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, 10:30 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,883 posts, read 42,105,179 times
Reputation: 43291

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
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?

What would constitute "proving" the threat? I know people, and I imagine you also do, for whom the very existence of firearms two streets over threatens them. How many people are like that?

I have in mind one particular woman in my town who drove us crazy demanding we declare the town a Gun Free Zone (look where I live and estimate the number of waterfowl hunters, not to mention deer and turkey hunters although there is overlap). Letters to Town Council, to County Commissioners, to state Delegates and Senators, letters to Congressmen and Senators.

Thank God she moved a few months ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,024 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22112
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.
This was his threat, he stated online that he wanted “to be a professional school shooter.” That is NOT a terrorist threat. Here are the requirements for arrest for terrorist threats in Texas

Section 22.07 of the Texas Penal Code describes terrorist threats a any type of threat of violence against a person or institution with intent to:
  • Cause a reaction by emergency services
  • Place a person in fear of serious bodily injury
  • Prevent or interrupt the use of a building, facility or meeting area
  • Impair public transportation or communications
  • Place the public in fear for their safety
  • Influence the activities of the federal, state or local governments

His online statement did not meet any of those criteria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,058 posts, read 949,512 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
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?
Any law that takes property and rights away without due process negatively affects all law abiding citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,024 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22112
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
What would constitute "proving" the threat? I know people, and I imagine you also do, for whom the very existence of firearms two streets over threatens them. How many people are like that? I have in mind one particular woman in my town who drove us crazy demanding we declare the town a Gun Free Zone (look where live and estimate the waterfowl hunters, not to mention deer and turkey hunters although there is overlap). Letters to Town Council, to County Commissioners, to state Delegates and Senators, letters to Congressmen and Senators.

Thank God she moved a few months ago.
The petition has to be submitted by a person who lives in the same household as the subject of the petition, or it can be filed by the Police after they witness threatening or bizarre behavior. Judges take these petitions
seriously In 2016 in a state with a population of almost 40 million there were only 86 GVRO petitions filed and judges returned the guns after 21 days in all but 10 cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,662 posts, read 9,038,488 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
This was his threat, he stated online that he wanted “to be a professional school shooter.” That is NOT a terrorist threat. Here are the requirements for arrest for terrorist threats in Texas

Section 22.07 of the Texas Penal Code describes terrorist threats a any type of threat of violence against a person or institution with intent to:
  • Cause a reaction by emergency services
  • Place a person in fear of serious bodily injury
  • Prevent or interrupt the use of a building, facility or meeting area
  • Impair public transportation or communications
  • Place the public in fear for their safety
  • Influence the activities of the federal, state or local governments

His online statement did not meet any of those criteria.
Well he was in Florida so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,662 posts, read 9,038,488 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
What would constitute "proving" the threat? I know people, and I imagine you also do, for whom the very existence of firearms two streets over threatens them. How many people are like that?

I have in mind one particular woman in my town who drove us crazy demanding we declare the town a Gun Free Zone (look where I live and estimate the number of waterfowl hunters, not to mention deer and turkey hunters although there is overlap). Letters to Town Council, to County Commissioners, to state Delegates and Senators, letters to Congressmen and Senators.

Thank God she moved a few months ago.
My parents lived by a neighbor who was like that. Their (my parent's) land was overrun with deer. They had a friend who would bow hunt on their land to help. Neighbor called the police everytime he was hunting and even went so far as to tear down his deer stand on my parent's property. The police ticketed her. You KNOW someone like her would be calling that hotline number every second she could!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:49 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,826,673 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
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.
Look! Something we agree on. I knew there would be.

I don't want to remove someone's guns without due process either. This may surprise you, but I'm a staunch civil libertarian. I want Nazis, KKK, the NRA, the ***** hat wearers, and both sides of the abortion debate to be able to hold public rallies. I think colleges are limiting free speech by conservatives too much. I hate federal forfeiture laws. There's probably a lot we agree on.

But we have to figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who murder innocents. Let's keep working on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:53 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,826,673 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
What would constitute "proving" the threat? I know people, and I imagine you also do, for whom the very existence of firearms two streets over threatens them. How many people are like that?

I have in mind one particular woman in my town who drove us crazy demanding we declare the town a Gun Free Zone (look where I live and estimate the number of waterfowl hunters, not to mention deer and turkey hunters although there is overlap). Letters to Town Council, to County Commissioners, to state Delegates and Senators, letters to Congressmen and Senators.

Thank God she moved a few months ago.
Like everything else, the behavior for which weapons could be removed would be spelled out in the statute. That's where the judge comes in. If someone claims they're afraid because someone owns a gun two doors down, is that a threat under the statute? Probably not. But if someone claims that their ex-spouse has threatened to shoot them and owns a gun, it would probably fall under the statute.

As far as proving a threat, both sides would put on evidence. Sworn testimony is evidence, as are social media posts. It would take more than an allegation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:54 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,065 posts, read 1,385,598 times
Reputation: 3640
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.
And confiscation of guns WITH due process (go to a judge, get a warrant to confiscate Clyde's guns, then go to Clyde's house and take his guns) is just as intrusive.

But at least it's legal, since as we all know the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by due process of law".

Well, my copy doesn't say that. But mine must be defective or out of date, it's missing those last six words. But I'm sure they're there in modern copies of the Constitution, since every liberal acts as though they are, and some even say explicitly that they're in there.

I mean, if they weren't, then even a judge could not legally issue a warrant to take somebody's guns away.

Just as a judge cannot legally issue a warrant to kidnap a black man off the streets, put him in chains, and force him to work on your farm. The 13th amendment prohibits that.

The 13th does have a phrase saying " except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". But a warrant from a judge is not "duly convicted", of course.

So I'm sure the 2nd amendment similarly has the phrase, "except by due process of law". Otherwise the judge would be flagrantly violating the law by granting such a warrant, just as he'd be violating the law by issuing a warrant to kidnap a black man and force him into slavery.

And a judge (or a cop) would never violate the Constitution. Would he?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 10:55 AM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,826,673 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
Any law that takes property and rights away without due process negatively affects all law abiding citizens.
I totally agree. But due process can occur after the taking. I've posted about how it works multiple times.
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