Gun Violence Restraining Order?

Biggfoot44 said:

...
The largest Mass Murder by single individual in the US was commited with a gallon of unleaded gasoline and a match
...

Click to expand...

I thought it was leaded gasoline.

iH8DemLibz said:

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

Click to expand...

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:

Not a novel concept (recently enacted in CA) but maybe worthy of discussion more broadly. Devil’s in the details but this could be a means to prevent some of these premeditated attacks. Interested in thoughts from the group.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Click to expand...

So lets talk about the context. US gun murder has fallen more than 55% in 25 years while most Americans think it is up. US gun murder of children is down even more.

Surveys by gallup and pew show most Americans think gun murder is up the past generation when it is profounbdly less.

The severely mentally ill kill more often with non gun means. when I was in California for work a few years ago a guy killed three military age roommates with a knife and hammer. if we are going to look at limiting killing by the mentally ill it is not about devices, but about the perpetrators.

Most importantly restraining orders are typically EASY to get and do not involve probative levels. Experts in marital law, in leading legal journals estimate 80% of restraining orders issued are fraudulent, just tools and tactics in tit for tat divorce law.

Here is th thing. We generally WANT it to be very easy for people to get restring orders -- even if it means 80% are BS. Why? because the people who need them, lets face it battered women, are among the most at risk in society and typically have low levels of resources to deploy in court. Poor women, who were married to or in relationships with criminals are the huge majority of legitimate restraining orders. To get the guy to at least stay away we accept a massive amount of evidence and procedure that would never be allowed in beyond a reasonable doubt proceeding. Hearsay is allowed. Speculation is allowed, non expert witnesses are allowed for what would normally require expert witness, and all kinds of evidence that would be normally clued is allowed.

We accept that in retraining orders since the downside to the accused is very low, they don't lose rights, just have to avoid proximity.

If we decide to start adding new limits to rights due to restraining orders, be they additional loss of Fourth, Fifth or Second Amendment Rights than entailed today, we are really traveling down a bad road.

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:

I didn’t mean to imply it’s a panacea. It seems to me that it could make a difference in some situations and if due process is made paramount in how it’s implemented then it’s worth considering.

Click to expand...

due process in virtually all restraining orders is administrator not actual judge, preponderance (or even less in reality) not reasonable doubt, laymen testifying to mental health and other non expert assertions that otherwise would require exert witnesses, and all kinds of evidence that would normally be excluded, even loss of double jeopardy protection.


Do we really need to do this as US murder and gun murder are less than half of what they were?

The fact is there were 39 calls to 911 in the last few years from this kids home. threats of assaults, actual assaults, elder abuse (him physically attacking his mom). The FBI then spectacularly and with utter negligence proved themselves incompetent idiots investigating specific threats that were certainly of the level to bring criminal charges.

i can't think of anything less responsible than diverting from the FBI incompetance in this case

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:

I say that because we can’t allow the antis to consume all of the oxygen in the room and need to have something constructive to offer

Click to expand...

I am afraid you don't understand public policy and have how it works backwards. There is a well understood political reason the ACLU gives no quarter on rights, a reason why Planned Parenthood does not either.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy in civil liberties/rights law, it is a reality. Ginzburg (the scotus judge that was formerly the head council for the ACLU) specifically said her concern with hobby lobby was not the issue at hand but the slippery slope.

Does Planned Parenthood relent, compromise, offer less abortion rights when photos of partial birth abortions come out? when polling shows large number of people do nut support on demand federally paid abortions after 26 weeks? No.

Does the ACLU say, "you are right, lets comprise on the fourth, fifth or sixth amendment"? When someone with a long criminal history, is let off on a fourth amendment technicality that would not excluded evidence in any other country, goes out and mass murders people --as often happens? No. Did the ACLU say "let's compromise on double jeopardy prohibition and copy what south Africa did with Oscar Pistorious, rerying him after a not guilty verdict, when OJ simpson, or the like obviously guilty, gets found not guilty??

They NEVER compromise, because it always leads to more losses of rights, not less losses.

The gun control lobby is a permanent fixture, it pumps over 75 million dollars per year, virtually al of it charitable donations, not one side of thee partisan divide 100% to the DNC given mostly by corporate donors, which then down gift -- deductibly - to foundations which then give to the gun control lobby, which spends 30:1 as c(3) "charities."

Giving them anything does not relieve pressure, certainly will not reduce violence -- it only serves to straighten them and insures more laws (see California and Maryland).

the gun control lobby core strategies are emotional exploitation and incrementalism. It isn't a theory they admit it. incrementalism toward bans and confiscation -- both of which EVERY gun control lobby group support. (all of them strongly supported DC in Heller which was bans of even revolvers to fully checked and trained persons)

This lobby beleives gun owners are all aready mentally ill. I tis a tuatology;"Q: how do we know who is mentally ill? A: one way is if they own any gun, bu defniniton they ar ementally ill."

And compromises where I come from are not give and give, they are give and take. Certainly you must agree that if any reduction second amendment rights is going to occur then it should be directly coupled with expansion in other areas of the second amendment. like an agreement for 50 state shall issue. No intellectually honest supporter of the bill of rights would be offering a compromise without getting something in return.

Here is the thing, about 60% of Americans own firearms. It is inherently PRIVATE so 95% of them don't march. The politicians know this and will not vote nationally against the second amendment -- unless someone in the second amendment advocacy front is stupid enough to suggest they do.

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:

As I said earlier, the devil's in the detail of any legislation. This "blowback" mechanism would be an essential component in my opinion.

Click to expand...

There no blowback. If you lie though your teeth to get a restraining order, the evidence to get it into consideration barely needs to be preponderance decided y a low level administrator, but the evidence to convict you of any perjury for those lies has to be full criminal probable burdens (beyond a reasonable doubt). It is WHY people lie in civil cases in this area of adjudication all the time. There is no downside

If i say in civil court, under oath that you face to face threatened to kill me, it is admissible, no one has to believe my testimony to a 99%, 95%, 90 or 52% likely turthfullness. just 50% and for restraining orders maybe less.

If you later accused me of lying and perjury, that would be a criminal charge, It is literally almost always impossible to prove -- and it would need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is already no penalty for me to perjury myself and say you threatened to kill me. You cant change US settled case law with some kind of "blowback" clause that is going to go against 200 years of jurisprudence by making a criminal charges of purjury provable on less than "reasonable doubt" test. congress can NOT do that no matter how they write the law unless they revoke the US Constitution.

Restraining order cases are virtually all chock full of perjury. Two sides utterly disagreeing on what was said. those perjury case are never prosecuted unless astoundingly egregious and oblivious (even if one person was in china on the data the supposed face to face conversation on ht other side of the globe occurred, it isn't going to get prosecuted).


A massive increase in court load to implement the confiscation system advocated by the writer would have enough trouble being sustained. The idea that you are also going to add a zillion US prosecutors and even more judges and juries to try ubiquitous family law type perjury for a 'blowback penalty" scheme is crazy.

It is WHY people lie in civil cases in this area of adjudication all the time. There is no downside

If i say in civil court, under oath that you face to face threatened to kill me, it is admissible, no one has to believe my testimony to a 99%, 95%, 90 or 52% likely truthfullness. just 50% and for restraining orders maybe less.

Click to expand...

Yep. Been there. And I can provide more than a handful of people who know I an not a liar and completely trustworthy and honest. How about 2 preachers with dr degree and spouse as a witness. to start with...

If your solution to a societal problem is to enact another law, then you have no solution.

Any solution in my book must have two things

1.) Due Process of Law

2.) Criminal penalities for intentional misuse. If a phone bank of mom's against guns decides to start calling and filing en mass, they need to be charged.

Any solution (that works) requires an immediate armed response in these "gun free" zones.

kalister1 said:

Most of them surrender when an armed LEO shows up. The animal in Florida wants to plead guilty IF DEATH is taken off the table.
What we need is to drop them ASAP. Shoot first, ask questions later. When they know they will die on the spot, maybe something will change?

Click to expand...

This. These killers want the easy way out whether it's shooting themselves in the head or walking away clean.
If they have a real expectation of being severely wounded and suffering they may think twice.

gprimr1 said:

2.) Criminal penalities for intentional misuse. If a phone bank of mom's against guns decides to start calling and filing en mass, they need to be charged.

Click to expand...

Except that is not how it will work. Seizure, confiscation, purchase denial loss of second amendment rights would be administrative (easier); but sanctioning or penalizing someone for lying or maliciously misusing the system to do it to someone, would need to be proven at a much higher standard.

Congress cannot write this, no matter what, in a way that would make a penalty for malicious misuse or perjury establish by anything lower than a trial by full jury with benefit of all presumbtions, probative burdens and evidenciary rules.

it is the wet dream of gun control advocates to move all firearms ownership into administrative bureaucratic/ below full adjudicated regime. tht can b done if you get enough idiots to vote for in in congress.

Congress cant however change the right of the person who "reports" you. the penalty would have to be criminal, like perjury, VERY hard to prove and if you are accused of perjury you have all defendants rights.

Why do YOU think almost no one is prosecuted for outright lying in court or when deposed in divorce cases? or any civil law cases? or for that matter for outright lying on a 4473?

If i say I overheard you saying you were going to shoot up a school, exact how to you prove beyond a reasonable doubt I did not have reason to believe i heard it? Where will the prosecutors to try these perjury cases come from? the court judges, juries and their time come from?

Unless someone gets hurt and you have a slam dunk proof of malicious intent (not easy) misuse of 911 is already not prosecuted.

Damn, I'm going to collect a bunch of Rascal's recent posts and publish them as a big time best seller.

My point about the oxygen in the room, as implied in my earlier post, is that those that cherish the 2A need to make an effort to control the discussion re mass shootings. Maybe that means an organized effort to demand school security, for example, but it needs to be something. I am in complete agreement with your points about emotional exploitation (see already organized march in DC) and incrementalism but you left out an important element. The media, which is fully aligned with the goals of Bloomberg et al, will do everything in its power to publicize and facilitate these efforts. This is not a level playing field. And our insistence on the sanctity of the 2A, civil rights, etc as a reason that to oppose new gun laws are not persuasive with enough people who consider themselves "moderates".

You have more faith than I do that our politicians "will not vote nationally against the second amendment". I assume you follow politics as closely as I do and so am not sure what would cause your confidence on this point. Nor do I have faith that any of the federal courts can be relied upon to render a decision that is consistent with the Constitution wrt the 2A. As for SCOTUS, cautiously optimistic that things would go our way, but they need to grant cert first and their recent track record there is dismal.

Just be clear that there is no way no way no way we can position ourselves to be acknowledged by the antis as "showing good faith."

You will not get a pat on the head and a smile by offering to discuss "common sense reforms."





Have you heard the story of the cake? We need to dig in and say, "I want my damn cake back. All of it."

I'm just gonna cherry pick this part right here...

"In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing."

Okay, so what about the people who DID get checked out and a possible mass shooting WAS prevented? You can't have empirical data for that because you can't account for something that may have happened but didn't. I'm sure the fbi did drop the ball on this guy and others but come on, minority report is not and never will be real. You can't predict and arrest for a crime that hasn't happened yet.

the downside to fingerprint readers is there are people whose prints can't be read electronically

What about truth?

I was accused by a co-worker of making threats. I was served with a restraining order that was dismissed at the hearing a week later. I was forced to resign after over 28 years of service or they would have dismissed (Fired) me. The complaint was based on hearsay but it did not make a difference. Not surprising because it occurred in Prince Georges County at the office of the sheriff. What is interesting is that I was banned from my work station so could not access my files and e-mails. Mark

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:

I am in complete agreement with your points about emotional exploitation (see already organized march in DC) and incrementalism but you left out an important element. The media, which is fully aligned with the goals of Bloomberg et al, will do everything in its power to publicize and facilitate these efforts. This is not a level playing field. And our insistence on the sanctity of the 2A, civil rights, etc as a reason that to oppose new gun laws are not persuasive with enough people who consider themselves "moderates".

Click to expand...

the organized march is about money. they will raise $100 million -- all fully tax deductible by donors. They will spend maybe $50 million on the regional and DC events and have $50 million left over to create more jobs than the approximately 250-300 full time professionals, (lots with revolving door dnc employment) working in the gun control lobby.

Any victory on gun control by the gun control lobby just makes a stronger and bigger gun control lobby.

Consider this, what concessions does Planned parenthood or ACLU offer when rights they defend are under attack? Answer: none

The history on this is clear, if gun control lobby can get something in the couple of months after an event, they get it. After that the wind is lost from their sails. The "rallies" will sever to extend that -- but not by much. It is more advisable for our side to hold fast.

I don't disagree about the oxygen in the room, but there is literally nothing that affects second amendment you can do that does anything that empower them.

The best strategy is general support for mental health and hardening of schools.

protegeV said:

I'm just gonna cherry pick this part right here...

"In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing."

Okay, so what about the people who DID get checked out and a possible mass shooting WAS prevented? You can't have empirical data for that because you can't account for something that may have happened but didn't. I'm sure the fbi did drop the ball on this guy and others but come on, minority report is not and never will be real. You can't predict and arrest for a crime that hasn't happened yet.

Click to expand...

What the FBI needs to have done is ARREST him. We do have arrest record trends for threats.

Angus said:

I was accused by a co-worker of making threats. I was served with a restraining order that was dismissed at the hearing a week later. I was forced to resign after over 28 years of service or they would have dismissed (Fired) me. The complaint was based on hearsay but it did not make a difference. Not surprising because it occurred in Prince Georges County at the office of the sheriff. What is interesting is that I was banned from my work station so could not access my files and e-mails. Mark

Click to expand...

This is why I'm skeptical something like this won't be used against innocent people. Same thing goes with harassment-you're guilty until proven innocent.