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.
There are ways to remove guns from dangerous people that are consistent with due process. Imagine if there were a federal hotline to report people with access to guns who were believed to present a threat to themselves or others. A relative could call a number and make a report, or report their suspicions online. Federal marshals could go to the person's house like they do when they serve a warrant and confiscate the weapons. The law could have time limits for a hearing--say, 30 days to have a hearing. It could be considered a civil matter with a representative from ATF or somewhere putting on whatever evidence they have that the person intends to commit harm with the weapon (statements he's made, social media posts, etc.). The person can put on evidence that he doesn't intend harm.
A judge could then decide a number of things: return the weapons, keep them for a period of time (3-6 months) while the person gets some sort of mental health counseling, or keep the weapons until mental health professionals can say that he's no longer a danger to himself or others. If it's decided that the person is not stable enough to own weapons, his name could go into a database that would prevent him from buying additional guns.
That type of system would not take guns from those not intending any harm, because most gun owners are responsible and don't go around threatening people. And it would provide due process to those whose guns are taken.
This type of post-deprivation hearing is common when there is a good faith belief that harm will come if you wait. Children can be removed from a home on allegations of neglect or abuse and parents get hearings to have them returned. Vessels are often seized from owners and held by the government when money is owed because if they sail away, so does the money. Basically any arrest is a type of seizure and a hearing is held after the fact where the accused has an opportunity to prevent evidence of innocence.
If you're serious about addressing mental health issues rather than banning types of weapons outright, this is the type of legislation you ought to think about supporting.
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.
Dick's is just trying to score Brownie points. As to illegal guns, does the war on drugs sound familiar?
Then who is Walmart trying to get brownie points from? My guess is that their customer base is composed of a large number of 2A supporters and they are simply saying "enough is enough", will you still shop there or are you going to scorn and boycott them?
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?
Yes, I did. And I was thinking about what might have stopped Nickolas Cruz or the shooter in Sutherland Springs.
You bring up good points. How could they be addressed? What else might work? Rather than calling and reporting, what if the reporter had to appear before a judge of some sort and swear to the allegations? With a penalty for misreporting, or reporting in bad faith. That would stop an anonymous call, but it would also slow down reporting.
If we're serious about ending gun violence, we have to come up with solutions. There's been lots of lip service paid to "better mental health care" and leaving law abiding gun owners alone, but what would that look like?
Let's pretend we're legislators. What can we come up with?
Yes, I did. And I was thinking about what might have stopped Nickolas Cruz or the shooter in Sutherland Springs.
You bring up good points. How could they be addressed? What else might work? Rather than calling and reporting, what if the reporter had to appear before a judge of some sort and swear to the allegations? With a penalty for misreporting, or reporting in bad faith. That would stop an anonymous call, but it would also slow down reporting.
If we're serious about ending gun violence, we have to come up with solutions. There's been lots of lip service paid to "better mental health care" and leaving law abiding gun owners alone, but what would that look like?
Let's pretend we're legislators. What can we come up with?
Both of those, if the Air Force for the Texas case and the law enforcement in Florida had done their damn jobs, neither of those shooters would have been able to legally purchase a firearm. They could have charged Cruz with illegal threats. Those chose not to. They could have, the law enforcement, brought him to the hospital for psych evaluation and a 72 hour hold since he posed a clear threat to others and himself but they chose not to. For the Texas shooter, the Air Force could have forwarded the necessary information about his arrests, convictions, and dishonorable discharge but they chose not to. Instead of looking for ways to make people less safe and encourage removing law abiding citizens' rights, why don't you instead INSIST our law enforcement actually uphold the damn law. THOSE are things that actually could have stopped either of these killers but since law enforcement didn't do their job, we'll never know, we will? But they sure are taking plenty of time to shift the blame from themselves to anyone else, like a pro-2nd amendment group, the NRA, and other law abiding gun owners in this country.
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?
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. The case is immediately taken before a judge is the judge signs off the guns are taken and placed in safekeeping. Within 21 days the person whose guns were seized is given a court hearing. If the judge agrees with the petition the guns are retained for one year, during which time the person cannot acquire or possess any additional firearms. The order can be renewed every year upon petition of the family member. A new bill is being considered that would allow mental health professionals, employers and schools to request the GVRO.
Then who is Walmart trying to get brownie points from? My guess is that their customer base is composed of a large number of 2A supporters and they are simply saying "enough is enough", will you still shop there or are you going to scorn and boycott them?
Walmart has been moving away from guns and ammunition for some time. This is simply a convenient P.R. move on their part. Their firearms and ammunition sales are a very small part of their sales. Trust me.... if they thought this would affect their bottom line they would have remained quiet.
Yes, I did. And I was thinking about what might have stopped Nickolas Cruz or the shooter in Sutherland Springs.
You bring up good points. How could they be addressed? What else might work? Rather than calling and reporting, what if the reporter had to appear before a judge of some sort and swear to the allegations? With a penalty for misreporting, or reporting in bad faith. That would stop an anonymous call, but it would also slow down reporting.
If we're serious about ending gun violence, we have to come up with solutions. There's been lots of lip service paid to "better mental health care" and leaving law abiding gun owners alone, but what would that look like?
Let's pretend we're legislators. What can we come up with?
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. The case is immediately taken before a judge is the judge signs off the guns are taken and placed in safekeeping. Within 21 days the person whose guns were seized is given a court hearing. If the judge agrees with the petition the guns are retained for one year, during which time the person cannot acquire or possess any additional firearms. The order can be renewed every year upon petition of the family member. A new bill is being considered that would allow mental health professionals, employers and schools to request the GVRO.
I think there are 5 states in total that have similar "red flag laws" and I haven't read about any serious challenges to the laws.
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.
Both of those, if the Air Force for the Texas case and the law enforcement in Florida had done their damn jobs, neither of those shooters would have been able to legally purchase a firearm. They could have charged Cruz with illegal threats. Those chose not to. They could have, the law enforcement, brought him to the hospital for psych evaluation and a 72 hour hold since he posed a clear threat to others and himself but they chose not to. For the Texas shooter, the Air Force could have forwarded the necessary information about his arrests, convictions, and dishonorable discharge but they chose not to. Instead of looking for ways to make people less safe and encourage removing law abiding citizens' rights, why don't you instead INSIST our law enforcement actually uphold the damn law. THOSE are things that actually could have stopped either of these killers but since law enforcement didn't do their job, we'll never know, we will? But they sure are taking plenty of time to shift the blame from themselves to anyone else, like a pro-2nd amendment group, the NRA, and other law abiding gun owners in this country.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
