cops need warrants to violate our other Constitutional rights, so require same for 2nd Amendment.
When is it okay to deprive someone of their inalienable rights?
Only after due process and not a moment before.
The kid made a threat. Seems a cooling off period is warranted.
Get a warrant. It better be ironclad. If anything in the warrant is found to be false, the police, attorneys AND judge get skinned alive.
Because this is so politicized, I would go with a simple rule:
If he’s not dangerous enough to lock up and keep behind bars, he’s not dangerous enough to take and keep his guns. I would go further and say that even convicted felons should regain their gun rights as soon as they are no longer under the control of the criminal justice system. If someone isn’t safe to hold firearms, they should have been given a longer sentence behind bars.
That’s tough. I’ve been in Law Enforcement for over 20 years. I really think it depends on how the interaction goes. If the kid seems apologetic and not a nutjob, I’d leave it.
I am of the opinion that taking of private property should only be allowed subsequent to a court order of incompetence or imprisonment.
Securing of property (different from taking) on a temporary basis should only be allowed as part of an arrest or confinement due to mental issue and only if there is a path to restore that property after adjudication (see above). The property should be returned AUTOMATICALLY if there is no criminal or commitment proceedings.
In that order.
Take it the kid is too immature to have a firearm.
Communication of a Threat is a crime. Depending on the state, the charge is probably Making Terroristic Threats. Wanna keep your gun? Don’t be threatening people on the internet with an attached picture of you and your gun that you’re threatening to use. You WILL lose it.
It is Ok to take away guns when they are being used to endanger other, innocent citizens.
Just as you can speak freely, but not to the point of endangering people by yelling fire in the theater. It is possible to forfeit your right to bear arms if you are doing it in a way to endanger the safety of others.
You cannot wave a pistol around in a fast food line, for example. A well regulated militia would know better than to do that.
I know one thing, Don’t ever give them the right to take guns away without a judicial hearing just because there is a restraining order. Every divorce lawyer gets one against the male(sic) of the marriage.
I am totally inoffensive and would never have thought of hurting my former wife while we were being divorced but they took out a restraining order on me anyway. No hearing, one side only, any lie will do.
Well if Cowad County would have taken those guns perhaps 17 kids may be alive today and David Hogg would not be a known entity
Never!!
Never!!
Is that enough evidence to arrest him for making a terroristic threat? If yes you can take the guns. If not no. They could always arrest him and take the guns, and pass it on to the DA. The DA either prosecutes, or returns them.
He has not committed a crime. The cops intervened and interviewed the kid and apparently didn’t think he was a threat. they likely scared the bejeesus out of him. If they had concerns they could get a judge to put a 30 day psych hold on him and maybe they could have temporarily taken the gun. Otherwise no they can’t take his gun.
A free society can be dangerous. But as Jefferson said “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.,”
Whose gun is it?
What is the State law regarding the matter?
How about taking the gun as evidence pending a decision to press charges?
The emergency gun confiscation law is being voted on today at the Massachusetts House of Liberals.
Take it. Implied threat. Mega stupid.