Freedom Alert! Your help is desperately needed to save due process.
Tomorrow the Massachusetts House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that will do away with the due process and the presumption of innocence for MA gun owners.
Here is the text of the so called "red flag" bill H3610
Reading though this bill is quite disturbing. They are essentially doing away with basic due process and the presumption of innocence.
The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others.
There is the requirement to try to prove yourself innocent after you have been presumed guilty.
Upon a hearing on an extreme risk protection order, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order to be effective for a period of 1 year.
There is where they can strip you of a basic civil right without you actually being convicted of any crime, note the standard of evidence is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but merely " a preponderance of evidence" which is a much lower standard.
This bill is bad not only because it goes against gun rights but more so because it erodes basic protections of due process and presumption of innocence. Tomorrow they are going to vote on this nonsense and so today you need to call them and voice your disagreement.
You can use this tool to find your legislator, I called mine this morning, call them today. If you are out of state please call the governor's office.
Gov. Charlie Baker (617) 725-4005
In addition to asking for a "No" and asking them to defend their position on H3610 I am also asking them to vote no on these proposals
H.3578 An Act making firearm owners civilly liable for damage caused by lost or stolen firearms.
If someone steals your car you are not responsible for what they do with it nor should you be, same with guns.
H.3611 An Act authorizing the voluntary disavowal of eligibility to purchase a firearm
This one is just silly, seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist.
I left a message for my representative, hopefully he calls back before tomorrow. I want to ask him for some specific cases in MA where this law was needed. I bet there are not any.
Here is the MA gun rights group, it is called GOAL. They have lots of information and up to date news about the various assaults on liberty that people in the Bay State face, they work tirelessly against great odds, if you can support them please do.
If you want Hitler, don't vote 2018 and beyond. We must remind people each day that Hitler took the guns, Mao took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Cheney took the guns. Plus, Rome fell as their borders fell. Borderlessness killed Rome. 2A helps 1A. For example, the EU is dying and the USA is next. They arrested Tommy Robinson: #FreeTommy
Cheney took the guns?
During 9/11, did the airplane pilots have guns? Now, if they no longer had guns during 9/11 and after 9/11, then why not? Look at what Cheney and others were doing in the USA around that time. Look at the bills, laws, and you may see something.
If we are talking about airline pilots then prior to Cheney they did not have guns but after 9/11 bills were passed and signed into law during his administration to allow pilots to be armed.
If they take our Guns we will be defenseless.
The only people who will benefit from this bill are domestic abusers who want their victims to be disarmed.
good work @funbobby51, resteemed )
Thanks, I have not gotten a call back from my representative so I will call them again tomorrow.
yes and thats exactly why there are doing it @gooseisland ! Its fight or die time im very much afraid as the clock sits ticking !
They can try to come and take them. They can try. Resistance to the tyranny!!
Too right @goosieslamnd Gun Laws will never stop bad people getting guns ! I mean cocaine is illegal right, but its evrrywhere ! Would be better if people had te right to legally own and register their gun ! Good people and guns do nt kill people, just the tool calleda gun with a bad person operating the trigger !
Here in Chicago bad people give two F*** about gun laws. They drive 30min east to Indiana and buy weapons and drive back to Chicago and light uo the streets. Chicago is one amazing city were I can honestly say the Thugs/Mafia DO NOT CARE about gun laws.
yes thats exactly the reason gun laws are a joke and just a way of rendering the general population to the easy possibility of tyranny when the government who have the gunbs decide to come down one day on every tom ,dick and harry who gave in their guns long ago !!
Government doesn't put much stock in due process anymore. Just look at the asset forfeiture laws.
this is nothing like civil forfeiture laws.
It is in the sense that they violate due process. With civil forfeiture laws, your assets are seized before you are found guilty and may not be returned even if you are found innocent or the charges are dropped. While the laws may be different, the thing they have in common is doing away with due process and the presumption of innocence.
That's because it is a civil matter separate from your criminal matter. There is nothing that negates due process with civil forfeiture. The way they get you with civil forfeiture is by scheduling your civil hearing for before your criminal hearing so if you go to your civil hearing and try to get your drug money back then you have to admit that is your drug money and then they can use that as evidence against you in your criminal case. So people wisely skip their civil hearings and forfeit that property, this is why there is such a big difference between the number of seizures and convictions, it certainly does not mean those people were innocent, just that the state didn't have a criminal case they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt against them. There is nothing wrong with this process or these laws, the reason it is a problem for some people is because we choose to prohibit drugs.
But they seize your money without proving you have drugs or without finding drugs in many cases. There have been a number of documented cases where money was seized just because the police thought it was suspicious that someone was carrying a large quantity of cash or for other absurd reasons. It doesn't matter that they had a legitimate reason for carrying it. They MAY be able to get it back but it is often a long and expensive process. Just because they call it 'civil' doesn't change the nature and intent of what 'due process' is. This is still the government seizing your property without due process or really any process at all. Why should the government be allowed to seize your property without convicting you of a crime? Now if the government had to sue you in civil court in order to take the property in the first place, perhaps it would be different.
Sure, if property seizures only occurred when an actual crime had been committed (i.e. they actually find drugs in your car or with the cash) then perhaps you have a point. But suspicion, justified or not, is enough for seizure in many cases.
it is neither a long nor expensive process, especially if you really are innocent, just go to a hearing, but you do have to attend the hearing and if you are actually guilty then you can be forced to testify because it is not a criminal case, but that testimony can be used in your criminal case.
It's like OJ, he was never found guilty of murder but he was found to be responsible for killing Nicole and Ron Goldman. Nobody thinks him losing all his shit is an injustice.
I am sure there are cases where the police overstepped their bounds but if you were not charged with any crime then it should be real easy to get your stuff back. Those cases are certainly not the norm though. Mostly it is people who don't get their drug money back.
The real problem is not the seizure laws, like a lot of other problems, the real problem is that drugs are prohibited.
I agree that drugs being prohibited is a problem. But I completely disagree that the government being able to seize your property without proving you guilty of something is ok. It's not ok and I don't know why anybody would think that it is (except of course the authorities doing the seizing). I can post endless links to stories about people who unjustly had their property seized (no, they weren't actually using or selling drugs) and had difficulty getting their property back. The laws vary state to state and it depends on whether there is federal involvement too. Some places are worse than others. Just because drug laws are a problem doesn't mean that seizure laws are not.
The government can take your property even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong. They just have to follow legal procedures. I would love to see some cases where no one was allegedly using or selling drugs and property was still seized and not returned. All the cases people seem to get hyped about are when someone's granny's house gets seized because her grandson gang banger is selling drugs out of there.
Any law can be abused, when they are using siezures as a their sole revenue stream or taking property from truly innocent people then that just means it is being abused, I am sure there some jurisdictions out there where they are corrupt, those corrupt jurisdictions need to be held to account.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Relevance: Freedom isn't free.
It doesn’t make us defenseless, it just makes me mad. Sheeple. 🐓🐓
I've always believed that the mind is the best weapon.
It is, but some people have no idea how to use it. That my friend is what worries me. 🐓🐓
not to mention all those folks who have lost theirs.
This bill sounds dangerous.
Now, I must admit that what surprised me the most was this:
Do they have direct contact with their legislators? In fact, they call back and discuss the bill?
He didn't call back today but I will call again tomorrow. I have spoken with both state and local lawmakers and I even cornered my congressional representative on Thanksgiving one time. I once testified to a state legislative committee. Where you live you can't call your legislators? Usually you have to talk to someone in their office before you talk to them. I was a little surprised and disappointed he did not return my call today.
Well, I know people who work with several local servants, and therefore, I could get in touch, but as far as I know, here it is not usual for people to get in touch with local servants.
if I had a concern for my federal congressman I could eventually get in touch with him.
This post has received a 8.1 % upvote from @boomerang.
Aren't you sickened by the epidemic of mass shootings in our schools and public places? I know I am. And it's not only those headline-causing tragedies, it's every gang shooting, every act rage, every robbery gone wrong.
Long time overdue to end this stupidity and restore all of our freedom -- freedom against fear of gun violence.
Oh, and thanks for the link. I found my legislators and am calling them to thank them and to stick to their guns (pun intended) in supporting H3610.
Otherwise, be well, this reply not intended as any form of personal attack.
Joe
Aren't you sickened by the epidemic of mass shootings in our schools and public places? I know I am.
Sure, nobody likes that.
I am not sure what an act rage is, I also don't like gang shootings and robberies, who does?
That's not a freedom, if you actually have a fear of gun violence that is an irrational fear that is something that only exists in your head, the government cannot control your irrational fears. If you really fear gun violence in a free state there is a constitutionally protected remedy to your irrational fear, get a gun of your own. You have a right to protect yourself, there is no right to be protected by the government. In fact the police have gone to court to prove again and again that they have absolutely no obligation to protect you.
So you live in MA and you don't understand how with our current permitting scheme this is totally stupid, that the police can already rescind anyone's firearms permit at any time for any reason?
Which of our other liberties should we apply this to? How about if we did the same for freedom of speech?
Joe
Sorry that you think that the group of citizens who are the safest need to be cracked down on even though they have done nothing wrong. Tell me about a single case in MA where this law would have helped.
*edit I note you had no comment on the due process and presumption of innocence being done away with besides to say you support it.