G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 53

Thread: Registration equals confiscation ... donít ever doubt it for a minute.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    77
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ozarkpugs View Post
    We all agree some people should not have guns , felon's out on bond or parole ,drug dealers gang members with multiple arrests ,and don't forget those who come into our country illegally . Now when you are successful at taking their guns away let me know . I do agree people who are mentally unstable should not be owning a gun but which mentally unstable Person are we going to let decide who they are? Ex wives / husbands ? Step child who is mad because they can't smoke pot in their room ? How about all those people with MAGA caps ? We all know they are unstable because the Democrats and media said so.

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk


    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    94
    Feedback Score
    0
    a group of people that want to seize power by all means, tell us what to eat and what not to. stop us from using airplane. and they want to take guns away.

    But they have security around them 24/7 while the average American has what ? Now this is where the problem is.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    2,829
    Feedback Score
    91 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurodriver View Post
    The truth is that the massive proliferation of firearms is indeed a problem with this country and quite a lot of adults that do own should not own them.

    I know many of you will object to hearing this, but it is the truth.

    I donít have a problem with these red flag laws, and support them. If you leave your gun in a bathroom stall, or shoot someone doing a backflip at a party, or start threatening your place of employment the government should come in and beat the shit of you, shoot your dog, and take your guns away.

    Lots of comparisons about gun laws to the 1700s. What would have happened if someone started shouting in the town square they were going to shoot up the local dock yard and kill everyone? What would happen if they shot your daughter by mistake at a wedding?

    With great power comes great responsibility. Weíve dropped the ball as a world class regarding the latter.
    Until one of your crazy ex-gf's calls your local PD and says you're a danger to yourself. Then your stuff gets confiscated, WITHOUT due process. Red Flag laws are a crock o' shit.
    "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may."

    - Sam Houston

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,281
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertTheTexan View Post
    Until one of your crazy ex-gf's calls your local PD and says you're a danger to yourself. Then your stuff gets confiscated, WITHOUT due process. Red Flag laws are a crock o' shit.
    I just want to attempt to offer an explanation of what actually constitutes due process, although I'm not sure that actual facts will sway anyone's opinion.

    The red flag laws which, for example, Rubio, was championing do have due process built into them. Here is a link to the actual text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...te-bill/7/text

    If you read the text, what the bill requires is that in essence, the petitioner(s) get a warrant to seize the weapon. Why they don't use the term warrant is beyond me. Perhaps because this is an administrative action? I don't know.

    The 4th Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The first consideration is where does the warrant issue from? The courts, more specifically, judges.

    A second consideration is that of probable cause, what is it? A working definition of probable cause: The totality of the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime (offense) has, is, or will be committed.

    In the 'Rubio Bill' the elements to be considered in determining if PC exists are listed:

    In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court may consider relevant evidence, such asó

    ď(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;

    ď(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;

    ď(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;

    ď(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order;

    ď(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;

    ď(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;

    ď(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;

    ď(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;

    ď(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;

    ď(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and

    ď(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court;


    It has to be clearly understood that the decision to issue an 'extreme risk protection order' is reserved for a judge having jurisdiction. This is no different procedure than an officer getting an arrest or search warrant.

    Furthermore, the 'Rubio Bill' gives the respondent the:

    HEARING TO VACATE ORDER.ó

    ď(i) IN GENERAL.óA respondent may request not less than 1 hearing to vacate an extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent.

    ď(ii) HEARING.óNot later than 30 days after the date on which a petitioner is notified of the request of the respondent to vacate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing on the request.


    If folks don't understand that due process is upheld by the 'Rubio Bill' they either haven't read the bill, or don't understand the definition and application of due process.

    The only thing this bill does is give family members, friends, etc. a formal avenue to enter the court system to petition for the removal of weapons from an unstable/threatening person. Plus, it gives law enforcement officers a responsibility and framework to operate within when they are apprised of such risks - thus eliminating the common lazy/incompetent popo answer 'it's a civil matter.'
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-04-19 at 19:38.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    ďYou are responsible for your actions, but the world doesnít turn around you, so itís important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.Ē - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,082
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    I can get behind that 100%. Thanks for sharing.

    Itís embaraasing and an affront that it isnít a law already.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WV, USA
    Posts
    234
    Feedback Score
    0
    Domestic Violence Orders do pretty much the same thing here. The biggest problem I see is that your rights are suspended for at least 30 days and you’ll probably be paying an attorney $10K to get your guns back. Then the petitioner or their family or accomplices can sign a new complaint and you go thru it again.

    There needs to be repercussions for signing a bogus complaint, at the very least a bond to cover legal costs for the person whose property is to be seized.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,281
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunnar da Wolf View Post
    Domestic Violence Orders do pretty much the same thing here. The biggest problem I see is that your rights are suspended for at least 30 days and you’ll probably be paying an attorney $10K to get your guns back. Then the petitioner or their family or accomplices can sign a new complaint and you go thru it again.

    There needs to be repercussions for signing a bogus complaint, at the very least a bond to cover legal costs for the person whose property is to be seized.
    In many jurisdictions a protection from abuse order is (PFA) is given routinely when someone files for divorce, they generally aren't subjected to the same scrutiny that it would seem this 'Rubio Bill' suggests.

    Most DV arrest laws are written so that a statement from the person alleging the violence establishes PC for arrest unless there is evidence contrary to that person's statement. The 'Rubio Bill' seems to address that with the hearing before the judge, versus the officer on the scene making the decision. In that respect the decision is likely going to be more cerebral, although judges may have biases.

    I do think there needs to be some mechanism to keep the costs for someone defending against such a claim down. Likewise, the bill states that agencies have to have mechanisms to get the weapons returned when the extreme risk protection order expires, I'd like to see language saying with no administrative cost, and that the weapons have to be subjected to adequate protection so as to keep them from being damaged during storage.

    As to have rights curtailed for up to 30 days without a hearing, I know this isn't a criminal matter, but generally, the right to a speedy trial is 60 days after preliminary unless the respondent waives. Ten days would be better, but up to 30 doesn't seem outrageous, especially since the person isn't in custody.
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-04-19 at 22:28.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    ďYou are responsible for your actions, but the world doesnít turn around you, so itís important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.Ē - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    TEOTWAWKI
    Posts
    415
    Feedback Score
    0
    There is NO such thing as common sense restrictions or regulations (whatever name you/they call it) that is administered by government. Any compromise with emotional anti gun socialists is a loose loose proposition. When there's a mass shooting followed by emotional cries for "they need to do something" they will inevitably do something stupid and ineffectual that would have had no impact other than on law abiding citizens.

    Name one crime that involved a gun that would have been prevented with any new law, bill, legislation, etc that the non law abiding could not easily circumvent.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    8,281
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by prepare View Post
    There is NO such thing as common sense restrictions or regulations (whatever name you/they call it) that is administered by government. Any compromise with emotional anti gun socialists is a loose loose proposition. When there's a mass shooting followed by emotional cries for "they need to do something" they will inevitably do something stupid and ineffectual that would have had no impact other than on law abiding citizens.

    Name one crime that involved a gun that would have been prevented with any new law, bill, legislation, etc that the non law abiding could not easily circumvent.
    I think that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is the best defense against crazies with guns. Taking reasonable actions to keep unstable folks from possessing firearms would also be helpful.

    I view this more as a mental health issue than a gun issue. I don't agree that it will have a disparate impact on non-crazy law abiding citizens.

    Look at it from this perspective - How many folks complained about the Parkland shooter? No doubt some of the folks they complained to wanted to do something, but didn't know what to do. In this respect I'm talking about law enforcement at the local level. What these 'red flag' laws establish is not only a way for folks to bring unstable folks to the attention of the appropriate authorities, they also establish a responsibility for law enforcement to act in such matters. It gives street level cops a roadmap to follow, if you would.
    Last edited by 26 Inf; 03-05-19 at 12:17.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    ďYou are responsible for your actions, but the world doesnít turn around you, so itís important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.Ē - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    327
    Feedback Score
    0
    The issue that I struggle with in all this honestly is the fact that I am a traditional, law abiding, Conservative American. I support and always have, our military and law enforcement. But, I am also a student of history and the simple facts are that every time guns have been confiscated from people- often followed by genocide, the people doing the confiscating were doing it "pursuant to law" and they were wearing badges and uniforms. It's not really arguable among intelligent and educated people, it's just a fact.

    I don't care who you are, what you are wearing or what "duly passed" law you claim you are enforcing. I'm not giving up my guns. Period.
    Last edited by Esq.; 03-05-19 at 15:19.
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •