BucksnDucks
Well-known member
Yes, interesting way of supporting my comment. The lack of presumption of innocence is the problem. The Mueller report has made a lasting impact I see.
Red flag warnings
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
Society is going to decide where this issue ends up. The courts will be the final arbiters to decide if society has went too far. Wish it was different, but when a Constitutional right, the right granted under the Second Amendment is not respected and appreciated by folks who abuse that 2A right when taking away the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness from innocent bystanders, society decides what outcome they demand and the courts keep that outcome within their perceived interpretations of the Constitution.
These mass shootings make for flash points. History shows that the course of events are redirected as the result of flash points. Gun ownership in this country is going to change as a result of these flash point events. To what degree and how it will happen, who knows. Where the courts will place the sidebars is hard to guess.
These mass shootings make for flash points. History shows that the course of events are redirected as the result of flash points. Gun ownership in this country is going to change as a result of these flash point events. To what degree and how it will happen, who knows. Where the courts will place the sidebars is hard to guess.
Last edited:
And we need to have a responsible, well thought out, respectful seat at the table where the discussions regarding those changes are held. We can't simply point to the evil of mankind, the mental instability of the specific shooters, or shortcomings of other laws currently on the books. We, as responsible gun owners, have to acknowledge that atrocities have occurred at the hands of "legal" gun owners and there are likely steps that could be taken to make it less likely that those atrocities less likely to happen in the future. "Hands off my guns!" is not that way to go forward. Like it or not, the Court of Public Opinion is a strong one and WILL have an influence on coming legislation.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
Well put.
There is a definite culture shift in our country. We can either learn to adapt to the shift as is occurs or react to push it back to what our forefathers envisioned. Either way, you can't fix everything and you can't protect everyone. The thought process that the "Government" has a responsibility to control everything and protect everyone is just not logical. And it's not responsible to blame anyone else for bad behavior other than the person themselves. IMO...
bmt99
Active member
I don't have a lot to add other than I am impressed with the civility and well laid out talking points. Makes a person consider existing opinions more
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
On old (2011) but interesting quick read: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
How?
Your ex wife tells a judge your nuts, you loose your guns.
How do you get them back?
"Have you quit beating your wife"? Pretty hard to disprove a negative.
I don't have to prove I'm not a drunk driver before driving. I do after being cited.
That is the difference.
Not to mention, driving isn't a right.
Is that once a month thing in women now a mental condition? Is a day or 2 on short sleep? How about low IQ? Menopause? Low testosterone? Stress?
Diane Feinstein said all returning vets were a danger, do they need to prove they aren't?
The burden of proof is on the gov, not the individual.
The only reason for the 2A was because the framers distrusted a powerful gov.
antelopedundee
Well-known member
I hear a lot of people in different places trying to blame video games and stumbled across this while checking my email. Just madness and no gun needed.
Ga. Teen Strangled Sister to Death Over WiFi Password, Gets Life in Prison
Ga. Teen Strangled Sister to Death Over WiFi Passwordwww.yahoo.com
My understanding is that violent video games are used by the military to help prepare troops for combat. True or not?
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 575
I would only add, BUT does have the stomach to continue to watch its children die by gunfire, but your recommendation for mortuary investment pretty much gets that across.
JohnCushman
Well-known member
It's a good thing all of my guns fell in the lake from a terrible boating accident and all I have left are muzzleloaders in my house, which aren't considered firearms in Colorado 
jake23
Active member
It's a good thing all of my guns fell in the lake from a terrible boating accident and all I have left are muzzleloaders in my house, which aren't considered firearms in Colorado
I feel ya! There have been a lot of those in CA in the last decade! Most people would never know that CA has the most “boating accidents” per capita! They almost always result in losing ones entire arsenal of firearms! Lol
kylemcintyre67
Well-known member
Not true. There are some video game like simulators that are used to train troops in various scenarios but they are so buggy and difficult to get anything out of that they are almost a waste of time. They are also not even remotely realistic when it comes to the violence of combat.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The same way you would if your ex-wife tells a judge you are a danger to yourself and others and asks to have you civilly committed for observation. Or a neighbor reports you for child endangerment. (Which as an aside, keeping my kids is way more important to me than keeping my guns and for decades every state has had emergency intervention processes for that - not sure why few object to that, but fret about this)
First your ex-wife would go the local LEO and States Attorney and have to convince them of the risk. If they find it compelling and credible they would take it to a judge at an emergency hearing. If the judge found it compelling, credible and of immediate risk they would order the LEO to temporarily seize the gun until an real hearing could be organized. Some TRO statutes have a time requirements for the follow-up hearing like within 72 hours. Then you would go to the hearing, your ex-wife would offer her proof, you would offer your counter arguments and with the burden being on the state to offer more compelling evidence than you. The judge decides in light of the evidence and the burden of proof and rules. If you win they give you your guns back. If you lose, then they would either keep them for some temporary period (like getting counseling or something) or I suppose permanent if there is some major irredeemable problem. For temporary seizures there would be some type of follow-up hearing that would allow you to show that the prior concerns are gone and your guns would be return.
This is not new ground, nor rocket science. And more important things than guns are (and have been for 200 years) subject to processes like this.
As you point out these are completely different circumstance so they do nothing to advance this discussion. Better examples would be civil commitment, civil competence procedures, restraining orders and child protection processes.
A ridiculous and offensive rant - so no need to respond.
I am comfortable that Sen Feinstein quotes are not admissible evidence at a TRO hearing.
Yup, just like discussed above — and the fact that there is a burden of proof proves that there are processes in which to apply that burden. If there was no judicial process there would be no need for a burden of proof.
Many historians would say that in 1790’s the concern was not about the government restricting private gun ownership, but the new Federal government disarming the state militias. In fact in the 1790’s there were laws preventing freed blacks, former Torries and other sub-groups from owning guns - Thomas Jefferson would not at all recognize the current NRA position on many things.
jake23
Active member
In my mind the lack of due process concern would be from ex parte hearings. Which from my experience a lot of the TRO hearings in my crazy state are.
This is copied from the CA public law library. Here is the link. https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/lrg-ex-parte-tro.pdf
An ex parte order is only granted when:
1. Irreparable harm or immediate danger will occur before a standard motion for injunction can be heard (minimum of 16 court days), and
2. The threatened harm outweighs the harm caused to the opposing party if the order is granted without notice
This is copied from the CA public law library. Here is the link. https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/lrg-ex-parte-tro.pdf
An ex parte order is only granted when:
1. Irreparable harm or immediate danger will occur before a standard motion for injunction can be heard (minimum of 16 court days), and
2. The threatened harm outweighs the harm caused to the opposing party if the order is granted without notice
jake23
Active member
It is pretty easy to meet one and two above to have an ex parte hearing granted.
I say that you have told me you are going to harm someone and you have guns. That satisfies the requirements and LEO are in route to come take your guns!
Sure you can argue that I lied. But you will have to await your day in court.
I say that you have told me you are going to harm someone and you have guns. That satisfies the requirements and LEO are in route to come take your guns!
Sure you can argue that I lied. But you will have to await your day in court.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
But ex parte is always followed by proper hearing. Any legislation can set mandatory window between the two, such as 72 hours.
Last edited:
jake23
Active member
Or like greater than 16 days. Which is the case in CA
jake23
Active member
A right that is delayed is a right that is denied. Politicians in my state have been playing this game with us gunowners for years.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Far greater rights are subject to these processes already (e.g., personal liberty (civil committment) and parental rights (CHIPS processes)) and yet it seems to work for the vast majority - someone would have to show me why it wouldn’t work in a lesser situation (like taking my handgun for 5 days). Plus, judges aren’t morons - they reject many requests for temporary relief that don’t pass muster.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Your mere recitation of what you say I said wouldn’t cut it. More context would be needed.
