- 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
re: .
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:51 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:51 pm to onmymedicalgrind
I believed that any loss of rights beyond a short period of time required court approval.
1
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:52 pm to DelU249
Somebody needs to tell New York that the 2nd amendment is The Law of The Land!
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:54 pm to DelU249
Like I said, this "harm to self or others" standard is super old and has been used to take rights away (ie hospitalize against pts will) for a long time. Its not something that is done casually, as what doctors wants to open themselves up for suit for taking away someone's rights when theres not sufficient justification.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:54 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
That's why we have lawyers, and judges, and people, and juries, and appeals, and due process
and these people deal with evidence..."it is my determination that BLANK is a danger to him/herself and/or others" gets you in the system...that's not due process and there is no judicial recourse...also what can be described as something similar to an administrative law body does not (well I should say "should not") get to decide whether you are to be deprived of your constitutional rights
BTW, congrats on the unbanning...I thought your ejection was pretty unfair
Posted on 12/3/14 at 4:55 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Posted by LSUGrrrl I believed that any loss of rights beyond a short period of time required court approval.
Yes, but the initial removal of rights and forcibly hospitalizing someone is done without the court system. To keep them beyond a certain period of time, the courts may then get involved (period of time often depends on state)
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:00 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Is NY removing guns for 72 hours or keeping personal property without compensation forever with no court review?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:01 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
standard is super old and has been used to take rights away
really, what other constitutional rights have been taken away using this "super old" term would you defend?
Free speech?
quartering soldiers?
protection against unlawful search and seizure?
due process?
trial by jury?
protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
seriously which ones? unless you think one person determining someone should be tossed in the looney bin based on one person's testimony/opinion
even if you're the biggest gun control advocate in the world, you're giving away your rights to feel safe and to accomplish your desires...sound familiar?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:02 pm to DelU249
quote:
..."it is my determination that BLANK is a danger to him/herself and/or others" gets you in the system...that's not due process and there is no judicial recourse
I haven't read the law but I did see another poster say there was no appeal mechanism or anything else resembling due process and if that is true, I hope (and think) the law will be scuttled as unconstitutional
I'm ok with involuntary curbing of rightrs under certain circumstances, but there has to be a mechanism to challenge and appeal the initial finding.
And yeah, I didn't really think it was a bannable offense, but I don't make the rules.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:03 pm to DelU249
quote:
and these people deal with evidence..."it is my determination that BLANK is a danger to him/herself and/or others"
You don't think a doctor has to provide evidence and justification as to why he put a pt on a psych hold.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:05 pm to DelU249
interdiction mechanisms have been around for a long time and have safeguards built into them
calm your tits
calm your tits
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:06 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Is NY removing guns for 72 hours or keeping personal property without compensation forever with no court review?
I thought the removal of the gun was temporary?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:07 pm to DelU249
I'm no constitutional scholar but is physically restraining somebody and forcing them to stay in a hospital and while medicating them against his will not a violation of some type of right?
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:07 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Sorry but Europe/Australia disagrees with you. In UK, only 14 people died of gunshot wounds last year.
Wowzers
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:09 pm to onmymedicalgrind
or taking away their ability to manage their affairs or dispose of their private property as they see fit
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:11 pm to onmymedicalgrind
No
"He said BLANK"
"Good enough for me"
STAMP
"He said BLANK"
"Good enough for me"
STAMP
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:12 pm to boosiebadazz
yeah and people get screwed that way too
Also, you're talking about "capacity" which you can clearly have and get fricked by this rule
Also, you're talking about "capacity" which you can clearly have and get fricked by this rule
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:13 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I thought the removal of the gun was temporary?
quote:
After a court order is issued, a deputy delivers it to the permit holder and seizes their permit and guns, according to Leja of the Cayuga County Sheriff's Office. He said his office stores the weapons in a secured vault. Leja said a judge may eventually decide to allow the person whose permit was suspended to make arrangements to sell the confiscated weapon to a gun dealer. But Leja said he has not seen that happen yet.
Doesn't sound temporary.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:14 pm to DelU249
quote:
and get fricked by this rule
BY saying you want to harm yourself or others? That is getting fricked?
Look, we can run down the parade of horribles and what-ifs all day if you really want to work yourself up into a hysteria about it. Bottom line is there needs to be checks and balances and ways to challenge and appeal the initial finding. Absent that, the law should be kicked.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:19 pm to onmymedicalgrind
It is, and you would agree that more is needed (or should be needed) than the testimony of one person to determine that. My doctor can call the looney bin. I won't spend one second there. My doctor can tell Uncle Sam I'm dangerous (also unethical by itself) and my rights are immediately 2/3 through the process of being stripped. No jury, no recourse, nada
and again, do you not think that practice has screwed people royally, such was the case of unwanted enemas and rectal exams in Arizona.
and again, do you not think that practice has screwed people royally, such was the case of unwanted enemas and rectal exams in Arizona.
Posted on 12/3/14 at 5:22 pm to DelU249
The downvotes on my first post are perplexing. It is common sense that less guns equates to less mass shootings. When was the last time (besides norway) a mass shooting happened in eu?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News