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, 10:18 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,842,706 times
Reputation: 25432

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
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.
While it is against the law to threaten someones life, and while someone can be charged with making terroristic threats, there is no mechanism to remove firearms from such a person while the case is pending. If a person is arrested for making a threat and posts bond, I don't believe firearms are confiscated at that time. It's illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, but unless someone is convicted, there's no mechanism to take their weapons.

Cruz could have been arrested for making threats and released on bond, to go back home to his guns.

And you're right--the Sutherland Springs shooter should not have been able to buy a gun. I'm not sure where he obtained his.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,065 posts, read 953,064 times
Reputation: 1452
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.
I didnt think anyone would actually go for this, which is why I was taken aback when the president mentioned it. If they try to include this in legislation, it is likely dead on arrival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,103 posts, read 13,622,175 times
Reputation: 22152
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
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.
Not so fast...making a direct threat toward and individual is a crime and you can be arrested for it but threats that are general or vague do not provide probable cause to arrest someone. In the Parkland case there was no direct or specific threat, that is why he wasn't arrested for it.

Legislators need to to their damn jobs and pass legislation that allows guns to be taken from people at least temporarily even when their conduct does not reach the level of a criminal act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,103 posts, read 13,622,175 times
Reputation: 22152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
I didnt think anyone would actually go for this, which is why I was taken aback when the president mentioned it. If they try to include this in legislation, it is likely dead on arrival.
These laws are legal in 5 states and have survived with no serious challenges. California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington all have versions of a "red flag law"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,049,278 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Not so fast...making a direct threat toward and individual is a crime and you can be arrested for it but threats that are general or vague do not provide probable cause to arrest someone. In the Parkland case there was no direct or specific threat, that is why he wasn't arrested for it.

Legislators need to to their damn jobs and pass legislation that allows guns to be taken from people at least temporarily even when their conduct does not reach the level of a criminal act.
Pftt, he definitely made terror threats. That is a crime and something he could have been arrested and convicted for. They've done it before with others who have made threats like this and even less concrete than the ones this shooter made. Law enforcement has the tools, they need to use them. It wasn't like they even needed to "find" him, others did it for them. They did the right thing, reported him, and this law enforcement office did nothing to ensure the safety of the community in their lack of action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:24 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,842,706 times
Reputation: 25432
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.
By all means, fix NICs and work on security measures. But NICs wouldn't have stopped Cruz or Paddock.

"Swat hotline" was just my first idea. What about the California statute that 2Sleepy is talking about. You swear out a complaint that is heard by a judge who can order that weapons be confiscated for 21 days, during which time a hearing is held. If you're not deemed a threat, you get your guns back. If you are deemed a threat, the guns stay locked up til you're no longer deemed a threat.

How would such a law negatively affect law-abiding gun owners?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:26 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,842,706 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Pftt, he definitely made terror threats. That is a crime and something he could have been arrested and convicted for. They've done it before with others who have made threats like this and even less concrete than the ones this shooter made. Law enforcement has the tools, they need to use them. It wasn't like they even needed to "find" him, others did it for them. They did the right thing, reported him, and this law enforcement office did nothing to ensure the safety of the community in their lack of action.
If he were arrested and posted bond, then what? Or if he had been held for 72 hours, then what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,049,278 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
These laws are legal in 5 states and have survived with no serious challenges. California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington all have versions of a "red flag law"
Usually, it's all about implementation. Does the system allow due process? Yes, it passes. Does it not like the poster above suggested? Violation.

I would actually be in support of allowing law enforcement to take custody of someone's weapons while they are out on bond, much like we do with passports. In particular for anything deemed 'violent' to include threats and the like. I am not in support nor will I ever be of removing someone's constitutionally protected arms without due process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,666 posts, read 9,049,278 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
If he were arrested and posted bond, then what? Or if he had been held for 72 hours, then what?
Here are the reasons someone can be barred from buying a gun.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun...-nics-failure/

ETA: Cruz would have fallen under a few of those if they took the necessary action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,065 posts, read 953,064 times
Reputation: 1452
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
These laws are legal in 5 states and have survived with no serious challenges. California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon and Washington all have versions of a "red flag law"
I'm aware, they are extremely controversial there as well. I lived on the side of Washington that despises the controls that the smaller more urban areas shackle them with when they force these laws.
They would also never pass muster in the majority of states and as a federal reg.
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. The time now is 07:05 PM.

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