U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,047,513 times
Reputation: 5948

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
Hey, settle down. I'm not your enemy.

If the sheriff's department had picked Cruz up and held him for 72 hours and it did not appear that he was going to hurt himself or others, they would have had to let him go. The assessment would have been made based on an interview of him made by a mental health care professional and most likely would not have involved testimony from outside sources or social media about the threats that he had made. If he were released after 72 hours, he would have gone back home to his guns.

The type of law I proposed would have taken the guns out of his hands for enough time for an investigation of his outside statements and social media presence to be made.

And yes. The Air Force apparently dropped the ball in the Sutherland Springs case. But that shooter also had a long history of domestic abuse and of threatening his ex-wife with a gun. Again, under what I proposed, she could swear out a statement, the guns could be removed, and he'd have to have a hearing to get them back. Testimony about his threats would be offered and the court would have the option of taking his guns and putting him in a data base.

Right now there isn't a mechanism for removing guns from people who make threats against others. I'm not talking about law-abiding gun owners but about people who threaten to kill with guns. Can you think of a way to do that?
Yes there is a mechanism. It's against the law to threaten someone's life! So the law enforcement who did get multiple tips and had evidence that Cruz did exactly that did not uphold their sworn duty. They allowed someone who broke the law and was an obvious threat to walk into that school and shoot those children. They could have arrested him, they had cause, they had evidence, and chose not to. Threats like the Texas shooter? Again, against the law. Hey the Air Force even arrested him for it. He was convicted, he was ineligible to own a gun but again, people not doing their job led to him obtaining one legally when he was not eligible to do so. Seriously, law enforcement need to do their damn jobs. That would solve the scenarios you presented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,047,513 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I'm not forgetting due process at all. I talked about a hearing within 30 days of confiscating the guns. And it seems much less intrusive to take someone's guns for a period of time than lock them up. If you lock them up they may lose their job and place to live. But they can go without their guns for a period of time til things are sorted out no harm is done.
Confiscation of guns without due process (hearing 30 days later is not due process) IS intrusive. It's violating someone's right - you know - that 2nd one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:13 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,839,861 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post

Let's pretend we're legislators. What can we come up with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
A big fat NOTHING!!!
C'mon. We're smart people and beholden to no one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:14 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,839,861 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Confiscation of guns without due process (hearing 30 days later is not due process) IS intrusive. It's violating someone's right - you know - that 2nd one.
The California law has a hearing within 21 days. Is that better? People on both sides need time to gather evidence. What about 14 days? What would work for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,097 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22152
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
I don't know the details but an immediate hearing? That would cover due process and is a whole lot better than some of the crazy ideas I've heard (hotline. pfft) or using the no fly list which has no due process. I would like a system where schools, health care professionals, etc can use if they know someone is a danger to himself or others but doesn't rise to the level of involuntary commitment (a very high bridge now since the ACLU lawsuits of the 80s).

Notice the key thing though - due process. It's something so many are forgetting in their knee jerk reactions.
Not an immediate hearing, immediate review of the petition by a judge. This is legal and is the same process that is followed for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a domestic violence restraining order, there have been no legal challenges to either since there is no due process violation since they do not entail putting someone in jail.

If you had to wait until all parties concerned could be notified and given ample time to appear for a full hearing that would defeat the purpose of the emergency order, if a person is threatening others it's a little silly to even bother if they can keep the gun for the full 21 days before they go to the hearing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,065 posts, read 952,522 times
Reputation: 1451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
First, as I said, post-deprivation hearings are common and satisfy due process in exigent circumstances.

Here's the deal. People don't want gun bans, but claim that mental illness is the problem. If that's true, and we want to take guns away from the mentally ill, how do we do that? I threw out an idea. What's yours?

And how is this different from "see something, say something" when it comes to terrorism? If you suspect someone is going to blow something up, you report it. They're investigated. If nothing is going on, fine. If they're building a bomb in their bedroom, you just stopped a mass murder.

BTW, I'd be happy with banning everything but hand guns and single shot hunting rifles. But I'm thinking of gun owners who claim that targets legitimate gun owners.

Again, what's your idea?
A swat hotline is just a terrible idea. If you want someone investigated, make a report and police can get a warrant. If there is an issue about what is needed for a warrant then have a vote on lessening the necessary considerations.

My idea? How about actually enforcing current law effectively, fixing NICs, and concentrating on security, before we add more manure on the pile of regulations that people say arent working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,097 posts, read 13,614,329 times
Reputation: 22152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
The California law has a hearing within 21 days. Is that better? People on both sides need time to gather evidence. What about 14 days? What would work for you?
But in California the guns are seized within hours or a day, only as long as it takes for a judge to sign the GVRO, they don't wait 21 days to take the guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,047,513 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
The California law has a hearing within 21 days. Is that better? People on both sides need time to gather evidence. What about 14 days? What would work for you?
Actually, unless the person before you was wrong, there's an immediate hearing. When someone is arrested, there's an immediate hearing. It's often used for setting bail only BUT it does give the defense the opportunity to challenge the court for cause at all. Due process. You deserve it if you're arrested. You deserve it if someone is trying to take your rights, including the right to bear arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,047,513 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
A swat hotline is just a terrible idea. If you want someone investigated, make a report and police can get a warrant. If there is an issue about what is needed for a warrant then have a vote on lessening the necessary considerations.

My idea? How about actually enforcing current law effectively, fixing NICs, and concentrating on security, before we add more manure on the pile of regulations that people say arent working.
Agree. We can't even say if current gun laws are enough when law enforcement won't even enforce the existing laws. Existing laws, I might add, which would have stopped at least this shooter and others like the Texas one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:18 AM
 
1,708 posts, read 503,154 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by peequi View Post
Where does it end? It never ends. It will be similar to what happens in nations like the UK. I hope this thread doesn't turn into a pro gun vs anti gun debate. Lets keep on topic, and be honest. The goal is to end all firearms eventually. Don't reply "I am a Democrat and I love my guns, no one is taking them from me". You are a minority my friend, a very small and SHRINKING minority. Shrinking not just in percentage, but in actual numbers.

The path will be.
Registration
Ban Military style rifles
Ban High capacity magazines
Ban All rifles
Ban All handguns
Ban All shotguns except for farmers
Disarmed most police officers
No knives
This is nothing but pure unadulterated NRA infused BS rubbish on steroids!

Strikes of very deep PARANOIA......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top