A-3687 Notification to be provided to victims when seized or surrendered weapons are returned to a person charged with domestic violence.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Advance notice of returned weapons required under NJ bill (nj1015.com)

Sure, let's not actually propose legislation that gives victims the chance to defend themselves outside of their homes, but rather notice that their potential assailant is receiving their "weapon(s)" back.  Thinking like this is what got Carol Bowne murdered.  Murder of Carol Bowne - Wikipedia

[Tunaman 548]

That is bullshit.  If there is no crime or conviction...enough of nothing there so he gets the firearm back then it is none of the so called "victim"s business.  I'd sue the shit out of the state for telling anyone.  Carol got stabbed.  What got her killed is the cops taking too long to issue her a permit to defend herself.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

NJ law bans the state from identifying gun owners, so I'm not sure how they would be legally allowed to disclose any thing about returns? 

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

5 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

NJ law bans the state from identifying gun owners, so I'm not sure how they would be legally allowed to disclose any thing about returns? 

This is NJ. You know there is nothing about the statutes that requires logic or consistency.

As the victim of a malicious and fictitious domestic violence complaint which was dismissed in less than a week and was subsequently described by the judge as nothing of concern in my carry permit application before he denied me for lack of justifiable need and only lack of justifiable need, I cannot condone this proposal in any way.

 

Red flag laws are BS anyway. If someone is a danger, arrest them. Taking away one means of causing harm does not remove the threat. Carol Bowne was stabbed, not shot!

[EdF 323]

12 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

If someone is a danger, arrest them.

. . . There's the problem.  Being a danger isn't illegal.  Someone fearing that you might attack isn't a crime . . . 

I don't support red flag laws, but they are trying to find an "in between" solution while an actual threat assessment is done.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

5 minutes ago, EdF said:

. . . There's the problem.  Being a danger isn't illegal.  Someone fearing that you might attack isn't a crime . . . 

I don't support red flag laws, but they are trying to find an "in between" solution while an actual threat assessment is done.

Owning a firearm isn't illegal. Threatening to harm or kill someone is illegal.

What's the use of removing firearms from someone who is a danger when you leave so many other options available? Is it somehow better to be beaten to death with a bat than shot? What about stabbed? Run over with a car? The object is not the cause of the problem, it is always and only the person.

If you want an "In between" solution we already have 3 day involuntary confinements for psych evaluation.

My key point is that we need to deal with the problem, not just one of the symptoms.

[EdF 323]

First . . . I specifically said that I don't support red flag laws, so don't act like I DO . . . 

Second . . . I didn't say that owning a firearm was illegal OR that threatening to harm or kill someone isn't.

Third . . . What I DID say is that someone being afraid that you might do something doesn't mean that you have ACTUALLY threatened them in any way. 

Fourth . . . I didn't say that I was looking for an in between solution.  I said that "they" are trying to that.  No . . . We really DON'T have 72 hour psych evals for someone who hasn't committed an overt act.  

So . . . What the hell are you talking about?

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

3 hours ago, EdF said:

First . . . I specifically said that I don't support red flag laws, so don't act like I DO . . . 

Sorry - I should have said "they"

3 hours ago, EdF said:

Second . . . I didn't say that owning a firearm was illegal OR that threatening to harm or kill someone isn't.

You said "being a danger isn't illegal". Make up your mind. Threatening to harm or kill is actually "being a danger". Someone's fear when a person hasn't done any of that is just an emotional response to something that didn't happen. Have you heard the jokes about a guy being blamed by his wife for what he did in her dream?

I mentioned owning a firearm not being illegal in contrast to your mistaken statement that "being a danger isn't illegal"

3 hours ago, EdF said:

Third . . . What I DID say is that someone being afraid that you might do something doesn't mean that you have ACTUALLY threatened them in any way. 

If someone is afraid of me for no reason it is their problem to deal with. I am not responsible for managing other people's irrational emotions.

3 hours ago, EdF said:

Fourth . . . I didn't say that I was looking for an in between solution.  I said that "they" are trying to that. 

Again, sorry I should have said they. I read your tone as being supportive of the need for some kind of in between solution. The thing is we don't need a solution which takes action against a 3rd party for irrational emotions. 

3 hours ago, EdF said:

No . . . We really DON'T have 72 hour psych evals for someone who hasn't committed an overt act.  

For someone that hasn't done anything, there should be no action taken at all. If someone HAS done something threatening then a psych eval is potentially a very good idea, no?

3 hours ago, EdF said:

So . . . What the hell are you talking about?

I think we have different ideas of what being a danger really means. You seem to believe that it includes claiming there is a danger when there is nothing at all to support the idea. If you had been the victim of a malicious complaint, had the police knocking on your door at 1:30AM to serve a search warrant to confiscate your lawfully owned property based on one sided allegations which you have had no chance hear, let alone to refute, when you have done nothing wrong, you might think a little different. 

[EdF 323]

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

You said "being a danger isn't illegal". Make up your mind.

Being a danger isn't illegal.  You and I are dangerous because we own weapons and know how to use them.  That's not a crime.  If my neighbor and I have a simple argument and he calls the police, the fact that I own guns makes me a danger, a risk, even if I don't threaten anybody.  That doesn't mean that I've committed any crime.

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

I mentioned owning a firearm not being illegal in contrast to your mistaken statement that "being a danger isn't illegal"

I wasn't mistaken.

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

If someone is afraid of me for no reason it is their problem to deal with.

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

If someone is afraid of me for no reason it is their problem to deal with.

Actually . . . Under red flag laws it IS your problem.  Which is the point that I've been trying to make.

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

For someone that hasn't done anything, there should be no action taken at all. If someone HAS done something threatening then a psych eval is potentially a very good idea, no?

If someone HAS done something the better move would be to take them into custody.  If the act is criminal, they can just be held in jail.  If the act indicates a psych issue, they can be taken to a hospital for observation.  The hospital doesn't really want someone who has only committed a criminal act.  They don't have enough beds or enough staff to just take handoffs from the police.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

4 minutes ago, EdF said:

Being a danger isn't illegal.  You and I are dangerous because we own weapons and know how to use them.  That's not a crime.  If my neighbor and I have a simple argument and he calls the police, the fact that I own guns makes me a danger, a risk, even if I don't threaten anybody.  That doesn't mean that I've committed any crime.

That is nonsense. If you consider yourself dangerous just because you possess an inanimate object you are just plain dangerous.

Your mindset is what makes you dangerous or not. The proximity of a firearm does not change that.

It is thinking like that which brings the ridiculous laws that we have already in NJ.

11 minutes ago, EdF said:

Actually . . . Under red flag laws it IS your problem.  Which is the point that I've been trying to make.

Are you sure you don't agree with red flag laws? You seem to advocate for them making other people's problems into my problems.

[EdF 323]

In none of these situations does what you consider yourself to be matter in the least.  These laws depend completely on what others think of you.

Explaining how shit works is FAR from advocacy.