happened. If policies didn't allow these type of warrants this wouldn't happen. If we still enforcement the 4th amendment the other laws that support this behavior would be deemed unconstitutional and this wouldn't have happened.

Another mutual combat case(previously mentioned in this thread), this time with eventual charges. Kudos to Schaumberg PD https://wgntv.com/news/schaumburg-teen-charged-with-first-degree-murder-after-18-year-old-stabbed-to-death-in-video/

No one brought up that the state/police has no duty to protect its citizens. If the state disarms its citizens it should be responsible for their safety.

I haven't listened to everything yet. One thing that stood out to me is the subway attack example, yet no justice brought up Lozito v. New York City. Just because police are in the area, that means nothing since they have no duty to protect or help you.

I'm surprised the Supreme Court is asking the Attorney representing Evans for examples and how to interpret the law in which a person is not worthy of having their rights restored. Those questions are more relevant to the Attorneys representing the Government. Even the AGA thinks the appellate court decision was absurd. HAH "Holistic test" if someone is worthy of having their rights restored; Which means how we feel this day or after we consulted the Ouija board