Red Flag

Washington State Works To Expand Red Flag Law

Well you know what they say, if something doesn’t work, double down on it and give people more power to abuse it. We’ve probably attacked the absurdity of Red Flag laws at least twenty times since the idea of them came out and only supported the idea once, in its infancy when we were too stupid to see how it’d eventually be abused. Because it was eventually abused. But, since we absolutely adore beating the shit out of a dead horse as long as someone keeps trying to saddle it up and ride, we’re going to attack the absurdity of it ONCE AGAIN!

Washington state…first off, let’s all admit that we’re not surprised where this expansion of the red flag laws is coming from. Like, it’d be crazy if it was somewhere like Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (residents), Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (residents, concealed carry), Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming (residents) who all seem to be pretty cool guys in regards to gun rights, i.e. they all have constitutional carry of some sort…wow didn’t expect Vermont to be on that list, or New Hampshire either, oh well moving on. Nobody is surprised that Washington state is attempting to further disarm its people via House Bill 2305.

House Bill 2305 basically states that the subject of a protective order can have their guns confiscated due to “preponderance of the evidence but not by clear and convincing evidence.” Ok, so what’s the difference between preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence.

Clear and convincing evidence…we can all reasonably assume we know what clear and convincing evidence is, right? However preponderance of the evidence, that’s not something we read about every day. So what does it mean?
From Legal Dictionary.com; Preponderance of Evidence

“The greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

Fuck. That’s a lot of legal jargon, but we called our local barracks lawyer who is actually a lawyer and he broke it down in this way. There are three levels of evidence, in order of like how good the evidence is…

Preponderance of evidence

Clear and Convincing

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

So, basically what has happened in Washington State is they went from needing a bit more evidence to remove your rights to needed a little bit less evidence to remove your rights. Or at least that’s how we’re reading it. Still has to pass the Washington state senate. Now all of you up in Washington state can blow up your state senator’s phone and let them know how you want them to vote on this latest “Red Flag” law update.

Know what we're sayin fam?

Average rating 4.7 / 5. Vote count: 19

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

2+

3 thoughts on “Washington State Works To Expand Red Flag Law”

  1. Avatar

    Thanks to president trump for signing the red flag bill. Then he put a ban on bump stocks and has talked about putting a ban on suppressors. What else does he plan to do against the citizens owning guns. I don’t want to give him a chance to do more against us law abiding citizens. Dump trump 2020

    0
    1. Avatar

      Don’t be a dink-wad, Woody. Trump does not support Red Flag Laws as they are commonly referred. A Red Flag Law to Trump is one that effects those who are very likely to commit atrocities against the public, based on very good evidence, and also allows the accused to defend them self against the confiscation order derived from that law’s actions. Trump is not anti-gun … he is anti-criminal. The problem in the past is that laws have restricted LEA from investigating potential mass-murderers, thereby allowing those criminals to commit mass-murders. Trump’s actions are designed to prevent that from happening by allowing LEA to confiscate lethal weapons from those who are likely to commit a mass-murder, based on substantial evidence.

      You can live your life as a sheep and follow the anti-Trumpers down the hole, or you can take a little time to educate yourself on reality. Choose wisely, comrade.

      2+
    2. Avatar

      You’re a fool. Bump stocks had no useful purpose, other than to waste ammo. If you want a machinegun, apply for the tax stamp, or join the military.When has he signed any Red Flag bill? He hasn’t said a damn thing about suppressors. Any of the Damn Demoncraps will try to take all your guns, so don’t be an idiot!

      0

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *