Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 07-07-2014, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,843 posts, read 25,780,212 times
Reputation: 15423

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I believe this 100%. From what I have read California is like this, it costs to get your property back in this case guns and often people do not have the time or money to fight for their rights. I can only guess what happens to the guns never claimed back but I bet they don't get melted down they probably become part of some chief's or politician's or other wise well connect person's collection.

After all who is going to pay thousands of dollars in the legal system to get back a $700 or $1000 dollar gun? Someone mentioned divorce, the man was probably already financially gutted from divorce so he probably can't fight for his property. Which is too bad because he might have sold them otherwise instead to help himself recover or by right just kept them to pass on to his next generation.

Oh and btw, when has a law created never been expanded?
How did you arrive at a cost of thousands of dollars to get back a gun, probably and believe are not facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2014, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,839,685 times
Reputation: 7398
I think a good compromise might be to apply this law only to those who have a documented history of mental illness. This would cut way back on the amount of potential abuse that could occur from implementing this law. In other words, a scorned wife or girlfriend couldn't go to the police and make false claims just to jam up the gun rights of her ex-lover, who has no previous history of mental instability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,334 posts, read 6,469,332 times
Reputation: 5128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
How did you arrive at a cost of thousands of dollars to get back a gun, probably and believe are not facts.
The going price of lawyers. Very few will take other than high-profile cases, pro bono.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,839,685 times
Reputation: 7398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
They are not the decision makers either. The people who are decision makers are the people in Congress and the Senate, and the Executive at both Federal and State levels. Do you want Obama, Holder, Reid, Bohner, Kasich, Patton, Schiavoni, Batchelder, Huffman, Maxwell-Heard making that decision for you? Or at least deciding who will make that decision on your behalf.



They can be involuntarily committed, if during a 72 hour evaluation they are found to be mentally incompetent. If they're not found incompetent then there is no requirement for you to be responsible for them, and you hold no liability. They're like any other difficult relative.

If the state cannot by law do anything and you really cannot manage them using legal means, then you do what all normal people do. You separate yourself from them. Sure you may have ethical issues with this, but there are equally ethical issues in attempting to manage them when it's impossible, and causing damage to your family unit.

It's not ludicrous for a competent patient to make voluntary decisions about their own care, indeed it's far more ludicrous that any competent patient be forced into receiving care that they do not wish to receive. Consider the logical conclusion of requiring legally competent patients to have enforced treatments.
I don't know what to tell you accept for the fact that the mental health care system does not operate the way you think it does. Take for example, the case of Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds, who tried like hell to get his seriously mentally disturbed son committed. They were told it was a no go. The next day, he approached his father and sliced his face up with a knife. He then went back in to the house and committed suicide. This was all because the parents were unable to get their son the help he obviously needed. Even if the system is supposed to operate a certain way on paper, it doesn't.

Virginia lawmaker says son's suicide led to mental health reform

I Agree with Goodnight on this. I'd rather have to give up a gun for such and such amount of time, than have to be detained for 72 hours based on nothing but someone else word. Actually detaining someone for 72 hours is actually more an infringement on civil liberties than getting their guns taken away. I'm not saying either method is right when it comes to cases where the law is being abused, but being removed from life for 72 hours is a lot more destructive than giving up your guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 09:17 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,562 posts, read 21,313,546 times
Reputation: 10052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
How did you arrive at a cost of thousands of dollars to get back a gun, probably and believe are not facts.
It is more fact than probably, it was in the mainstream news a year ago which in some buried thread talking about the squad that goes around collecting firearms without a warrant the article mentioned how it costs in the legal system to get the guns back and because this often people don't bother because after all who is going to pay for the lawyer and judicial fees. It' on the internet with enough searching.

The only reason I said "probably" is because some might not have to pay as much as others.

Is it any surprise though? States that lean anti gun which generally is code for liberal democrat aka California, New York and Jersey are bound to make it as difficult as they can to discourage one from getting them back. Besides that, its a win for lawyers and the government both of who also generally fall under liberals and democrat.

So now someone else connected has ownership for free or the discounted price for John's confiscated $2500 Browning Citori shotgun because John's brother or sister or wife or whoever family member was deemed a little mentally unstable for whatever reason.

That is akin to your brother living with you or down the street from you having a history of DUI and is in AA so they come and confiscate your car just because he is related to you or close because he *might* get hold of your car keys.....which sounds crazy but its what they are doing with guns. Yet the crips and the bloods and MS13 have all the guns they want in the mean time.

Last edited by lionking; 07-07-2014 at 09:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,233,569 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I don't know what to tell you accept for the fact that the mental health care system does not operate the way you think it does. Take for example, the case of Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds, who tried like hell to get his seriously mentally disturbed son committed. They were told it was a no go. The next day, he approached his father and sliced his face up with a knife. He then went back in to the house and committed suicide. This was all because the parents were unable to get their son the help he obviously needed. Even if the system is supposed to operate a certain way on paper, it doesn't.
I don't think the system works at all, I know how the law is applied, and I know how I would operate within the laws. If I seriously thought that a member of my family was a threat, do you think I'd be sleeping under the same roof as them? If I were then not to be unkind, but I deserve everything I get.

If the law says the person is competent, therefore who am I to question whether they are or are not. If they're dangerous and the law say's they're not, they're going to have to survive on their own whacko or not. That's literally what the law is saying, therefore I have no responsibility for their safety. The law said they were safe, then they are safe, I might call the police to remove them from my property, or to warn them of my actions, but that's it, civic duty discharged... Next.

Yes the law is well known to be an ass, but part of the reason mental health issues are a problem is that we're sweeping it under the carpet and covering for the laws we have on the books. You want to fix them, then show all your legislators the extent of the problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I Agree with Goodnight on this. I'd rather have to give up a gun for such and such amount of time, than have to be detained for 72 hours based on nothing but someone else word. Actually detaining someone for 72 hours is actually more an infringement on civil liberties than getting their guns taken away. I'm not saying either method is right when it comes to cases where the law is being abused, but being removed from life for 72 hours is a lot more destructive than giving up your guns.
Is it more destructive than giving up your guns for ever? How do you know you'll even get them back, how can you remotely trust the government when for approaching four presidential terms they've done little but lie about pretty much every law that has been entered onto the books?

5th Amendment...
No Person shall be denied the right to life liberty or property without due process of law.

14th Amendment...
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Seems that people thought it important to reiterate the point.

A claim and probable cause is not due process of law, it's a violation of the 5th AND the 14th Amendment, does that not concern you? What's the point of having the 2nd Amendment to protect the others if you're prepared to throw the 5th and the 14th under the bus to protect the 2nd?
__________________
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 07-08-2014, 01:35 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,839,685 times
Reputation: 7398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
I don't think the system works at all, I know how the law is applied, and I know how I would operate within the laws. If I seriously thought that a member of my family was a threat, do you think I'd be sleeping under the same roof as them? If I were then not to be unkind, but I deserve everything I get.

If the law says the person is competent, therefore who am I to question whether they are or are not. If they're dangerous and the law say's they're not, they're going to have to survive on their own whacko or not. That's literally what the law is saying, therefore I have no responsibility for their safety. The law said they were safe, then they are safe, I might call the police to remove them from my property, or to warn them of my actions, but that's it, civic duty discharged... Next.

Yes the law is well known to be an ass, but part of the reason mental health issues are a problem is that we're sweeping it under the carpet and covering for the laws we have on the books. You want to fix them, then show all your legislators the extent of the problem.




Is it more destructive than giving up your guns for ever? How do you know you'll even get them back, how can you remotely trust the government when for approaching four presidential terms they've done little but lie about pretty much every law that has been entered onto the books?

5th Amendment...
No Person shall be denied the right to life liberty or property without due process of law.

14th Amendment...
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Seems that people thought it important to reiterate the point.

A claim and probable cause is not due process of law, it's a violation of the 5th AND the 14th Amendment, does that not concern you? What's the point of having the 2nd Amendment to protect the others if you're prepared to throw the 5th and the 14th under the bus to protect the 2nd?
I'm not saying you're wrong or that you aren't making good points. However, I do believe that we have to have a better way of dealing with the mentally ill. That's cornerstone number one of my argument. Cornerstone number two, is that family members who've known these people their entire lives, will have a better idea than police as to whether or not someone is a threat, and their input should play a bigger role in the decision making process of how to treat these people. Admittedly, I don't have all the answers of how to deal with these situations, and there may not be a one size fits all solution for that matter.

As I suggested earlier, I think maybe a good way to deal with this is to have this law apply only to individuals who have a documented history of mental illness.

Another good compromise is that these people only be required to surrender their guns for a certain length of time before it is established that they in fact are a real threat, or the state MUST restore their rights in full and return any confiscated property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Long Island
56,843 posts, read 25,780,212 times
Reputation: 15423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
It is more fact than probably, it was in the mainstream news a year ago which in some buried thread talking about the squad that goes around collecting firearms without a warrant the article mentioned how it costs in the legal system to get the guns back and because this often people don't bother because after all who is going to pay for the lawyer and judicial fees. It' on the internet with enough searching.

The only reason I said "probably" is because some might not have to pay as much as others.

Is it any surprise though? States that lean anti gun which generally is code for liberal democrat aka California, New York and Jersey are bound to make it as difficult as they can to discourage one from getting them back. Besides that, its a win for lawyers and the government both of who also generally fall under liberals and democrat.

So now someone else connected has ownership for free or the discounted price for John's confiscated $2500 Browning Citori shotgun because John's brother or sister or wife or whoever family member was deemed a little mentally unstable for whatever reason.

That is akin to your brother living with you or down the street from you having a history of DUI and is in AA so they come and confiscate your car just because he is related to you or close because he *might* get hold of your car keys.....which sounds crazy but its what they are doing with guns. Yet the crips and the bloods and MS13 have all the guns they want in the mean time.

I think you are speaking to California teams seizing guns of felons and mentally incompetent that showed up on the registry, they do not search homes unless allowed entry. There may be some grey areas regarding the law but for the most part it should be clear cut, why would you spend money on a lawyer to retrieve a gun when you have a felony conviction. By the way they had the opportunity to sell the gun and produce a bill of sale.

What's the alternative to get these guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, the honor system isn't working.


California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns | Crime | FresnoBee.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 08:25 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,460,060 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I think you are speaking to California teams seizing guns of felons and mentally incompetent that showed up on the registry, they do not search homes unless allowed entry. There may be some grey areas regarding the law but for the most part it should be clear cut, why would you spend money on a lawyer to retrieve a gun when you have a felony conviction. By the way they had the opportunity to sell the gun and produce a bill of sale.

What's the alternative to get these guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, the honor system isn't working.


California Department of Justice agents sweep Fresno, Clovis for illegal guns | Crime | FresnoBee.com
My mind is a little numb but why would they leave the bow behind if the person is so dangerous?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,769,911 times
Reputation: 7800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike930 View Post
I think this article sums it up. More states are looking for ways to seize guns.

States look to gun seizure law after mass killings
Lots o luck.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top