Jump to content
45Doll

Trump Says: Take Guns First, Due Process Comes Second

Recommended Posts

There was an open meeting this afternoon. There were two aspects to it.

The first is that he favors seizing guns from people who are suspicious. Then let them apply to the court to see if they can get them back.

The second is that he suggested the NRA is who is suppressing necessary legislation, and he doesn't think they should stand in the way of his plans.

There are many other stories out there about this meeting if you care to check your news source of reference.

Please add relevant facts and civil comments, so we don't have to shove this to the 2A lounge.

At this point, I'm trying to remember the alternative I was offered was Hillary Clinton.

One additional account of the meeting, from Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirty nine times this guy had a run in with the law.  I would think the Chief of Police in his town should have told him after the 2nd or 3rd time that I am taking your firearms if I see you again.  This would have stopped this clown.  Let the local PD take the weapons if they have cause to.  I am in favor of acting on red flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds identical to the Red flag laws that some states already have. NJ is the same thing pending. While I understand the point, it seems to creat a fairly vertical slippery slope.  Easily conflicts with Due process and illegal search/seizure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

 Easily conflicts with Due process and illegal search/seizure. 

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^

25 minutes ago, Tunaman said:

 I am in favor of acting on red flags.

So if I have a crazy ex, and she calls the cops a bunch of times saying all sorts of nonsense, they respond and find no evidence to substantiate her crazy bullshit, I can still lose my rights for no reason at all? Are you insane? All she would have to do is call them repeatedly until she found a sympathetic (and/or stupid) cop just to ruin my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t police currently have the authority to pick someone up and take them for psychiatric evaluation if they believe the person is a threat to themselves or others? Why can they not just do that first? Then if the evaluation comes back they have a judge sign the papers to pull their firearms. Maybe instead of the current 72 hours increase it to 144 hours to try and do a more thorough evaluation and get the rest of the process done while the person is still in custody but it seems like they keep looking for worse ways to solve problems then they already have available. 

I will say they need to then have something to do with that person who is a threat but has mental issues. That is something that needs to be worked on.

-Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

This sounds identical to the Red flag laws that some states already have. NJ is the same thing pending. While I understand the point, it seems to creat a fairly vertical slippery slope.  Easily conflicts with Due process and illegal search/seizure. 

It's pretty disgusting to think that a call to the PD with false accusations from anyone around you can result in search/seizure.  I was hoping the hearing would at least touch on this, but nope, no one gave a shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of your rights should ever be taken away without a trial. What happens if you have an anti gun psychiatrist, who recommends seizure to an anti gun judge. He then signs off on taking your rights away without you having any say whatsoever?

If someone's constitutionally protected rights can be taken away that easily, then we should all be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gus said:

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^

So if I have a crazy ex, and she calls the cops a bunch of times saying all sorts of nonsense, they respond and find no evidence to substantiate her crazy bullshit, I can still lose my rights for no reason at all? Are you insane? All she would have to do is call them repeatedly until she found a sympathetic (and/or stupid) cop just to ruin my life.

Full disclosure, I disagree with the bill NJ is proposing as it is written. 

That being said, in your scenario she would go before a judge with her request. If the judge agrees then he issues a warrant and the cops serve it and take your firearms.  There would be a hearing within 14 days where you would be able to defend your side. THEN if the judge still agrees with your crazy wife would your life be ruined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatty said:

It's pretty disgusting to think that a call to the PD with false accusations from anyone around you can result in search/seizure.  I was hoping the hearing would at least touch on this, but nope, no one gave a shit.

Go read the bill. I think it’s bad, but could be improved to meet the need without overstepping.  I’m just not sure how. We are so expecting thuggery in the government I’m not sure what kind of check would be acceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, voyager9 said:

Full disclosure, I disagree with the bill NJ is proposing as it is written. 

That being said, in your scenario she would go before a judge with her request. If the judge agrees then he issues a warrant and the cops serve it and take your firearms.  There would be a hearing within 14 days where you would be able to defend your side. THEN if the judge still agrees with your crazy wife would your life be ruined. 

Explain to me why she would be able to plead her case to the judge, and I wouldn't even be notified until the cops are at my door with a warrant? Unbelievable!

Here's a scenario for you. I want to rob your house. I make false accusations to a judge. Without anyone notifying you, I convince the judge you are a danger. The cops come and take your guns. They tell you, tell it to the judge in 14 days. I come by the next night and rob you blind, because I know you can't defend yourself. I then disappear, because that is what criminals do.

No harm no foul right? Because in 14 days you will clear your name, but I'm already gone with your shit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gus said:

Explain to me why she would be able to plead her case to the judge, and I wouldn't even be notified until the cops are at my door with a warrant? Unbelievable!

Here's a scenario for you. I want to rob your house. I make false accusations to a judge. Without anyone notifying you, I convince the judge you are a danger. The cops come and take your guns. They tell you, tell it to the judge in 14 days. I come by the next night and rob you blind, because I know you can't defend yourself. I then disappear, because that is what criminals do.

No harm no foul right? Because in 14 days you will clear your name, but I'm already gone with your shit.

 

Devils advocate: if you are psycho and dangerous, And they notify you first and tell you thst your guns could be taken away in 14 days then you would just move up your plans.  

And your other scenario highlights my concerns. There is no check/balance or advocate for the accused involved in the initial warrant.  In theory you should not be able to convince a judge without signifificant evidence. In today’s liable world the judges knee-jerk reaction will be to sign off and work it out in 14 days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bill has to be Unconstitutional, but so far similar ones aren't. Current NJ law, and I've seen it happen twice, husband and wife are going through divorce and neither wants to leave the house. Wife gets mad enough at husband and wants him out. She calls the cops and says I don't feel safe and he has firearms. Cops remove husband and his firearms. Both guys win at restraining order hearing. Got back in the house. Divorce was finalized. One guy got house, the other the wife did. Firearms weren't returned til after divorce. One had broken stock Benelli shotgun returned and beat up Model 8 that didn't look that way when they took them. The other just had a 1911.


I've been told by local police that they hate turning over firearms in these situations to Middlesex County. They have told me they literally get thrown in a pile. My guess, this is how the Benelli ended up with a broken stock.


Now we are going to let anyone pull the same crap. They get mad at you just make something up. Lets say you get your firearms back in 14 days, but you have a large collection of WWI-WWII Firearms. Are they going to have a provision for care of the firearms? They don't now. What if an all matching German K98k or G43 is returned with a broken stock? Who is paying the $2-5k? What if it is a Sniper? Who is paying the $10k?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if the PERSON is demonstrably a threat, it is the person that should be taken into custody. Have a hearing, sort it out. Then, if the person is deemed a credible threat having heard defendant AND plaintiff, then move to sequester firearms.

If they had arrested Cruz on one of the many numerous complaints against him, he would have been denied purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Devils advocate: if you are psycho and dangerous, And they notify you first and tell you thst your guns could be taken away in 14 days then you would just move up your plans.  

And your other scenario highlights my concerns. There is no check/balance or advocate for the accused involved in the initial warrant.  In theory you should not be able to convince a judge without signifificant evidence. In today’s liable world the judges knee-jerk reaction will be to sign off and work it out in 14 days

So,  because psychos are going to do heinous things, and the police/sheriffs/fbi can't be bothered to do their jobs properly and investigate credible threats, I have to give up my due process?

Second, there is a reason every defendant has a chance to cross examine witnesses, and challenge evidence in criminal proceedings. Because if we left it up to prosecutors to only present their evidence, everyone would be found guilty. Why hire a defense lawyer at all. Why have a trial at all? Just get arrested and go straight to prison.

Come on man, is this really hard for you to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello your honor, my name is suzy. I have a video of  Voyager threatening to kill me with a gun.

Hello, your honor, my name is voyager. The problem with suzy's video is that the person doing the threatening is a 7'2" Asian man, with blond hair, and a lazy eye. As you can see your honor, I am a 5'3" bald white guy, missing an arm. Clearly I'm not the guy in the video. But for the sake of school safety, I am giving up my rights to due process, would like my testimony stricken from the record, and immediately have my rights violated. So please just go with what suzy said.

I'm obviously being sarcastic, but that is what all of this sounds like to me. I am sure Voyager is a good guy, but please stop giving this kind of b.s. legislation the time of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Take the Guns...and go to court later.”

I’m pretty sure that is a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Here’s the issue.  By way of Eric Holder and the DoE, schools chose to not suspend, expel or arrest students because they claimed minority students were disproportationately affected. So because of this policy being applied across the board with students, Cruz was left alone despite committing actual crimes.

So rather than follow the law and arresting these people, they want a new law that says specifically, guns can be consfiscated if there is suspicion that you may be a threat.  And this threat assessment can be based on any complaint by any person. And notice that while they say you can petition to get your guns back, there is no provision to charge the person making a false claim against you. At least not in this law.  I would bet btw, that in fact, in whatever they write will include that any person making such a claim, is granted blanket immunity against legal reprisal or prosecution for false statements.  It will be the new way to Swat gun owners.  Imagine if at Google, some leftist learns someone with right leaning views owns firearms.  What do you think will happen.

Tea Party member?  You’re an extremist with guns.

Belong to a gun owners advocacy group?  You’re an extremist with guns.

Mention to a fellow gun enthusiast at work that you’re going to pick up a couple of cases of ammo?  You’re building an arsenal and are a potential threat.

There are so many things wrong with this but the biggest issue with these things they are proposing is they are open ended tools to persecute gun owners without limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...