- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
LA. HB488
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:47 am
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:47 am
HB 488 is going to be presented in the La. legislature today. I don't know how to post it but I'm sure someone can look it up and post. It 's purpose is more gun control.
4
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:51 am to unclejhim
Text of HB488
This simply amends existing law. It's long and I did not read all of it. Care to tell us how
This simply amends existing law. It's long and I did not read all of it. Care to tell us how
quote:?
It 's purpose is more gun control.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 9:55 am to unclejhim
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:25 am to unclejhim
quote:
to prohibit persons convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm
quote:
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, on first conviction,whoever commits the crime of stalking shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor
So just glancing at it.... They want to make stalking a felony and subsequently it will be one of the felonies that upon conviction prevent someone from possessing a firearm
quote:So who did you stalk?
unclejhim
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 10:30 am
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:28 am to FelicianaTigerfan
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:34 am to unclejhim
Haven't read through it all, but I know one part of it could be detrimental to a gun owner if his ex-girlfriend or ex-wife wants to be an arse. You would essentially lose your 2nd amendment right if a restraining order is placed on you. Now, there might be some instances where this could be justified, but the majority of restraining orders are from one person simply trying to get revenge against a former partner. Anyone can go to the courthouse and file a restraining order on someone else at anytime with no proof of harassment. At that point, the person it is filed against has to go to court and prove his innocence or have the restraining order set as permanent. This will forfeit your right to own firearms, according to this new law. It's crap legislation and hopefully won't pass.
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 10:37 am
Posted on 4/29/15 at 10:49 am to Buck_Rogers
quote:I don't even dabble in that area, but I think that might be the case anyway. Others will know more.
one part of it could be detrimental to a gun owner if his ex-girlfriend or ex-wife wants to be an arse. You would essentially lose your 2nd amendment right if a restraining order is placed on you.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 12:21 pm to AlxTgr
This should concern everyone - just another slippery slope. A quick read seems like, hey you do the crime, you do the time... BUT, this expands misdemeanor offenses to prohibit access and DOES NOT REQUIRE an arrest, conviction, or even prosecution. if they can prohibit you from a constitutional right without due process, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Posted on 4/29/15 at 12:51 pm to geauxskeet
quote:
this expands misdemeanor offenses to prohibit access and DOES NOT REQUIRE an arrest, conviction, or even prosecution
Im sorry but im not seeing that. Care to point out where you see this?
Posted on 4/29/15 at 1:50 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
Im sorry but im not seeing that. Care to point out where you see this?
"...to prohibit persons subject to certain court-approved consent agreements,
permanent injunctions, or protective orders from possessing a firearm..."
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 2:20 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
expands misdemeanor offenses to prohibit access and DOES NOT REQUIRE an arrest, conviction, or even prosecution. if they can prohibit you from a constitutional right without due process, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
quote:
"...to prohibit persons subject to certain court-approved consent agreements, permanent injunctions, or protective orders from possessing a firearm..."
So you are saying that just because there is a protective order against you, that a judge has issued, you should still be able to possess a firearm because you haven't been convicted of a felony?
You also take issue with misdemeanor stalking being changed to a felony that would prohibit the convicted of possessing a firearm?
Just wanting to make sure I understand what people are taking issue with.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 2:36 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
So you are saying that just because there is a protective order against you, that a judge has issued, you should still be able to possess a firearm because you haven't been convicted of a felony?
Yes. This opens the doors to more gun control than most people imagine. It is too easy to simply put a protective order on someone else. I have witnessed it many times. Usually it is not a big deal, as it just says you can't go by that person. 9 times out of 10, it's a crazy ex trying to make herself look like the victim. Most cases don't go to court, because the accused simply accepts the protective order, as he has no intentions on going near the crazy ex anyhow and simply files one against her so she can't show up somewhere and force him to leave. They both accept. No harm and no foul as long as the two stay separated. With this new law you will be required to fight it in court if you want to keep your guns, which will easily cost $1000. I can go place a restraining order on you right now. If you do not fight it in court, it will stick and you would lose your right to own a gun under this new law.
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 2:40 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
You also take issue with misdemeanor stalking being changed to a felony that would prohibit the convicted of possessing a firearm?
Again, the term stalking can be taken extremely loosely. Stalking under R.S. 14:40.2(C)(1) & (2) could include harassment via telephone, electronic mail, sending messages via a third party or sending letters or pictures. No physical contact need take place. A protection order is just what it says which is an order for someone to stay away from another person in order to avoid conflict. Now it is being used to infringe on rights.
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 3:12 pm to Buck_Rogers
I've been stalked on here.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 3:18 pm to AlxTgr
Chicken stalks me.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 3:24 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
[quote] I can go place a restraining order on you right now. If you do not fight it in court, it will stick
No, it wont
quote:
Again, the term stalking can be taken extremely loosely
quote:
Stalking under R.S. 14:40.2(C)(1) & (2) could include harassment via telephone, electronic mail, sending messages via a third party or sending letters or pictures.
Doesn't seem "lose" to me. Especially after a trial and conviction. Burden of proof is on the state. If the state cant prove someone stalked another there is no conviction.
quote:
A protection order is just what it says which is an order for someone to stay away from another person in order to avoid conflict.
Im well aware of what is required to obtain a protective order and who receives them.
quote:
Now it is being used to infringe on rights.
I disagree. This is something pushed by domestic violence advocates. If you want to lump them in with gun control folks then I understand that. I personally know a woman that was murdered that this law would have protected her.
I wont be bothered by this passing at all.
This post was edited on 4/29/15 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 4/29/15 at 3:38 pm to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
I wont be bothered by this passing at all.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
Posted on 4/29/15 at 3:41 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
By that logic in this situation, felons should be allowed firearms as well.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:09 pm to Boats n Hose
Felons' liberties are not essential to a sovereign state. Having a restraining order placed on you does not deem you a felon nor is it even considered a misdemeanor.
Posted on 4/29/15 at 4:24 pm to Buck_Rogers
quote:
restraining order
Is not a protective order.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News