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.
Its removing guns from people based only on a complaint or allegation...with no due process. Its totally unconstitutional.
It’s through a judge. There have been plenty of cases where families couldn’t get funds removed from members at risk, the Louisiana movie shooter comes to mind. What’s the downside.
Blatantly unconstitutional and I think we need a different law that imposes capital punishment on any person who proposes any law contrary to the Constitution. That would make our "representatives" fly right.
Of course the people always have the power to kill any government flunky attempting to enforce a law contrary to the constitution, but we need a way of killing the pukes that propose these offenses in the first place. And maybe we don't need a law but we need to step up extrajudicially and just take them out when they do this stuff. After a few, I think they'd learn.
Democracy is too dangerous to let abuses of it be unpunished, and it needs to be the ultimate punishment, the harshest one, to deter the kinds of people that tend to abuse it.
Well, I believe that was/is the duty of the citizens! Its why we have things like the 2nd amendment, we DO have the ability to remove a govt from power if it becomes necessary...we just have to stand up and do it.
It wont look good on tv, or be popular, but I do believe history would celebrate the action eventually, such a thing would look a lot like domestic terrorism, and you can bet the govt would kick and fight to the end, to resist!
I read the ‘‘Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019.’’
The complaintant must provide clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to himself or others.
If some nosy neighbor, jilted lover, former employer, disgruntled wait staff, or any other person holding a grudge against a gun owner cannot provide clear and convincing evidence, the complaint is to be denied, and no guns are confiscated. If they provide weak evidence and the judge decides to confiscate the arms anyway, that's on the judge.
If the firearms are confiscated, the defendent has the right to give the judge clear and convincing evidence that he is NOT a danger to himself and others. If successful, he gets his guns back. If the complaintant's evidence is stronger, he doesn't get them back. Discrepancies in that determination are also back on the judge.
Can somebody convince me that to NOT take away the firearms from a suicidal, angry, or violent person after clear and convincing evidence has been accepted by a judge is somehow better than to deny him his Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or to wait till he actually KILLS his victim?
What I highlighted should be all the convincing you need.
The bill mentions several times the "evidence" that may be considered by the court, and among the many things the court can consider, these three are listed repeatedly:
(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;
(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;
(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent;
So "he threatened me and he drinks" claims, backed up by one person as "corroboration", are now sufficient evidence such that without any of your due process or legal rights under the Constitution, you can be stripped of your single most important natural individual and explicitly protected right. And if a boo boo is made, hey, it's on the judge...not on the totally retarded fascist law that gave the judge their power to consider hearsay as proper evidence to wave due process.
The accused never gets to confront a witness, obtain legal counsel, or anything else prior to a judgment being made and sentence carried out, and further, they do not get their rights back until they prove innocence, which is impossible. All you need is an annual statement from ex-girlfriend/wife of "he still drinks and he threatens me" backed up by one of her girlfriends saying "yep, he drinks and threatens her, cuz I swear!" Doesn't have to be true and how can the accused defend it?
And the part I super duper highlighted...you realize you are defending this abomination on how it's all good because hey, the defendant is allowed to prove their innocence.
Hearsay can prove guilt, but oh no, if you want you rights back (that were taken from you with none of your Constitutional protections being observed) you need to prove your innocence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
3rd, I do NOT see the actual bill and the wording of it.
Who by written law can consider hearsay spoken by two people as sufficient evidence to strip natural rights and deprive the individual of liberty and property without any due process whatsoever or affording the accused any of their Constitutionally protected rights within the judicial system.
Read the bill. If you can get one person to say "he drinks and threatens me" and another person to say "yep, he sure does" then a court is perfectly within the written law of that bill to pass judgment and sentence against someone for up to a year, and any point thereafter, the person so accused must prove their innocence in order to regain hat which was unjustly taken in the first place.
Innocence is impossible to prove because negatives are impossible to prove logically. Accused can say "I never drink and I never threatened anyone," but ex-wife and her girlfriend disagree and say "oh no, he does and he's lying." Two people with "corroborating" stories versus one person who doesn't corroborate.
"He threatened me and he drinks," "he still drinks and he threatens me" and "yep, he drinks and threatens her, cuz I swear!" do not sound like clear and convincing evidence. Are you presenting these statements as examples of what this bill will cause a judge to take away a man's rights?
NRA is cool with it, because its a Republican bill. Very sneaky. If this was a Dem bill, NRA, FOX, Limbaugh etc would be screaming off the top of their lungs, and so would their minions.
Who by written law can consider hearsay spoken by two people as sufficient evidence to strip natural rights and deprive the individual of liberty and property without any due process whatsoever or affording the accused any of their Constitutionally protected rights within the judicial system.
Read the bill. If you can get one person to say "he drinks and threatens me" and another person to say "yep, he sure does" then a court is perfectly within the written law of that bill to pass judgment and sentence against someone for up to a year, and any point thereafter, the person so accused must prove their innocence in order to regain hat which was unjustly taken in the first place.
Innocence is impossible to prove because negatives are impossible to prove logically. Accused can say "I never drink and I never threatened anyone," but ex-wife and her girlfriend disagree and say "oh no, he does and he's lying." Two people with "corroborating" stories versus one person who doesn't corroborate.
It’s not trivial as you indictated and there is a path to getting the gun back, even if mistakenly removed for a time period what is the downside.
I hope all the MAGA cultists who brushed off Trump's bump stock ban realize it's just the beginning of the end for gun ownership rights in this country.
Umm, no. The beginning of the end was the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which imposed huge Federal taxes on relatively simple firearms (and even silencers), for the purpose of preventing people from buying or transferring them.
In a later court case (US v. Miller), a U.S. District Court found it unconstitutional in about ten minutes.
Only when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the defendants FAILED TO EVEN SHOW UP FOR THE HEARING, was it reversed. It has never been re-examined. Nearly all gun cases since, have used US v. Miller as a precedent.
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.
