American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws

[Honu]

A Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) is a simple legal procedure to enable courts to remove guns from those who are proven likely to use them dangerously

and lets pic out a couple key words

REMOVE
LIKELY
DANGEROUSLY

the idea again is to be able to choose who THEY think is likely to be dangerous ? and what is dangerous ? and what is likely ?

today Paul Ryan wants more gun control against people that might do something and are SUSPECTED of domestic terrorism
so yeah I think this is again a tin foil thing ! but it all fits


so why do I have a issue with this ? its all based on someone turning someone in and then some lefties deciding you MIGHT do something DANGEROUS so they can REMOVE your guns from you !!!!


OK once again the creep and not doing anything with current laws
sadly they do not do anything to actual criminals now !
they harbor known criminals !
they do not even bother with current laws to stop people etc..
and the list goes on

[LoboTBL]

OK, again let me reiterate that the quotated portion of my initial post was, and remains, a purely tongue in cheek comment and nothing more.

I have one relative and many close, personal friends who are attorneys. All of them hold themselves to the highest standards of professionalism. That said, there is no denying that all in the profession do not. This statement extends to judges as well.

My concern with this resolution is mainly with the ambiguous language, as has been referenced by another member. There is quite a leap being made in comparing legislation of this type to temporary restraining orders or emergency protective orders. It has more similarity to an emergency detention order for a person exhibiting signs of mental crisis. That being the case it should have similar restrictions. Restraining orders and protective orders are often issued as a matter of course by the courts in even the most mundane divorce suits absent of even a threat of violence. Ask me how I know.

I have no problem with legislation that is properly drafted with specific language. It is the legislation that is haphazardly drafted and enacted that troubles me. There are enough examples of such legislation that have been enacted in the past that don't even come close to infringing upon God given and Constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights to risk allowing even one that does.

In closing, I will offer my sincere apology to both Greg Bell and Sean Cody, for my aforementioned tongue in cheek comment. It was an attempt at humor and perhaps didn't come across as such. I fully understand the offense that can sometimes be taken when being subjected to criticism that is painted with a broad brush.

[Dienekes]

Reference "gun violence restraining orders" and the due process involved requiring:

1. Judicial participation; 

2. A verified petition containing detailed allegations before the ex parte order is issued; 

3. A prompt hearing; and 

4. An allegation of risk of imminent and irreparable harm based on personal knowledge of the respondent.

Very persuasive. Forgive me, but the current political climate makes me VERY skeptical of the "process". I think political correctness--not justice--now drives everything. The law has been weaponized; anybody can allege anything and everything and bury the designated offender under the rubble. High fives all around.

Justice, like Elvis, has left the building.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

If we want to keep our toys and cool stuff we need have a way to keep guns out of and take guns away from crazy people. Some people objectively should not have guns. We need to figure out a way to keep them out of the hands of people that will hurt others or themselves. Considering that suicides are a major cause of gun deaths, there are a lot of gun deaths that could be avoided and potentially a lot of lives saved. How to do that is a really tough question.

[SteyrAUG]

I may be jaded because of my involvement in teaching classes on DV and helping craft our state's first mandatory arrest law and the initial model policy for LE agencies.

YMMV

The only problem I have is how often a "charge" of domestic violence carries much the same weight and restriction of rights as a "conviction" of DV. That combined with "false claims" of DV being almost SOP in any divorce case where custody or support is going to be contested.

[Honu]

my brother is a state prosecutor will be curious his take on this
but he carries a 45 and has guns etc..

[Averageman]

That we find domestic violence so extremely repugnant is a good thing, that we rush to judgement perhaps isn't.
While in the Military it became known rather quickly that the allegation alone, even without merit or evidence could very likely end your career.
It became the standard leverage for spouses to use before the ink on Lautenberg amendment was even dry.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...mendment.shtml
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

Summary court-martial convictions, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and deferred prosecutions (or similar alternative dispositions) in civilian court do not constitute qualifying convictions within the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment. The prohibitions do not preclude a soldier from operating major weapons systems or crew served weapons such as tanks, missiles, and aircraft. The Lautenberg Amendment applies to soldiers with privately owned firearms and ammunition stored on or off post.

Army policy is that all soldiers known to have, or soldiers whom commanders have reasonable cause to believe have, a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic are non-deployable for missions that require possession of firearms or ammunition. Soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment are not eligible for overseas assignment. However, soldiers who are based outside the continental United States (OCONUS) will continue to comply with their assignment instructions.


Domestic violence is a bad road all the way around, that it doesn't require a conviction, just reasonable cause to believe is criminal in and of itself.
Due process anyone?

[Moose-Knuckle]

It was a tongue in cheek reference to an Eagles song which draws on the famous Shakespeare quote. It was not a call to go on a murdering spree of attorneys.

Some folks are just "skeered".

Song lyrics, rock-n-roll, Shakespeare, the First Amendment, and facetiousness have no place in America comrade.

From time to time I watch George Carlin videos on political correctness to maintain my sanity lol.

[Eurodriver]

It would be your style to defend someone joking about murder.

Hey, as long as they agree with you right?

Fairly confident I could find a post of you decrying the intolerant left when they "joke" about killing gun owners or Cis white males.

Are you over the age of 50?

[jpmuscle]

If we want to keep our toys and cool stuff we need have a way to keep guns out of and take guns away from crazy people. Some people objectively should not have guns. We need to figure out a way to keep them out of the hands of people that will hurt others or themselves. Considering that suicides are a major cause of gun deaths, there are a lot of gun deaths that could be avoided and potentially a lot of lives saved. How to do that is a really tough question.

See, when you say gun deaths or gun violence et al, what you really mean interpersonal violence. Atleast that which is not of the self-inflicted variety.

At any rate how do you propose we keep 2 ton missiles on wheels out of the hands of would be harm doers? Freedom is scary I know.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk