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 03-02-2018, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,843 posts, read 5,505,738 times
Reputation: 8390

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
California has a very successful gun violence restraining order program. A close family member or the Police can request that the police temporarily remove guns and ammo from a subject who is making threats or acting irrationally........
How do we define "making threats" or "acting irrationally"? I mean, look at all the things that are included under "Freedom of Speech" and then consider what someone may think is "making threats" or "acting irrationally".

I was at my range the other day, shooting a Sig and a Soviet knock off. I was shooting the silhouette; I only shoot the silhouette.

That I only shoot the silhouette might be considered by someone who didn't know me as "acting irrationally".

So how do we define it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2018, 03:32 AM
 
1,708 posts, read 504,790 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Good luck on that abolishing the 2nd amendment. What do you need - 38 states to ratify even on top of the 2/3 of Congress? You have a better chance of winning the lottery or immigration to one of those countries where you don't have the right to self protection. Let me know how that works out.
Well Good Luck on most gases spewed out here within the CD environment!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,289 posts, read 4,188,560 times
Reputation: 4779
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Already been abolished. The USSC in Heller. They held it does not mean what it says. That takes care of the second. We are now arguing about how it will be misinterpreted.
Erm. You might want to read the ruling before making any more statements on this matter.

That said even if judicially the 2nd was overruled, to avoid a potential civil war, it might be prudent to wait until the amendment process was complete. I'm not agreeing with your position just saying it might save problems later, like avoiding judicial nullification of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 1st Amendments. Because one thing I can guarantee, is that if government can seek to curtail a right you believe you have, and can do so by judicial means over constitutional amendment, they will. I'm sure you don't support Trump, how safe would you feel if the only thing standing between you and your closely cherished rights was a court, and the SCOTUS choosing not to hear the appeal, the keys to those rights residing in the hands of DJT? Because there's going to be another Trump, there'll be another Democrat President (or maybe not if judicial nullification can stick I mean the 22nd Amendment, is just an amendment), and another republican congress, senate, and Democrat congresses and senates. Like was found with the Reid rule, the boot always ends up on the other foot.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:16 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo302 View Post
This reads like an Orwellian dystopia.

Disregarding the illegal confiscation of property and denial of rights....
A an open civilian hotline to effectively swat people? That sounds like the worst idea I have heard in a while and a good way to get people hurt.
You know,while talking with some people last night exactly what you're saying came up and the feelings at the start were that this was a bad idea until I tossed the fact that things like this already happen all the time. How you might ask? Well, it's called "Asset forfeiture". The way that law works is you can be accused, no proof presented just an accusation and the government takes your property,cash etc until a judge rules and then maybe you get it back after paying insane attorney fees.
I know someone who had property seized, the charges were dropped but they didn't get their stuff back because in the asset form it said he had 10 days to apply to get it back. Between finding an attorney and getting the attorney up to speed the date was missed by a couple of days.

Yes, he could've fought to get it back but the cost would've been insanely high. This is not an unusual occurrence, just do a search on asset forfeitures and you'll see many horror stories. Some of the most insane ones happened to fisherman having their boats taken,cash seized etc. Hard to fight when assets are seized.

One thing that's a fact, the government taketh away and rarely giveth back with the same speed if at all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:19 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
When I read this, all I can imagine is some abusive a-hole ex that knows his ex has a gun and to get it out the way, he calls her in. Sure, it's only 30 days but that gives him more than enough time to harm her. Or change that to rapist or burglar or any scenario where someone wants to ensure their "victim" is unarmed.

Seriously, did you think about this first at all?
Surprising you use a "he against she" but not the other way around as well. Isn't there a saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?
It says nothing about man...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:27 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
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.
And I don't believe it'd be that hard or costly to set up specific courts for these actions compared with the costs of some of the other ideas not to mention it looks like it stays within that old tired (and some say useless) document called the Constitution.
As long as there are fast,easy and inexpensive remedies to get the property back at some point I don't see a problem.
There should also be penalties for false reporting so as to discourage revenge reporting...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:29 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
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.
Actually I think it'd come under the 4th amendment...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,146 posts, read 13,659,191 times
Reputation: 22190
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
How do we define "making threats" or "acting irrationally"? I mean, look at all the things that are included under "Freedom of Speech" and then consider what someone may think is "making threats" or "acting irrationally".
If you can't figure out on your own what kinds of behavior or language would rise to the level where a person should at least be temporarily separated from their guns then there's probably no point in trying to explain it to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:38 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner View Post
This is nothing but pure unadulterated NRA infused BS rubbish on steroids!

Strikes of very deep PARANOIA......
Is it really baseless paranoia when some legislators have stated exactly that (except the knives part)?

Quote:
“[The militia experts] accuse antigoverment agitants of paranoia, yet they spin around and claim that militias speak in coded phrases, have underground bunkers, and are secretly conspiring to take over the world and enslave minorities. They say it`s lunacy that men at the pentagon can conspire, yet they`re certain that farmers out on the plain are plotting as we speak.

They depict the United Nations as weak und ineffectual, yet they portray raggedy-ass backwoodsmen as the world`s biggest organized military threat. ”
― Jim Goad, The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats
Quote:
“Anyone not paranoid in this world must be crazy. . . . Speaking of paranoia, it's true that I do not know exactly who my enemies are. But that of course is exactly why I'm paranoid.”
― Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches and Salvos from an American Iconoclast
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/paranoia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:43 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,952 posts, read 22,573,494 times
Reputation: 15493
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.
I don't think DiFi's gun ban will make it through either. She wasn't just talking AR15's either.

I Don't get why Trump was telling her to include it in the bill but on the other hand told the other Senator that CCW reciprocity bill shouldn't be included because it'd kill the bill.
Strange thinking going on there...
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 06:49 AM.

© 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