February 19, 2018, 11:00 AM | #101 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
My state recently introduced temporary protective orders (something unlike traditional injunctive relief with a TRO and preliminary injunction prior to the final order). There are enough problems with it that some jurists doubt whether aspects meet constitutional standards. The idea behind these TPOs is that someone who feels threatened could file a protective order against the person from whom they feel the threat. These are almost always filed pro se with some assistance from a social worker or legal aid attorney. An ex parte hearing (a hearing in which the alleged threat isn't present in court) is held. An order typically issues with some kind of prohibition against the absent party. Police officers may collect items pertinent to the order. The matter is set for hearing within several weeks. I've defended only one. It lacked any merit, but was granted until the later hearing. In the meantime, my client had the keys to her rental properties taken and her rights as a landlord violated. One judicial anxiety is that a TPO would be used by a criminal gang prior to executing someone. If an angry girlfriend seeks vengeance and obtains such an order against you, how will the police store your arms? Will they file a number across the top of your trap gun? Will you get them back? How much time and money it take to get them back? Does the grant of an initial meritless TPO show on your public record so that you need to have it expunged so it isn't an issue in every subsequent background check, including NICS? These aren't fatal flaws in French's proposal, but should suggest that implementation will require due consideration and safeguards against abuse.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 19, 2018, 11:10 AM | #102 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
In this context, what that argument misses is that political resolution is never a final settlement of an issue between two parties. In this context, the argument is the one to be had until the next argument. Give a point away in this argument and you just have less for the next round. There are no fixed points or permanent resolutions.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 19, 2018, 11:20 AM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
What I am talking about is raising the standard for firearm ownership. More and better training and education and more stringent background checks, accomplished through a process to obtain a license to own a firearm (probably similar to drivers training) would raise the standard. If a fee must be implemented for the license to offset the cost of the more in depth background checks and personnel then so be it. Firearms would be in the hands of less ignorant and unstable people, and all the people have to suffer is the inconvenience of educating themselves on the lethal weapon they wish to purchase.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
|
February 19, 2018, 11:24 AM | #104 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Texas already has Temporary Protective Orders that serve much the same function and include a broader class of persons with standing than French's proposal. There is no cost to the person seeking the Order either.
A Magistrate can also order an emergency protective order in some circumstances even without family members seeking one, since one of the common problems is the people who need them most often refuse to seek one. One distinction is not all Texas protective orders limit access to firearms, so just knowing a person has one doesn't tell you if they are a prohibited person. So even if it got reported to NICS, I could see some potential for confusion. |
February 19, 2018, 11:37 AM | #105 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
February 19, 2018, 11:47 AM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 887
|
School shootings were very rare 50+ years ago, while at the same time, gun laws were generally more lenient. It would be very effective to look at what major changes have occurred in the education of children and the activities of adults in the last fifty years. But society would rather look at guns than consider it's own mistakes.
|
February 19, 2018, 11:57 AM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
I’m not sure I understand how additional licensing and training requirements would stop crimes committed with guns. The issue seems to be the fact that the Government is not managing the current system properly.
If memory serves the USAF failed to report the Texas Church shooter’s criminal acts properly. The Colorado movie shooter was reported by his Psychiatrist to the Police, but nothing happened. The VaTech shooter was actually found by a Judge to be a danger, but the court failed to process the information properly. The bottom line is we don’t need new licensing reequipments we need to require our government to enforce current laws correctly.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
February 19, 2018, 12:13 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 241
|
As others here have stated, it is estimated that there are over 300 million guns in circulation in the USA. All the bad guys have guns, the criminals have guns, the gang-bangers have guns, the drug dealers have guns, and many sick people have guns or access to them. Laws don’t affect these folks as by definition they don’t obey laws. Laws only affect the law-abiding citizens, and they are not the problem.
Sure it would be nice to some if there were no guns at all in the USA, but you are 230 years too late. You’ll need to go back to the 1780s and try to convince our founding fathers that an armed populace is a bad thing. Good luck with that after they just secured their freedom through an armed populace. If you want to ban all guns, start with the bad guys. After you disarm all of them, send me an email and you can have mine as I won’t need them anymore. In the mean time I need mine to protect my family from the very element that you allow to have guns through ineffective enforcement of existing laws. It would also be nice if sick people could not just walk into a store and buy a gun, but that presents a few problems: 1. Who defines sick? 2. How do you recognize them? 3. Unlike the privileges of flying or driving, the rights encoded in our constitution are sacred, apply to all citizens, and cannot be infringed without due process of law. It would also be nice if all of the world’s leaders got together, laid down their arms, hugged each other and sang Kumbaya. Dreaming, hoping, wishing, and praying will not remove evil from our midst. We must acknowledge it, face it, and defeat or contain it while preserving the rights and freedoms of the rest of us. A complex problem to be sure, and although there are no fast and easy solutions, the kind of intelligent discussion presented in this great forum is a step in the right direction.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed. |
February 19, 2018, 12:16 PM | #109 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
More abstract, broader rights don't have the hard ability to do this like this specific one does. I think it is reasonable that an ignorant public be educated first in order to exercise this potentially dangerous right. The people are free to exercise their rights so long as they don't harm others while doing so. Guns are dangerous and the potential for accidental and unintentional misuse is high, be it from ignorance or carelessness. Quote:
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
||
February 19, 2018, 12:41 PM | #110 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Or is that sort of government intrusion exactly what the BOR were written to protect against? Quote:
What do you think of David French's idea?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
February 19, 2018, 12:42 PM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2015
Location: Issaquah WA. Its a dry rain.
Posts: 1,774
|
How about we stop pumping our children full of drugs who side effects are SUICIDAL AND HOMICIDAL THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS? We've had ARs and AKs etc since what? At least the 80s but only in the last 10 years have we had this harsh up swing in mass KILLINGS. Guns weren't the initial issue and still are not. Stop drugging people to oblivion.
__________________
Just shoot the damn thing. |
February 19, 2018, 01:20 PM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,993
|
Drugs
The mention in several posts about rx drugs needs a response. Over the years I have seen many posters allude to psychotropic drugs as catalysts that initiate or exacerbate violent or self destructive behavior. My opinion of those comments is, unless you are a medical doctor or pharmecuticals expert, chances are you are taking a bit of information and extrapolating to make a statement about these drugs. That is inappropriate.
|
February 19, 2018, 01:28 PM | #113 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html Quote:
|
||
February 19, 2018, 01:28 PM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
Actually doing nothing can be better than doing something if that something doesn't effectively deal with an issue/problem; When you do something, that something will infringe on someone else's rights/freedoms. If you infringe on someone's rights/freedoms but can't show a policy as being effective in combating a serious problem, then the cost obviously outweighs the benefit. Besides, the choice doesn't come down to doing nothing or having more gun control. And as far as past gun control measures go, we might be better or safer than in our current mess if we did nothing and they never existed... |
|
February 19, 2018, 01:30 PM | #115 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
And, its not even close. By framing the debate in those terms, you are equating the right to bear arms with committing murder. This argument brands ALL gun owners as murderers, automatically, as a prerequisite. it is not accurate, it is not factual, it is not honest. It is stereotypical bigotry, and would be immediately dismissed as crap if it were applied to any other subject. but it does make a good sound bite, doesn't it? Propaganda usually does. Doesn't change the fact that it's a lie at the heart of the matter, all that matters is that people hear the lie, over and over. Its the Big Lie in action, in a convenient package for media exploitation. I understand people are scared. And after the initial fear and shock wears off, they get angry that they were scared. That anger demands someone be punished for scaring them. Someone should be made to suffer. They demand that "something" be done. If a mass killer kills themself, or is killed by police, there is no one left alive to blame. If they are caught, then they are in the hands of the legal system, and many believe that the legal punishment isn't enough. So they focus on who ELSE they can brand as guilty, responsible, or a contributor to the situation, and whether or not those people acutally had anything to do with what happened is irrelevant to them. All they need is some kind of connection, some kind of correlation between those who actually committed the crime and the people they wish to include in their blame game. The fact that both the criminal killer and the innocent law abiding citizen have guns is enough for them. Note how this kind of transference is only acceptable to them when it concerns guns. They see it as entirely ok to lump all gun owners together with gun using criminals. Yet when the exact same logic is applied to lumping all the followers of a particular religion in with the criminals who follow the same religion, we are told it is wrong to do that. When everyone with a particular skin color or ethnic identification is lumped in with the criminals who share those same identifiers, we are told it is wrong to do that. Those who do that get labeled bigots or racists, how is it that people who do that to gun owners (who cross all religious and ethnic identifiers) do not get named bigots or worse??? We are constantly told that the evil actions of a few must not be used to vilify and punish the many, but many of the same people who tell us that, do exactly the opposite when it comes to gun control. What is gun control but the restriction of the many because of the actions of a few???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 19, 2018, 01:40 PM | #116 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Quote:
Given the way the CDC was headed back then, IMhO, I’m glad they got slapped with the restriction they got slapped with. What I found really interesting in the article was this: Quote:
Again, thank you for posting the link to this article. |
||
February 19, 2018, 01:54 PM | #117 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2015
Location: coastal NC
Posts: 645
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by adamBomb; February 19, 2018 at 02:02 PM. |
||
February 19, 2018, 02:06 PM | #118 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
While we're at it, why not require special licenses to drive SUVs and pickups and vans? That way, we could reduce all the Sally Cellphones in their big tank SUVs from driving around getting into accidents that can kill people. And a special, special license for ownership of a sports car? Or maybe even limit all cars to 50 hp and four cylinder engines with a top speed of 50 mph and a max 0-50 acceleration of no less than 10 seconds, only law enforcement and the government will have the powerful V8-engined cars that can go fast. This would inhibit all the morons who drive huge vehicles and super-fast cars that shouldn't and stop the high-speed chases, right? Quote:
|
||
February 19, 2018, 02:08 PM | #119 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
After each murder, quite a lot happened. The circumstances surrounding each event were studied. Where the perpetrator of the murder survived, he was processed through the criminal justice system. It is understandable to want to pass a new law after something happens to give an appearance of "doing something", but it isn't categorically reasonable. As for how "doing nothing" is working, we've had a steady decline in violent crime rates for a couple of decades.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; February 19, 2018 at 02:22 PM. |
|||
February 19, 2018, 02:45 PM | #120 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
RKBA vs. [Right to] Life?
That's an absurd notion. Why? Because the Supreme Court has stated that the right to own firearms is precisely the right to protect life. Unless or until the Court backs away from that idea, conflating the two as being separate and opposed to each other is a non-starter. They are in fact, the same thing. When looking at adding new laws that would abridge a fundamental right, it is in fact instructive to see how similar fundamental rights could be likewise abridged and whether or not we would be fine with more restrictions of those other rights. Failure to take notice of such restrictions on other fundamental rights is to reduce the right to self-defense to a secondary, and therefore lessor, class of rights. Many people consider that the Second Amendment to be different from other rights, because it seems to protect a "thing", unlike our other rights. Hogwash! Can the government ban pens; pencils; ink; paper; or printing presses? Those are all things, are they not? Before we can express ourselves, either by speech, writing an opinion or printing a paper, shouldn't the government be able to license us? Can't the government make us take a test to ensure that our spelling and grammar are good enough to express what we want to say? But guns are different, you say. They not only kill people, that's what they are designed for; their sole purpose! I'll grant you that, but only because that is the purpose for owning a gun for self-defense: To kill the other person, if need be, before they can kill me. No, it is not politically correct to say that. But in the final analysis, that's what it boils down to, should the need ever arise. Various pundits say that there are 300 million guns in the hands of 100 million civilians. And we see only a minuscule number of deaths, in comparison. So let's beat the drum and impose more restrictions on those 100 million citizens who have committed no wrongdoing, instead of examining what is currently wrong with the system, and fix it, before we attempt to impose more sanctions. Sanctions that we have no way of knowing if it will stop the madness. But we have to do something! Actually, no we don't. Legislation passed in the heat of emotion have never, ever worked. What is needed is to study the current laws to determine why they are not working as passed, and fix them. Then we study it even more to see if these laws then work. If they don't, scrap them when we calmly decide what will work. Of course the danger here is that we may find no amount of law, old or new, will curb the conduct of the unlawful. |
February 19, 2018, 02:50 PM | #121 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
||||
February 19, 2018, 03:00 PM | #122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
|
February 19, 2018, 03:03 PM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 333
|
When Nikolas Cruz was blasting away at the students and teachers there was only one thing that could have stopped him at that moment and that would have been if someone could have returned fire. Here's one small suggestion, while we are waiting for congress to "do something" we need to do away with gun free zones.
Personally, I have no faith in congress to do the right thing, too many of them are on the record in favor of banning guns, not the ones I want in charge of handling this. If federal government was concerned about the 2nd amendment, why do I have to disarm to go into the post office, or any federal building or any of the millions of acers that the a.c.o.e. own? Government can not even stop the killings in our inner cities when we know the gangs are the ones doing the killing. Which brings up another question, how come liberals are too willing to lump all gun owners in the same group as the mass killers, but do not lump all the gang members together when they go on a shooting spree? I never hear government say we need to do something about gangs, but they will want to make it a burden for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun. |
February 19, 2018, 03:04 PM | #124 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
February 19, 2018, 03:10 PM | #125 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
I've been here a while. 44 AMP is smart and direct and posts in a spirit of give and a take. Don't hold the bold lettering against him.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|