The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have re-ignited efforts to pass “Red Flag” laws, which allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process …

I therefore ask you, Deckard, since you are a strong supporter of libertarianism and a devoted Ron Paul admirer and one who should understand what Ron Paul was saying – to explain to me what he meant when he said: “[Red flag laws] take away a person’s guns without due process.”

I can’t understand that because it is my belief that the red flag law permits police or the family of individuals to petition a state court for an order yp temporary remove firearms from any person who may present a danger to others or to themselves. A judge must make a determination to issue the temporary removal order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. The gun owner may have legal counsel present at the hearing.

My question therefore to you, Deckard, is twofold:

• First, what does Ron Paul mean “without due process?”

• Secondly, is my understanding of the red flag law correctly stated?

This is not to say there are not those with extreme ideologies who threaten our liberty and safety, but they are the Republicans and Democrats located in Washington, DC!

Who Are The Real Extremists?

I also read that …

“Paul is right that the U.S. is overextended abroad, but he can't seem to make the point in a moderate and nuanced way. He has to say, foolishly and irresponsibly, that Iran is no threat. And so he comes across as a crazy old man who cannot be trusted with the power of the presidency. His 19th century isolationism was already outmoded in the 19th century.”

“The extremism of libertarians is connected with their being doctrinaire. It is good to be principled but bad to be doctrinaire. It requires the subtlety of the conservative mind to understand the difference and the dialectic between the two, a subtlety that is often lost on the adolescent mind of the libertarian who wants nice clear exceptionless principles to cling to.”

Where did I read all of this?

Uh, let me see.

Oh yea.

I read it all in an article published years ago, titled:

Ron Paul and Libertarian Extremism.

… America's most beloved congressman, Ron Paul.

While I like to try and understand a libertarian’s lament: “Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed.”

[…]

… it irks me that, as far as most Americans are concerned, Ron Paul is the alpha and omega of the libertarian creed. If you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.

Much of Paul's appeal comes from the impression he conveys of principled ideological coherence. Other Republican presidential aspirants are transparently pandering grab-bags of incoherent compromise. Ron Paul presents himself as a man of conviction devoted to liberty, plain and simple, who follows logic's lead and tells it plain. The problem is, often he’s not.

[…]

The lengthy article continues here …

… Extremists …

Will Wilkinson of the libertarian Niskanen Center

They are on the spectrum of left-libertarian/open borders policy.

… The rest of us have no use for them.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that each of you libertarians has no use for any other libertarian.

[The libertarians at the Niskanen Center] speak only for themselves.

And therein lies “one” of the major impediments to “libertarianism.”

With each and everyone one of you libertarians “speaking only for yourself” when combined with the fact that libertarianism is a complete mish-mash collection of seemingly unlimited political philosophies and movements [35 at last count – and growing] shows that libertarianism has the disastrously misdirected undertaking of a big “clusterfuck.”

My thanks to Clint Eastwood for the use of the word – “clusterfuck.”

Wilkinson says that movement libertarians often argue from a position of such essential mistrust or moral condemnation of state action, a desire for a government of a size and function that has never been real in history, that it "takes nearly everything off the table of democratic negotiation…[leaving] no space for politics, as it is commonly understood." Thus, they tend to be bad atthe roiling adversarial mess of multiparty democratic politics. Accordingly, libertarians tend to see democratic politics as an ungodly festival of thuggery and mutual predation. Active political participation is seen as wicked, futile, or both. It's hard to think of a political philosophy less likely to inspire its adherents to throw themselves into the hard work of real politics, or to see any virtue in it….when fire- breathing dogmatists predictably fail to make any headway democratically —"working within the system"—they tend to perversely interpret this as evidence of the hopeless corruption of the system and the pointlessness of trying to get anything done using ordinary "moderate" democratic political tactics. This, in turn, confirms in their minds that extreme measures may be called for, since "moderation" seems to get nothing done. It's a cozy, self-reinforcing loop of principled ineffectuality.

Wilkinson advocates instead that libertarians should see polities and economies alike as dizzyingly complex emergent systems that we should try to understand and improve, but not as the sorts of things about which we can make reliably decisive moral judgments, and certainly not the sorts of things we ought to seek to replace wholesale with castles of imagination built on philosophical theory.

A libertarianism that has a place for democratic politics has a place for the virtue of pursuing liberty and justice through moderate, democratic means. A libertarianism that can see dignity and virtue in democratic participation, that doesn't need to insult potential political allies, or scare them off by constantly pining for what most people see as a crazy, scary, speculative utopia … a libertarianism like that can win friends and influence people. This sort of libertarianism, comfortable with moderation, can actually move the needle—can actually deliver incremental pro-liberty policy reform.

Extracts from LIBERTARIAN HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY.

Wilkinson thinks the slogan from Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech for the Republican Party's nomination, where Barry said …

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of liberty justice is no virtue."

Wilkinson says:

In terms of practical life, political or otherwise, moderation in principle means hammering out workable compromises with people who hold to different principles….This need not be understood as moderation in the sense of watering down our principles, or admitting that they are wrong in order to get along. Milton Friedman and Martin Luther King, Jr. never backed down from their radical principles. We need "moderation in principle" in the sense of being willing to negotiate toward public rules that do not perfectly conform with our principles, and to abide by those rules, even as we act to change them in the direction of our principles….

Wilkinson points out that …

Real political change of necessity involves negotiation and persuasion with people who don't agree with you on core issues. It requires actual human interaction based on at least some trust and some sense of respect. The "spirit of moderation that engenders open-mindedness and mutual respects helps a lot in this regard. Maybe this is the most compelling reason to embrace moderation in pursuit of justice: it's more likely to work."

Oh - so Trump didn't say that?

“Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

“… We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process."

With your attempted diversion aside, we can bet back to where:

All I have ever asked you to do during this exchange is to show me how it is that Ron Paul states red flag laws allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

… without due process …

I ask you again, Deckard – How is there no due process?

If a girlfriend feels that her boyfriend may present a danger to others or to himself, then she petitions a state court for an order to temporary remove firearms from her boyfriend.

Even if there's NO real threat.

“… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAKES a THREAT to others …”

The law says:

“… temporary remove firearms from any person who MAY present a DANGER to others …”

• MAY - A possibility.

• THREAT - A statement in which YOU TELL SOMEONE that you will cause them harm or trouble if they do not do what you want.

• DANGER - The POSSIBILITY of suffering harm or injury.

“You have the right to a clear understanding of the Red Flag Laws. Anything you say wrong through your misunderstanding can and will be used to ridicule you. You have the right to consult with Tooconvervative or any other libertarian. If you cannot understand the right stated here or the contents of this entire post, then that is your tough shit and I have no sympathy for someone who is so stupid.

Get it yet gun-grabber?

Do YOU get it NOW, illiterate libertarian?

Oh wait - you just want the red flag laws applied to GUNS?

Well, sport, that is just what I have doing for a very long time now – “waiting” ever so impatiently for you to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

Get that, you irrational libertarian fear-monger as you daily continue with your constant spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of ever impending danger – which has become a habit to you and never happen – as you go about purposely and needlessly trying to arouse public fear.

Yes, I am still “waiting” …

“How about” knives and a truck …

Well, “how about” remembering that during each day in our communities across this great country we share time with our coworkers, neighbors, friends, family and sometimes even strangers as we are on our way to work or school, shopping, or the gas station – and that It is so easy to overlook things during these routine moments. However, as you’re going about your routine day, if you see something that definitely doesn't seem right, say something. It is by being alert and reporting very suspicious activity to your local law enforcement, that you can protect your family, neighbors, and community.

“How about” that …

You would agree there, right?

But I would agree if you say that you are unable to explain how Ron Paul can say that red flag laws will allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process.

You have been unable to explain that, right?

Nice dodge.

How Orwellian!

If the cops are called, they should definitely take away the car of the "suspicious person", right?

Oh - you only want the cops to "take the guns and worry about due process later".

You are confused. It was Ron Paul who said that under red flag laws cops could take away guns “without due process”, Remember?

It is a statement by him that you still cannot explain the reasoning behind. Right?

I don't call the cops unless there is something going on that needs them immediatly. Not because I have some hunch because i'm a geezer with to much imagination.

That is highly commendable and worthy of great praise.

Your applaudable ability to save time and effort for your local cops should serve as a laudable example for all.

And a cherry “Good Morning, Sir” to you on the beginning of this bright and wonderful new day.

Oh, why not? Cars can be used to "harm one's self or others".

Oh, what a “set-up” question for an easy “lay-up” answer.

Thank you for this.

It has been said ad nauseam that:

Guns Don't Kill People -- People Kill People.

To respond to your question, I can say:

Cars Don't harm People -- People Harm People.

One dead, nine injured during knife attack near Lyon, France

How about knives?

For it is written in Matthew 7:7 – in the New International Version of the Bible – that to:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

It applies to a “Swat Team” and the verse when applied to a “Swat Team” should read:

“… Police will knock and if you don’t open the door, then in some cases they will open it for you – by kicking it in.

You don’t remember that?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

As a general rule, cops can never break down your door to enter your home in a forced entry. Before entering your home, officers must knock, announce their presence, and wait for you to come to the door like you would for any other visitor. This requirement is called the “knock-and-announce” rule. This purpose of this rule is to allow people an opportunity to respond so that violence can be averted and privacy protected. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a general rule. Once the cops knock and announce their presence, they only have to wait a reasonable amount of time for you to come to the door. If you do not come to the door, they are permitted to make a forced entry.

The issue that usually arises is what is a reasonable time for officers to wait before a forced entry? The Supreme Court has upheld forced entries after the cops only waited 15-20 seconds. Courts don’t generally require the police to wait for extended periods because of concerns that defendants will try to dispose of evidence before the police enter. If the police do not knock and announce as required, most courts will not automatically find that the police entry and search were illegal. Instead, they will just consider it a “factor” in determining whether the forced entry in your home and subsequent search were reasonable.

First Exception to the Knock and Announce Rule: Exigency

Even though officers should knock and announce their presence before they break down a door or carry out another forced entry, exceptions apply. The first type is based on exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances describe an emergency situation. For example, if officers have a warrant to search for drugs in your house, they knock and then immediately hear flushing (activity consistent with the disposal of drugs); they can break down your door and enter your house without announcing their presence or waiting for you to answer. Another common exigent or emergency situation is when the police have been called to your house because of a domestic dispute. If they hear threats or screams coming from inside your home which would lead the officers to believe that someone was in danger, then officers are permitted to break down your door and enter your home to protect a victim or carry out another type of forced entry.

Second Exception: Permission

The second type of exception to the knock-and-announce rule is written permission granted by a judge. The courts have excused the knock-and-announce rule in drug raids where the officers know the suspect may have large dogs, a security system or have a history of violence. The officer must explain to the judge why it would be dangerous for officers to announce their presence. If the court thinks their fear is justified, he will grant them advance permission for a forced entry, allowing them to break down your door and enter your home to conduct a search or an arrest.

Whether the entry into your home is forced or peaceful, stay calm and asked for a copy any warrants. As soon as possible, contact an attorney so s/he can review the warrant and basis for the warrant to ensure that your rights were protected.

https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal- law/arrests_and_searches/police-break-door.htm