Gun Violence Restraining Order?

[teratos]

But there is a certain logic to this. Just like only Nixon can go to China, and only Trump can offer amnesty to 1.8 million DACA people, only when we have solid strict scrutiny and constitutional enforcement can we discuss what evidence and due process looks like for removing gun rights.

Yep. We have seen how the police treat people who have their guns confiscated due to safety reasons and how much trouble some people have had getting them back, the guns coming back damaged etc. If I knew the government did not want to take my guns and would respect my property and hand it back when I had been cleared without issue I would be much more inclined to cooperate.

As for universal background checks, this is easily implemented and can be done without recording any information about the firearm. Can this guy buy a gun? It is a yes/no question. Again, if the government said "Hey, we are fine with good citizens owning whatever the hell you want, we are just worried about the bad apples" how many people would be fine with that?


Nope. Bans/confiscation. That's all they got.....

 

[Fredcohunter]

But there is a certain logic to this. Just like only Nixon can go to China, and only Trump can offer amnesty to 1.8 million DACA people, only when we have solid strict scrutiny and constitutional enforcement can we discuss what evidence and due process looks like for removing gun rights.

If I trusted "evidence and due process" when it comes to removing gun rights I would be all for it. I as much as anyone wish we could come to common ground on a lot of the issues however I just don't trust the other side. The left would prefer to remove the second amendment as a starting point.

 

[danb]

Yep. We have seen how the police treat people who have their guns confiscated due to safety reasons and how much trouble some people have had getting them back, the guns coming back damaged etc. If I knew the government did not want to take my guns and would respect my property and hand it back when I had been cleared without issue I would be much more inclined to cooperate.

As for universal background checks, this is easily implemented and can be done without recording any information about the firearm. Can this guy buy a gun? It is a yes/no question. Again, if the government said "Hey, we are fine with good citizens owning whatever the hell you want, we are just worried about the bad apples" how many people would be fine with that?


Nope. Bans/confiscation. That's all they got.....

Not only that, it could be online and easily searched like the MD judiciary case search. Again, without recording gun information.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

Absolutely. Says nothing about Knife Violence Restraining Order or Hammer Violence Restraining Order. It's just another feel good lots of words so your on the page longer story so I get advertising money ploy. What a bunch of baloney.



OP, you are being played by the liberals if you aren't one yourself. Try to not propagate their falsehoods.

Respectfully, F off. I don’t need to prove my bona fides to you or anyone else.

 

[Ranchero50]

Respectfully, F off. I don’t need to prove my boba fides to you or anyone else.

You started the conversation and defended it but I'm the bad guy for pointing out what it really is?

 

[PapiBarcelona]

What's the usual routine when someone in law enforcement is a defendant in a Peace Order (ie; guns removed)? Varies by employer?

I only ask because I knew a guy mutually who I hadn't seen in a long while and then our mutual friend told me he got fired and disappeared after I asked. Looking at MD Case search, he was a defendant in a Peace Order, and his "Other" (Police officer arrest/witness) cases slowed to about 1/month until there was nothing after a certain date, assuming he was fired about there.

I also assume his employer/judge let him keep his work guns? The few "other" cases he had after his Peace Order were everything from traffic stops to various arrest. Can't imagine he had a blue trainer gun holstered up. LOL

 

[danb]

Respectfully, F off. I don’t need to prove my bona fides to you or anyone else.

This type of reaction proves my point ("Only Nixon can go to China"): Too many people "support" the 2nd amendment but advocate a ban. In this environment its impossible to tell the difference between proposals that have sufficient due process (for an enumerated constitutional right) and proposals that are designed to slowly erode the right. If we applied the same standard to the 2nd which we apply 1st or 4th amendments, threats would need to be specific, actionable, and backed by solid evidence, with an appeals process. But no one will sign on to this until the courts actually protect the 2nd the way that they protect the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and others. Yes, we let killers go free and on to murder other people to protect the 4th, 5th, and 6th. How many trials and convictions have been vacated because searches were found to be unreasonable?

 

[teratos]

This type of reaction proves my point ("Only Nixon can go to China"): Too many people "support" the 2nd amendment but advocate a ban. In this environment its impossible to tell the difference between proposals that have sufficient due process (for an enumerated constitutional right) and proposals that are designed to slowly erode the right. If we applied the same standard to the 2nd which we apply 1st or 4th amendments, threats would need to be specific, actionable, and backed by solid evidence, with an appeals process. But no one will sign on to this until the courts actually protect the 2nd the way that they protect the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and others. Yes, we let killers go free and on to murder other people to protect the 4th, 5th, and 6th. How many trials and convictions have been vacated because searches were found to be unreasonable?

Due process is the thing that is a MUST when dealing with a Constitutional Right. A background check should be very simple. There should be a central database of all prohibited persons easily searched by LE and civilians alike. It would only be an issue for those adjudicated to be prohibited persons. Name and DOB. Mugshots available for comparison. No information about what your are buying etc. need be submitted. Can this guy buy a gun? It's a yes/no answer. Of course, since the libs only want to ban and confiscate, it's a moot point.

 

[zoostation]

Gun laws which let any relative with a grudge take someone else's guns away are a bad idea. I've already seen how badly people are willing to perjure themselves on things like ex-parte orders and emergency petitions for relatives. In my opinion, probably a good 50% or more of ex-parte order applications have significant fabrications in them. And nothing is ever done about it. Let's not forget about the bar owner in Baltimore who IIRC was murdered by a girlfriend's hit man after he was forced to give up his own guns on her domestic violence "complaint."

And the "temporary" seizure of guns isn't so temporary either. You are talking a good six months to a year, or longer, of red tape for anyone unjustly identified to get their guns back. I know. I used to be a guy who processed and approved such returns. Or you can be like the city where they just tell people tough shit and go away when they want theirs back.

It's a bad idea that won't stop anything.

 

[teratos]

Gun laws which let any relative with a grudge take someone else's guns away are a bad idea. I've already seen how badly people are willing to perjure themselves on things like ex-parte orders and emergency petitions for relatives. In my opinion, probably a good 50% or more of ex-parte order applications have significant fabrications in them. And nothing is ever done about it. Let's not forget about the bar owner in Baltimore who IIRC was murdered by a girlfriend's hit man after he was forced to give up his own guns on her domestic violence "complaint." It's a bad idea that won't stop anything.

I don't think you should be able to take guns based on someone else's word. I am sure you, and an LE, have been in situations where something was going on that you were not comfortable with, or there very clearly was a situation where there was some danger. Make it like a warrant. You need to get a judge to sign off on it. The firearms must be returned within 72 hours unless there is a good reason not to.

 

[danb]

Due process is the thing that is a MUST when dealing with a Constitutional Right. A background check should be very simple. There should be a central database of all prohibited persons easily searched by LE and civilians alike. It would only be an issue for those adjudicated to be prohibited persons. Name and DOB. Mugshots available for comparison. No information about what your are buying etc. need be submitted. Can this guy buy a gun? It's a yes/no answer. Of course, since the libs only want to ban and confiscate, it's a moot point.

Also, most phones and laptops have fingerprint readers as well. iPhone X has facial recognition too. If someone is convicted, their prints are in the database. Scan prints on phone, get a hit or not. Likely as fast or faster than a visa approval, and it can be done privately. criminal records are public. Again... there is no reason to track gun information.

 

[teratos]

Also, most phones and laptops have fingerprint readers as well. iPhone X has facial recognition too. If someone is convicted, their prints are in the database. Scan prints on phone, get a hit or not. Likely as fast or faster than a visa approval, and it can be done privately. criminal records are public. Again... there is no reason to track gun information.

Fingerprint reader is a great idea. The answer only needs to come back GTG (not in the database) or it needs to be reported to local LE because they are prohibited. Fast, simple, no information given.....

 

[zoostation]

I don't think you should be able to take guns based on someone else's word. I am sure you, and an LE, have been in situations where something was going on that you were not comfortable with, or there very clearly was a situation where there was some danger. Make it like a warrant. You need to get a judge to sign off on it. The firearms must be returned within 72 hours unless there is a good reason not to.

I understand what you are saying but guns are already taken for safekeeping in numerous situations, like emergency petitions. There's plenty of common and case law justification for police to take guns for safekeeping when someone is going unhinged. But when you let family members in on that kind of power you are opening the door to blackmail. And plenty of family members will use it for that too. The 72 hours thing will never happen, it just won't. I know from doing it. Even hustling as fast as we could to help people who wanted their guns back you are still talking weeks to months due to all of the issues involved. And that was us, where we tried to be fast. Many other places try to be slow.

 

[teratos]

I understand what you are saying but guns are already taken for safekeeping in numerous situations, like emergency petitions. The 72 hours thing will never happen, it just won't. I know from doing it. Even hustling as fast as we could to help people who wanted their guns back you are still talking weeks to months due to all of the issues involved.

OK, so moot point.

 

[danb]

If you have had property seized on a warrant, it can be hard to get it back even if there was no conviction.

Seems to me that is a separate issue.

 

[teratos]

If you have had property seized on a warrant, it can be hard to get it back even if there was no conviction.

Seems to me that is a separate issue.

Yes, separate issue. If you have NFA, you can call the ATF.

 

[Threeband]

Is this another gun grabbing thread that's meant to look like a we need to do "Something" thread?

Why yes, yes...
I think It is.

After 5 years, someone decided the time was ripe to activate the sleepers.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

Why yes, yes...

I think It is.



After 5 years, someone decided the time was ripe to activate the sleepers.

Brilliant. You’re on to me. Kudos to you.

 

[Threeband]

Yay! I win the kudos!

 

[Mark75H]

I agree, without a "blowback" clause that lets innocent people retaliate against false accusers and without mechanism for instantly returning property taken by false accusation or when "time is up", laws like this will always be used unfairly and corruptly.