- 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
MA Passes Gun Confiscation Bill
Posted on 7/4/18 at 6:49 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 6:49 am
A person going through a mental health crisis will now have his guns seized if someone reports him. The court must hear the case within 10 days of the gun seizure, meaning the seizure itself will have no due process. The judge will then decide whether to uphold the order, which can be implemented for up to a year.
A few problems I see coming:
1) Pissed off spouses will abuse this. I can see it now: Upset wife cathches hubby in bed with side piece, then calls in a phony report.
2) Even though a judge is supposed to hear the case within 10 days, does anyone believe they will? Our government doing something on time?
3) Leftist judges will likely uphold all rulings just because they are anti-2nd.
4) Going to put cops in danger. I would hate to be a cop having to seize a man's guns in the middle of the night. Domestic calls are already by far the most dangerous thing Cops do. People WILL be killed because of this law.
Look, no one wants to have another Nick Cruz owning an AR. I get it, but I'm not sure this law will work as intended. I think a better solution is just to bring back involuntary commitments like we had back in the day. Or if we're going the gun seizure route, make it so a judge has to hear the case BEFORE the Cops go in.
A few problems I see coming:
1) Pissed off spouses will abuse this. I can see it now: Upset wife cathches hubby in bed with side piece, then calls in a phony report.
2) Even though a judge is supposed to hear the case within 10 days, does anyone believe they will? Our government doing something on time?
3) Leftist judges will likely uphold all rulings just because they are anti-2nd.
4) Going to put cops in danger. I would hate to be a cop having to seize a man's guns in the middle of the night. Domestic calls are already by far the most dangerous thing Cops do. People WILL be killed because of this law.
Look, no one wants to have another Nick Cruz owning an AR. I get it, but I'm not sure this law will work as intended. I think a better solution is just to bring back involuntary commitments like we had back in the day. Or if we're going the gun seizure route, make it so a judge has to hear the case BEFORE the Cops go in.
27
Posted on 7/4/18 at 6:52 am to AUstar
The answer to Nick Cruz is the sort of decentralized, just in time, armed policing that cannot be provided by a professional police force.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 6:55 am to AUstar
I see a clever way to disarm a home that someone may want to rob.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 6:57 am to Boatshoes
Better be locked up before the Police go in, or this is going to be very bad....
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:02 am to AUstar
Should be knocked down in the courts at some point. Removing Constitutional rights without due process? Yeah, right.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:02 am to AUstar
quote:
I think a better solution is just to bring back involuntary commitments like we had back in the day.
They never left, the laws are in place and it is used everyday, got to the ER of most hospitals and you'll find it going on, daily.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:08 am to AUstar
You can't suspend people's rights without due process. This will be shot down in court (I hope).
There's a place, or several places, around the country that have started acting locally to chip away at ownership and purchasing. Example, there are states that say you have to wait 24hrs in order to pick up a weapon you order/purchase and then cities in the state will add more days to that delay. This stuff is ridiculous and it comes with no evidence of effectiveness.
There's a place, or several places, around the country that have started acting locally to chip away at ownership and purchasing. Example, there are states that say you have to wait 24hrs in order to pick up a weapon you order/purchase and then cities in the state will add more days to that delay. This stuff is ridiculous and it comes with no evidence of effectiveness.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:08 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Should be knocked down in the courts at some point. Removing Constitutional rights without due process? Yeah, right.
I think this is bad policy, and I’m skeptical of how “mental health crisis” will be defined/applied. However I’m not sure there is much of a Due Process/Constitutional argument here.
If you assume that the mental health crisis criterion pass muster (legitimate/not arbitrary or prone to wide interpretation), I don’t see a court preventing police from taking the weapons. It doesn’t sound like it will operate much differently than a TRO.
The police/whomever will show mental crisis, and obtain the order without the gun owner. However, gun owner has right to a hearing within ten days. That hearing is due process. Owner can get weapons back, and presumably get damages/costs if he can show that the original order was malicious or arbitrary
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 7:13 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:18 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
Why not have the hearing to establish mental fitness? If deemed unfit, then confiscate. They can do this in the 10 day window. If the accused is truly unstable with guns, then I'm sure some sort of restraining order should have already been filed.
This sounds like a guilty until proven innocent scenario, opposite of the foundation of the judicial system.
This is trying to get a foot in the "repeal the 2A" door.
This sounds like a guilty until proven innocent scenario, opposite of the foundation of the judicial system.
This is trying to get a foot in the "repeal the 2A" door.
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 7:23 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:19 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
Just wait until someone is wrongfully accused and gets robbed or assaulted during that waiting period. He's otherwise free but has lost his constitutional right because of a false accusation and is considered guilty until proven innocent.
A lot of bad legislation makes its way through with good intentions.
A lot of bad legislation makes its way through with good intentions.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:23 am to AUstar
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
- Donald Trump
ETA: Wow, look at all the cucks downvoting the words of the Great Orange Bastard.
Melt, little snowflakes, melt. Your end is nigh.
MAGA!
- Donald Trump
ETA: Wow, look at all the cucks downvoting the words of the Great Orange Bastard.
Melt, little snowflakes, melt. Your end is nigh.
MAGA!
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 9:23 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:24 am to WildTchoupitoulas
He's wrong about that.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:29 am to FooManChoo
quote:
He's wrong about that.
Cuck.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:32 am to WylieTiger
quote:
Why not have the hearing to establish mental fitness? If deemed unfit, then confiscate. They can do this in the 10 day window. If the accused is truly unstable with guns, then I'm sure some sort of restraining order should have already been filed.
I agree with you. It’s bad policy. I was just pointing out that for situations like guns (or domestic abuse allegations, and other similar “dangerous” circumstances), it is entirely possible that the court will allow this type of thing. Think temporary restraining order. The side seeking to have one issued has to show imminent, unavoidable, and irreparable harm before one is issued.
I assume that the bar will be similar here. Gun owner will have to commit some act showing unfitness, some level of violence etc. Without that showing of violence, this would be violative of due process IMO as then it would be arbitrary.
Sure it goes against the prevailing theme of innocent until proven guilty. But there are exceptions to that premise, that have been deemed allowable because of the serious/inherently dangerous/imminently harmful nature of :insert situation here:
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 7:36 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:34 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Just wait until someone is wrongfully accused and gets robbed or assaulted during that waiting period. He's otherwise free but has lost his constitutional right because of a false accusation and is considered guilty until proven innocent.
A lot of bad legislation makes its way through with good intentions.
I agree with you on both points. It’s pretty shortsighted legislation
This post was edited on 7/4/18 at 7:34 am
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:45 am to AUstar
quote:
4) Going to put cops in danger.
And completely innocent people. How often do you hear about cops executing warrants on the wrong house.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:51 am to AUstar
Will they flag them in the federal database asap? If not they could just go by another one after they confiscate them.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 7:58 am to AUstar
The wife getting back at her cheating husband scenario was mentioned. How about the abusive husband who is separated from his wife? He knows she has a gun for protection against him. One phone call reporting her as mentally unstable and she’s defenseless.
Posted on 7/4/18 at 8:00 am to AUstar
One of the perks, living in Texas!
Posted on 7/4/18 at 8:01 am to AUstar
quote:
The judge will then decide whether to uphold the order, which can be implemented for up to a year.
I'm sure those guns will be locked away safe and sound for that year and nothing will happen to them.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News