Red Flag Confiscation Orders

[kmott]

It continues to disappoint me to realize the widespread notion that the "government" is this entity which somehow sprung from spontaneous combustion and is something we must oppose due to our opposition and lack of connectivity. Civics beginning in elementary school attempted to instill the notion of connection in our republic to this representative form of democracy which allows direct voting voice as individual citizens, as well as collective voting voice electing representatives (lawmakers). When asserting that the "government" should or should not do this or that, the acknowledgement "should be" that laws, policies, and regulations are formed as a result of citizens' votes, responsibilities, and nexus with the "government" ... that being the "power" which you assert it should not have.

sure.
now your just being silly. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing.
but what comes of governments when it's citizens decide they have no responsibilities ?? when they decide there is no longer any reason for actions to have consequences?????? and they strive no longer to pursue their own rights but instead seek to strip their neighbors of theirs???

I am all for obeying the law of the land and due process . this has nothing to do with debate for/against red flag laws . try to focus on topic. I am not for giving that law absolute power to decide the fate of gun owners and enslave it's citizens as it seems many are.
this is what "red flag laws" will ultimately do.


is civics even taught anymore???????????????????? I ask, because I really am unsure .

 

[MTGomer]

It continues to disappoint me to realize the widespread notion that the "government" is this entity which somehow sprung from spontaneous combustion and is something we must oppose due to our opposition and lack of connectivity. Civics beginning in elementary school attempted to instill the notion of connection in our republic to this representative form of democracy which allows direct voting voice as individual citizens, as well as collective voting voice electing representatives (lawmakers). When asserting that the "government" should or should not do this or that, the acknowledgement "should be" that laws, policies, and regulations are formed as a result of citizens' votes, responsibilities, and nexus with the "government" ... that being the "power" which you assert it should not have.

‘Should’ is irrelevant.

Do you think that you have as much power and influence with your one vote as Warren Buffet or the living Koch brother have with theirs?

Maybe someday we’ll get to where ‘should’ is reality. But I doubt it. As long as government is big enough to do these big things that partisans want to gain power to accomplish, there will always be somebody or some group with enough funding to buy influence to have government operate the way they want it to.
It’s what’s I can never understand about people of both political persuasions. Instead of wanting to shrink government, so when their opposition controls it they have less power, they want to grow it and flip a coin hoping that they will be the ones in the driver’s seat every 2nd November.

This is no anarchist point of view either. I would like the government to do more of and do better at the things it should do, like manage 640 million acres.
But less of the many other things it’s tentacles have worked it’s way into.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

seriously??????????????? the death penalty is due process!

Yes, seriously. There is a lot more finality to an execution than there is to a temporary restraining order.

 

[kmott]

Yes, seriously. There is a lot more finality to an execution than there is to a temporary restraining order.

it is ironic?? …... no , that's the wrong word...…….SAD, to me, that you can not grasp a difference in punishing the innocent from punishing the guilty
I see no reason not to impose finality to a murderer.
and we all know the restraining order won't be temporary for long. that's haw "feel good" laws work. they start with some very, very ,very, very small bit of rationality , then soon ration exits, to make room for emotion, and the law soon hits the worse possible extremes when the next few incidents happen that proves how inefective the feel good law was in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It continues to disappoint me to realize the widespread notion that the "government" is this entity which somehow sprung from spontaneous combustion and is something we must oppose due to our opposition and lack of connectivity. Civics beginning in elementary school attempted to instill the notion of connection in our republic to this representative form of democracy which allows direct voting voice as individual citizens, as well as collective voting voice electing representatives (lawmakers). When asserting that the "government" should or should not do this or that, the acknowledgement "should be" that laws, policies, and regulations are formed as a result of citizens' votes, responsibilities, and nexus with the "government" ... that being the "power" which you assert it should not have.

One could even go so far as to run for office and get elected. Just make sure the president doesn't disagree with you, or he'll tell you go back from whence you came.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

SAD, to me, that you can not grasp a difference in punishing the innocent from punishing the guilty

I completely grasp the difference. You, however, seem unable to grasp the fact that implementation of a restraining order is no different than incarcerating someone. Both require a probable cause affidavit that is reviewed by a judge to determine if in fact the PC exists. So no, it is not punishing the "innocent", and due process is built into each.

I see no reason not to impose finality to a murderer.

Because there is always a possibility someone was wrongfully convicted, that's why.

and we all know the restraining order won't be temporary for long.

"We" don't know anything. That is your prediction. Let's call it what it is.

it is ironic?? …... no , that's the wrong word

happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.
"it was ironic that now that everybody had plenty of money for food, they couldn't obtain it because everything was rationed"
synonyms:
paradoxical · incongruous · odd · strange · weird · peculiar · unexpected

It's absolutely the right word. Expand your vocabulary and realize not everyone sees the world just like you. I'll use the adjectives for the message I'm conveying and you do the same.

Carry on.

 

[MTGomer]

The Libertarian Case Against the Death Penalty

Should libertarians support the death penalty? Ben Jones argues that both evidence and philosophy say no.

www.libertarianism.org

I’m not totally opposed to the death penalty, and definitely think some people deserve it, but I think there are more potential negatives than positives, therefore don’t think it should be practiced.

 

[kmott]

I completely grasp the difference. You, however, seem unable to grasp the fact that implementation of a restraining order is no different than incarcerating someone. Both require a probable cause affidavit that is reviewed by a judge to determine if in fact the PC exists. So no, it is not punishing the "innocent", and due process is built into each.



Because there is always a possibility someone was wrongfully convicted, that's why.



"We" don't know anything. That is your prediction. Let's call it what it is.





It's absolutely the right word. Expand your vocabulary and realize not everyone sees the world just like you. I'll use the adjectives for the message I'm conveying and you do the same.

Carry on.

for the record I was commenting on MY use of the word ironic NOT YOURS .

guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no point of continuing to interact with you , if you won't even try to understand what is written.

 

[kmott]

The Libertarian Case Against the Death Penalty

Should libertarians support the death penalty? Ben Jones argues that both evidence and philosophy say no.

www.libertarianism.org

I’m not totally opposed to the death penalty, and definitely think some people deserve it, but I think there are more potential negatives than positives, therefore don’t think it should be practiced.

I can respect that! even while I disagree.

your thoughts on death penalty are, in a nutshell, my stance on red flag laws.

you know what I find "IRONIC"(I used word for for JLS .lol.)? we are all looking for an way to end bad things from happening to good people . we just can't agree on the solution. in my mind a final solution to a murderer , is much more rational then a temporary patch ,that really does nothing in the end. can't lock someone away forever for a crime they never even committed.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I see no point of continuing to interact with you , if you won't even try to understand what is written.

More irony.....

 

[kmott]

More irony??????????????????

I fixed it for you.

 

[kmott]

unless someone responds directly to one of my posts ,I'm out of this thread .
I believe I have made my stance pretty clear to anyone who cares enough to understand it and I CAN SEE NOTHING GOOD COMING FROM GOING ON.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I see no point of continuing to interact with you

So are you a hypocrite, or simply lacking in self discipline? Also, for the record, I am not completely decided one way or the other on this issue. You may be making the assumption I am. I am merely speaking to the due process and seizure aspect of this issue. There is a never ending balance between individual liberties and the greater good of society. This is no different.

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

For everyone but kmott, here is another consideration. A restraining order, when issued, may also contain what is referred to as a Brady restriction. This means so long as the order is active, the person listed in the order is prohibited from obtaining or possessing a firearm. However, in the past there has not been a mechanism to ensure the person does not have a firearm, even if it is well known they currently have one or more.

If an order respondent is known to have firearms, or has voiced his/her intentions of getting one, I do believe there is some vicarious liability present for all who have knowledge of this. I don't necessarily think it's an overly intrusive act to ensure the firearms are made inaccessible.

 

[MTGomer]

I always thought restraining orders always had to have a purpose of legitimately protecting someone from danger until last Wednesday, when I was notified that a restraining order would be filed against me if I did not cease and desist from making factual statements about Montana’s soft approach to poaching sentences by using a specific poaching incident and sentence I know about as an example, of which, the sentencing documents I used as an example were obtained by publicly available records.

I have never met the person and live 1000 miles from him, but according to the police officer that called me he could file for an order of protection to protect him from my ‘threats and harassment’. To think that I could lose my guns and everybody that knows I have them is somehow liable for me is nonsense.

Montana’s Culture of Leniency Toward Poaching

How easily poachers often get off on their wildlife crimes in Montana has always bothered me. In case the offender is the type to seek retaliation, I will leave out a few details that would identify those whom made FWP aware of his deeds, although ultimately he got himself caught by sending...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Sytes]

For everyone but kmott, here is another consideration. A restraining order, when issued, may also contain what is referred to as a Brady restriction. This means so long as the order is active, the person listed in the order is prohibited from obtaining or possessing a firearm. However, in the past there has not been a mechanism to ensure the person does not have a firearm, even if it is well known they currently have one or more.

If an order respondent is known to have firearms, or has voiced his/her intentions of getting one, I do believe there is some vicarious liability present for all who have knowledge of this. I don't necessarily think it's an overly intrusive act to ensure the firearms are made inaccessible.

Restraining orders are a dime a dozen... The problem with these orders, while good intentioned, any vindictive a-hole is able to file/request one... Thus an ex spouse (example) may mischaracterize comments, etc and harassment is pretextually created.
Unfortunately, due to our snowflake climate, few have the huevos to deny a restraining order... It's a cover your ass world, give it to the person - thus, minimize liability.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

To think that I could lose my guns and everybody that knows I have them is somehow liable for me is nonsense.

Not all orders are the same.

 

[MTGomer]

Not all orders are the same.

I’ll take your word for it.

Thankfully the only experience I have is embarrassing a poacher on his small, hometown sheriff’s department Facebook page. Plan to keep it that way.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I’ll take your word for it.

Thankfully the only experience I have is embarrassing a poacher on his small, hometown sheriff’s department Facebook page. Plan to keep it that way.

The burden of proof even changes (depending on the state) based on the type of order. Also, a Brady restriction (where applicable) is not an automatic. You have to convince the judge why it is necessary.

 

[Sytes]

Also, for a MT protection Order - you are supposed to be sent a notice to appear. The judge will evaluate both party's comment
t