Henry v. County of Nassau, CA2

[Fyathyrio]

Interesting case out of NY, a united panel says that expired ex-parte protection orders do not meet heightened scrutiny. Seems district court doesn't understand what an individual right is, either. Volokh Conspiracy summary with link to full decision here.

[mshill]

Very articulate decision

[pacrat]

IMHO, ALL of these laws allowing ANY TYPE of "EX PARTE" COURT ACTIONS.

Are unconstitutional from the beginning.

5th and 14th Amendments guarantee "DUE PROCESS". And the 6th guarantees facing accusers in Court.

6th A

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

These RED FLAG laws, totally ignore 1/2 of the 6th A text. Shown in bold above.

If no facing of accusers in court is allowed. 6th violation.

There can be no "DUE PROCESS". 5th and 14th violations.

All of these leftist RED FLAG LAWS. Ignore citizens enumerated rights under the guise of "public safety". Which is nothing but a lame excuse for a blatant POWER GRAB. In order to go one step further. And DENY CITIZENS THEIR 2a RIGHTS.

CA2 got it right in their narrow ruling in support of Mr Henry's 2A right. But failed, as most courts do, to address the underlying cause at issue.

BOGUS RED FLAG CRAP!

[rplaw]

IMHO, ALL of these laws allowing ANY TYPE of "EX PARTE" COURT ACTIONS.

Are unconstitutional from the beginning.

5th and 14th Amendments guarantee "DUE PROCESS". And the 6th guarantees facing accusers in Court.

6th A


These RED FLAG laws, totally ignore 1/2 of the 6th A text. Shown in bold above.

If no facing of accusers in court is allowed. 6th violation.

There can be no "DUE PROCESS". 5th and 14th violations.

All of these leftist RED FLAG LAWS. Ignore citizens enumerated rights under the guise of "public safety". Which is nothing but a lame excuse for a blatant POWER GRAB. In order to go one step further. And DENY CITIZENS THEIR 2a RIGHTS.

CA2 got it right in their narrow ruling in support of Mr Henry's 2A right. But failed, as most courts do, to address the underlying cause at issue.

BOGUS RED FLAG CRAP!

This opinion is, IMO, correct. The preliminary restraining order is placed to keep the parties apart and peaceful until the facts can be heard. As such, it's nothing more than a "notice to appear" or "summons" to have the proof of the accusations presented when both parties are before the court.

To say otherwise, is to say that a summons to appear means that the defendant has not had his day in court when the purpose of the summons is to provide actual notice of that upcoming day and give sufficient time for the parties to prepare for it.

Red flag laws are intended to be in this same category. However, what makes them so wrong is that almost anyone may file a complaint against any other person and the State will confiscate lawfully owned property prior to any hearing. That is a taking based on a mere accusation and doesn't rise to any required std under the 4a. In such a situation, as a check against unlawful takings and abuse of the statutes, the state, along with the complainant, should be required to bear the costs and liability if the taking turns out to be wrongful. However, this is not going to happen because neither the State, nor the courts, are interested in holding anyone accountable except the party complained against.

[BAJ475]

IMHO, ALL of these laws allowing ANY TYPE of "EX PARTE" COURT ACTIONS.

Are unconstitutional from the beginning.

5th and 14th Amendments guarantee "DUE PROCESS". And the 6th guarantees facing accusers in Court.

6th A


These RED FLAG laws, totally ignore 1/2 of the 6th A text. Shown in bold above.

If no facing of accusers in court is allowed. 6th violation.

There can be no "DUE PROCESS". 5th and 14th violations.

All of these leftist RED FLAG LAWS. Ignore citizens enumerated rights under the guise of "public safety". Which is nothing but a lame excuse for a blatant POWER GRAB. In order to go one step further. And DENY CITIZENS THEIR 2a RIGHTS.

CA2 got it right in their narrow ruling in support of Mr Henry's 2A right. But failed, as most courts do, to address the underlying cause at issue.

BOGUS RED FLAG CRAP!

What you are overlooking is that these are generally civil cases not criminal, so your alleged 6A violation misses the mark. I am not saying that there are not due process and taking violations.

[BAJ475]

...Red flag laws are intended to be in this same category. However, what makes them so wrong is that almost anyone may file a complaint against any other person and the State will confiscate lawfully owned property prior to any hearing. That is a taking based on a mere accusation and doesn't rise to any required std under the 4a. In such a situation, as a check against unlawful takings and abuse of the statutes, the state, along with the complainant, should be required to bear the costs and liability if the taking turns out to be wrongful. However, this is not going to happen because neither the State, nor the courts, are interested in holding anyone accountable except the party complained against.

What is interesting is that, from what my CCW app is reporting, only 18 of the 50 states have red flag laws. Those 18 states are CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, IN, MD, MA, NV, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, VA, & WA. So it appears that these laws are primarily a problem in Dem. controlled states. No surprise there.

[pacrat]

What you are overlooking is that these are generally civil cases not criminal, so your alleged 6A violation misses the mark. I am not saying that there are not due process and taking violations.

"rplaw" Thank you for bringing to light the further violation of 4th A rights. Bringing the total to 4 different Amendments that these type laws ignore.

What you have pointed out is just another instance of;

BOGUS RED FLAG CRAP

Cops coming to a citizens private residence, UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY, with a WARRANT. Makes it a criminal matter.

Cops beating on your door, demanding entry. Or they will kick it in, and shoot you, if you resist their AUTHORITY. Is them acting as Gov Enforcers.

No matter what the legislature falsely claim when they pen the law.

Another example of the misuse of the word CIVIL when speaking of Police acting under color of authority to seize private property. Is "CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE".

There is NO CIVIL element involved in it either. It is cops acting on their own accord, to usually enrich their own wallets.

Had Mr Henry's daughter, who later changed her mind. Called the cops and reported a "MAN WITH A GUN". And the cops responded with guns drawn. With the exact same outcome as the RED FLAG complaint. That would assuredly be a CRIMINAL matter.

Having the cops include their pet judge in the equation. With issuance of an Ex-Parte warrant. Changes nothing.