Posted on 03/02/2018 6:04:37 AM PST by Az Joe
The LEA actually searches for and seizes the weapon(s).
When my husband threatened me with our shotgun I called the police. Their response “He’ll sober up in the morning!” He did After he sodimized me with the loaded gun! No consequences for him.
Yes I worked hard to get the law changed. Now by law the police MUST respond and they may put person in protection for safety of themself or others
Since my husband took ALL the money I had saved to start a new life I have no sympathy for you. She was entitled to half of everything by law. You are exposing your own mean greed.
Sounds like Nazi Germany
To the extent that false accusations are punished and that disproven accusations are quickly cleared, with weapons returned in good condition and without delay, this may be tolerable. To the extent that this is weaponized by America’s enemies on the socialist left, it is completely unacceptable.
My guess? Unacceptable. I am in general a peaceful person with no temper at all. If someone reported me under this sort of law, it would at best permanently end our relationship. Such a report would be crossing an unforgivable line. I may someday seem “stressed” because of a perceived or even real threat to my physical safety. Disarm me when I am in danger, and we have a problem.
It seems liberal policies have made it almost impossible to institutionalize someone with severe mental illness. So, as a result, these same people roam free, most are fine, some wreak havoc.
I do agree that some middle ground with a short term loss of some rights may be warranted, but there also MUST be absolute protections for the accused.
Off the top of my head:
The accuser is responsible for court costs.
The accused is allowed to mount a vigorous defense and is to be given every benefit of doubt.
Such cases may not be used in divorce cases with no prior documented violent behavior
It’s a tough road to go down to protect society as well as the rights of the accused. Wrong accusations must be given the benefit of the doubt and clearly identified as being complete innocent of improper accusations.
I think this is worth a serious look but must be done with due diligence. lots of it.
The folks in Florida ignored laws on several occasions allowing the shooter to get a gun and shoot up the school. The new laws can be ignored in the same way.
It’s more likely these states will use the their new laws to harass and intimidate legal gun owners rather than criminals.
From the site given in #18,
the danger issue boils down to,
“Danger to self or others “should not require proof of something that hasn’t yet happened, an impossible standard that leads to death or to incarceration for past conduct, which is easier to prove.
A definition of “dangerousness” that encompasses past history, recent dangerous conduct/threats, and a statement that “the individual’s current stated intentions and demeanor are not determinative of dangerousness” could correct the tendency of treatment personnel to refuse to treat the mentally ill who claim to be safe.
Similarly, “gravely disabled” should not per se exclude those who have survived on the street, however precariously. This is an irrational standard, since those already dead from suicide or exposure are not in the group seeking treatment.”
What a mess. Regardless, the Constitution requires Due Process before an individual can be deprived of their life,liberty, or PROPERTY.
You are on the wrong board. Go fornicate yourself you marxist retard.
+/-40,000 suicides nationwide every year and Connecticut's law is claimed to have prevented about 70 suicides over fourteen years. And the WaPo uses this as an argument for passing "Red Flag" Laws. Talk about figures lying and liars figuring.
Using rough arithmetic and available numbers, if all 50 states enact "Red Flag" Laws, the number of successful suicides nation-wide will drop by about 1-2%. I hardly think this is a valid argument for passing laws which endanger everybody's Constitutional rights.
Oh. Arbitrarily locking people up because some relative or shrink “thinks” they are dangerous, without due process is a good thing, eh?
Then I won’t keep any human friends.
No problem.
Bingo. After 17 years of working as an investigator, one thing I learned about “restraining orders” and “Protection Orders” is that they are a joke.
Does / did Nicolaus Cruz have close friends?
Cruz was expressive in cyberspace. But I understand that computer algorithms still can’t recognize pictures of firearms well enough to flag possible problems with people like him.
The opinion about somebody’s stability to reasonably handle firearms that I would respect, because they would respect 2nd Amendment rights, is a “jury” of NRA members.
Insights welcome.
And if those abuses can be proven it should be a criminal offense of the most serious. Felony charges and possible civil suits. In the case of divorce this would count severely against the person making the claim.
Viz. “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
This, in theory, apparently does not apply in civil cases, but actually, in reality, it has been used successfully in civil court.
Federal Law On Child Support Enforcement. ... If, under the same circumstances, the child support payment is overdue for longer than 2 years, or the amount exceeds $10,000, the violation is a criminal felony, and convicted offenders face fines and up to 2 years in prison (See 18 U.S.C.§ 228(a)(3))
I knew of a case wherein a divorced man was accused of
non-support by his ex-wife. He was arrested, his bank accounts frozen by the county, and his car was confiscated, merely upon a complaint by the ex-wife.
He immediately called from his jail cell a public defender for a judge-only hearing. His demand was immediately met under a right to speedy trial adjunct. He appealed to the Judge that the county had never checked the ex-wife`s bank account for cash and check deposits, the defendant`s bank draft records showing payees of checks, his IRS tax returns showing support deductions, nor the ex-wife`s filed IRS forms. Both the ex-wife and the county did a no-show at the hearing. In that event, the judge dismissed the case, stating that the defendant`s case against the county was legitimate and weighs much more heavily due to lack of evidence of the plaintiffs and accusers in this case and their lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law by denying the defendant`s right to face his accusers in court. The county was accused of forging hearsay as accusatory evidence and denying due process to the defendant. The county was ordered to release all frozen accounts and the vehicle. The Judge recommended the defendant sue the county for harassment, damages, loss of reputation & good name and illegal search and seizure of properties, but he did not do so. He was vindicated when similar subsequent cases took the same judicial route with similar victories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.