Online users
???: MessageRuss Walden: Message  

Graham is dealing from the bottom of the deck on "due process":
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ģ

04/05/2019, 13:57:02

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Lindsey Graham To Write Bill Backing Red Flag Laws

Tom Knighton
3-4 minutes

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

While Iíve never been a fan of Lindsey Graham as a Senator, I did enjoy watching him get fired up during the Kavanaugh hearings. The South Carolina Republican was as feisty as Iíve ever seen him and I was looking upon him with newfound respect.

Too bad that didnít last.

After all, I find it difficult to back any lawmaker†who is willing to back red flag laws. However, in Grahamís defense, he does claim to care about a few things that other red flag bills donít.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham told BuzzFeed News he will start crafting legislation next week to expand police powers to preemptively seize firearms from people believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Graham is angling to get bipartisan support for his bill, and has been in discussions with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Neither would outline specifics Thursday beyond saying it will be an original piece of legislation. Graham said work on hammering out the contents of the bill will begin next week.

Despite a string of mass shootings in recent years, Congress has not taken action on any significant new gun control measures, only authorizing funding to improve the national background checks system.

Graham told BuzzFeed News on Thursday his bill will provide grants to states that pass extreme risk protection orders, or ERPOs. Also known as ďred flag laws,Ē they allow judges to authorize police to temporarily seize a personís guns, with no advance notice, if there are grounds to believe the person may commit a violent act.

ďIím seeking to incentivize states to produce extreme risk protective order legislation that has ample due process but also is meaningful in protecting the public from somebody who is dangerous,Ē said Graham.

Iím skeptical.

However, Iíll give Graham credit for at least paying lip service to due process. Thatís something thatís missing from every single red flag bill weíve seen so far.

The problem is, it doesnít go far enough.

Red flag laws also need provisions that offer stiff penalties for those who use extreme risk protective orders maliciously. As it stands, pretty much anyone can get anyone elseís guns taken away with just a few words in states with these in place. It becomes an attractive way to punish people for holding wrong opinions, for example.

Iíve referred to these as legalized swatting, and I hold to that.

Due process protections, coupled with harsh penalties for those who misuse these measures would go a long way to making many on the pro-gun side feel a bit more comfortable with things like this. Weíre probably never going to like them, though. After all, youíre taking away peopleís guns based on things that†might†do. Thereís nothing about that anyone†should†like.

Weíll have to see what Graham offers up. Until we see it, Iím going to play the odds and figure it to be a gigantic crap-sandwich. If Iím wrong, awesome, but letís be honest here. The chances of this being a fantastic bill are about the same as Amy Schumer becoming funny.

In other words, donít hold your breath.

Merely raising the bar from "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence" doesn't get there. Ex parte is ex parte, which, definitionally, circumvents adversarial hearings commanded by the 5th and 6th Amendments. A quasi-"civil" proceeding that exacts consequences indistinguishable from those in criminal proceedings (i.e. suspending or removing fundamental rights and/or property) must be subject to the requirements in the 6th Amendment, per the due process command in 5th Amendment.

But nobody is nailing him to the fence over that because he's disingenuously selective in who he allows to testify before Judiciary.

One thing is for certain - the dismissal of constitutional protections for fundamental rights must be decried in the loudest, most vigorous and public manner.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page