Take the Guns first, Due process second...

[Glocktogo]

I am going to say that in certain circumstances, removing firearms from a persons home maybe a good thing. If you have a person that is actually made a real threat to kill themselves, removing a firearm could be the correct thing to do. If someone has made a credible threat to commit some sort of terrorist event, removing firearms maybe a good thing. I just believe, that it would need to trigger some automatic things such as mental evaluation and a court hearing within a few days or everything has to be returned, if unfounded all cost need to be on the state.

Yep, 72 hour eval to begin immediately, followed by a competency hearing within 120 hours after the 72 hour eval. If you can't accomplish that, then you give the guns back and let the individual go on their merry way.

My "one issue" is liberty.

"Neither" of the major parties seem to believe in it; they just differ in which parts of my life they want to control.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[chuter]

Aren't they doing that in CA?

Article dated December 28, 2015
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/28/56511/police-in-california-will-be-able-to-seize-guns-pr/

Family members who believe a loved one poses a danger to themselves or others will be able to ask police to seek a temporary “gun violence” restraining order from a judge beginning Jan. 1. The order would allow police to seize the person’s guns for 21 days.

State lawmakers approved the legislation (AB1014) and Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law after a 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista, near the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which six people were killed and 14 injured. Before the shootings, sheriff’s deputies had visited the shooter, Elliot Rodger, after his parents raised concerns about his mental health and online rants against women.

But deputies concluded Rodger, 22, was not a risk. They decided they had no basis to search his apartment, where he had amassed guns, ammunition and knives.

Under the new law, a restraining order could be issued without prior knowledge of the person. In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police.

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” said Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

After three weeks, the person can challenge the judge’s decision.

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” Moore said.

California law already bans people from possessing guns if they’ve committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. Police may also seize guns if a licensed therapist notifies them an individual is a risk to their own safety or the safety of others.

Moore said the new law is similar to seeking a domestic violence restraining order — no conviction is necessary.

“It's an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state,” Moore said. He did not anticipate “tremendous” use of the new law by police.

Gun-owner-rights groups opposed the law, arguing it could infringe on a person’s Second Amendment right to possess a gun.

“We don’t need another law to solve this problem,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told the Associated Press.

“We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy.”

 

[TerryMiller]

Aren't they doing that in CA?

Article dated December 28, 2015
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/28/56511/police-in-california-will-be-able-to-seize-guns-pr/

The state of Oregon has also passed a similar law regarding taking firearms. Most of the state of Oregon is pretty conservative, but the liberals reside in Portland, Eugene, and Salem and are what makes Oregon a blue state. From what I remember, they did a rush job of passing the bill in the legislature and their liberal lady governor quickly signed it into law. They did similar in creating a law that Oregon would pay for abortions, even if the woman wanting an abortion was an illegal alien.

 

[SMS]

One of the biggest issues we have is that there are people walking among us that have no business doing so. If we can justify taking their guns away because they are a threat, then why not address the actual threat, which is the person, not the gun, and arrest the individual and press charges or institutionalize?

If you can build a case to take their guns away, you can build a case to institutionalize them....

 

[donner]

One of the biggest issues we have is that there are people walking among us that have no business doing so. If we can justify taking their guns away because they are a threat, then why not address the actual threat, which is the person, not the gun, and arrest the individual and press charges or institutionalize?

If you can build a case to take their guns away, you can build a case to institutionalize them....

i agree. Which is also why i think it's strange that gun owners aren't more vocal about states cutting mental health funding and/or leading the charge for actual legal reforms of gun laws. We complain about how the left will do anything to create bad laws, which will be abused, yet do nothing to fix the laws we have and know are broken. Especially when we have all of the power in terms of congress and the white house.

 

[C_Hallbert]

I am going to say that in certain circumstances, removing firearms from a persons home maybe a good thing. If you have a person that is actually made a real threat to kill themselves, removing a firearm could be the correct thing to do. If someone has made a credible threat to commit some sort of terrorist event, removing firearms maybe a good thing. I just believe, that it would need to trigger some automatic things such as mental evaluation and a court hearing within a few days or everything has to be returned, if unfounded all cost need to be on the state.

I absolutely love the idea that guns are the cause of suicides. By this logic, guns cause: murder, robbery and terrorism. If there were no more guns, the world would be a wonderful place. Oh, and Grandpa wouldn’t ever take a bottle of acetaminophen and succumb to hepatic failure, or drive his old Dodge Truck into oncoming traffic taking a family of five out with him after the Doctors informed him he had Lung Cancer, would he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shadowrider]

One of the biggest issues we have is that there are people walking among us that have no business doing so. If we can justify taking their guns away because they are a threat, then why not address the actual threat, which is the person, not the gun, and arrest the individual and press charges or institutionalize?

If you can build a case to take their guns away, you can build a case to institutionalize them....

And there ya go! We just don't have the stomach to "possibly violate" a mental citizen's rights, but we have no compunction whatsoever to actually violate other rights of literally millions. Irony anyone?

 

[Pokinfun]

I absolutely love the idea that guns are the cause of suicides. By this logic, guns cause: murder, robbery and terrorism. If there were no more guns, the world would be a wonderful place. Oh, and Grandpa wouldn’t ever take a bottle of acetaminophen and succumb to hepatic failure, or drive his old Dodge Truck into oncoming traffic taking a family of five out with him after the Doctors informed him he had Lung Cancer, would he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said guns are the cause of anything. What I said was, remove the tool to give someone time to get help.

 

[C_Hallbert]

I never said guns are the cause of anything. What I said was, remove the tool to give someone time to get help.

Agreed. I’ve seen a lot of emotional appeals for gun control where the proponents were saying precisely that guns were causing suicides; and concluding with statements that fewer guns would cause fewer suicides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think with fewer suicidal maniacs, there would be fewer suicides and less collateral deaths. Just my opinion, of course!

Woody