Gun Confiscation by AnthonyT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

You would most likely be dead, or arrested after a SWAT-style standoff. I can envision no situation where the feds were going to just back down, say "Oh, okay, no problem", and walk away.

At that point, to them, it didn't matter if they were right or wrong, or if you were. All that mattered to them was following orders and making you comply.

Either way, you'd be disarmed, and your family might be knee-deep in a very prolonged lawsuit trying to prove that YOU were in the right and the government was in the wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2009 4:13 PM

PIRATECAT

This has been discussed before AT, What I read the coast guard was doing it as well. Now my sister was in it and she carried a gun with her. She had been through storms before this was the one she didn't leave. But anyhoo it's hard to kill a snake. She gotta a job on the spot with FEMA. She went looking through houses and debris for dead bodies. She did find some families drowned together. Her house was the only one on the street that survived. We saw it on tv. I told my mother see what did I tell ya. You need protection from rape gangs to people taking your generators. Now what I heard was the Army sent in some special forces to handle the gangs. If you remember there were all kinds of gang activity for the first three days then on the news it just stopped. I think that is where the rumor of the south wall getting blown up was started. The NRA had good articles on this. Once again the goverment says next time this won't happen. My take is the state of Louisiana is very corrupt not to mention the Na Oleans Parish. When you have corruption you see what the mayor's office did and how the police reacted. They totally failed and could care less. Mayor Nagel would have got his head blown off by sis. The cops were raiding walmart for christ's sake. I would not turn over any of my protection. I would not worry about it in a crisis. Two other states that are crooked as dog's hine leg is New Mexico and West Virginia. There always poor and backwards.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2009 4:33 PM

Ya know, Anthony, if it ever comes down to it, I don't actually own a single gun. I bought a bunch of 'em, but I'm pretty darn sure I already sold all of those, and I don't remember to whom. Can't seem to find any records of the sales, either, but I'm sure I sold my very last gun about a week ago... I just haven't gotten around to selling all the ammo yet, but I will! Promise!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2009 4:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Does anyone in the civil liberties community have scenarios for this kind of thing?

They won't share em, not publicly, probably not privately.

I'm sure the reasons why are obvious.

That said - I wanna draw your attention to something else during Katrina, regarding the behavior of the powers that be and our so called protectors.

Did they try to shore up the levees, make any real effort to distribute supplies, rescue survivors, or anything like that - and I mean real effort, not the token efforts of tossing some MREs and water to folks who could make it to the distribution on their own ?

No.

In fact FEMA deliberately interfered with it in many ways, some of which can be listed here, and they were VERY aggressive in chasing off our little bass boats when they were trying to rescue some folk from an old folks home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurri
cane_Katrina

And of course the Danziger bridge incident.

And then there was Blackwater, which pulled some stuff I am unwilling to discuss cause no one has any solid PROOF, alas - damned efficient scumbags that they are.

Reason I mention this, is cause the very clear pattern of behavior of the powers that be and our so called protectors indicates their priorities.

They couldn't be bothered to perform actual rescue and relief operations, but damn sure they could bother to send in the 101st motherfuckin airborne (who lost ALL my respect that day) and every cop they could find, some who volunteered from many states away, to go do something like this, which they did quite cheerfully despite all the bullshit lip-service from Cops and Military folk about how they'd never do such a thing.

Also bear in mind most of those folk NEVER got them back, just like any member of the elite, when the rules become inconvenient, they ignore them - and they ignored the contempt citations just like the USDOJ has been ignoring those subpeanos - the "rules" only apply to us peons, you see.

And I can also tell you, by eyewitness account, they weren't knocking on every door, no way, that would have been impossible, wouldn't it ?
They had a LIST, people.
Care to guess where and how they got it ?

And consider that you're asking the very same question the Jewish community asked themselves in 1938, and coming up with the same answer - they WILL send *enough* troops to make SURE resistance will be fatal, cause they have a little list, you see, and if you have enough to be maybe more of a threat than the average joe, they'll bring a tac team and maybe some military to help them bring to heel your suspected terrorist ass.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

That's one reason I side with the JFPO instead of the NRA, and I will sum it up for you in a single quote.

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur – what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
—The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fact is, though - you have ZERO chance of effectively resisting the forces of the powers that be on the field of open battle.

So perhaps the best answer to that...

Is not to meet them there.

They're NOT your friends, protectors or servants.
Never think it, never for a moment assume it, never for an instant forget it.

The fact that even discussing this openly is damn near criminal ought to clue you in as to why folks generally will not do so - in the end YOU must decide what YOU wanna do.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2009 4:55 PM

Quote:

The Guns of Brixton

When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting in death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, Guns of Brixton

The money feels good
And your life you like it well
But surely your time will come
As in heaven, as in hell

You see, he feels like Ivan
BORN under the Brixton sun
His game is called survivin'
At the end of the harder they come

You know it means no mercy
They caught him with a gun
No need for the Black Maria
Goodbye to the Brixton sun

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh-the guns of Brixton

When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

You can crush us
You can bruise us
And even shoot us
But oh- the guns of Brixton

Shot down on the pavement
Waiting in death row
His game was survivin'
As in heaven as in hell

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
Oh, the guns of Brixton
Oh, the guns of Brixton
Oh, the guns of Brixton
Oh, the guns of Brixton

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 3, 2009 5:15 PM

PIRATECAT

Yeh everybody agrees. About time.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What If the government came to confiscate your arms, and you did not comply?

Would you be correct to refuse to comply?

Depends on the circumstances.

For example...are you a convicted felon? Did you just smack your wife? Are you mentally unstable? Did you use the gun to commit a crime? Do they have a warrant? Did your son just shoot up his school?

There are lots of good reasons for the govt to take your guns. Domestic Violence is the one I run into most often. In those cases, we take the guns pending the outcome of the case. If I win, the guns are mostly destroyed. If its a really nice gun, we'll forfeit it to the Police...and on RARE occaisons I'll let the gun get transferred to another party, like a relative for a family heirloom.

One situation I'm dealing with now is an attempted suicide. Guy tries to kill himself (not using a gun), when they take him to the hospital we find out he has guns and we take them for safekeeping, which we can do under these circumstances. No charges filed. Now six months later he wants his guns back. I have no legal reason to keep them, but I'm refusing to give them back (I have a problem giving guns to folks who try to commit suicide, I'm funny that way).

Does that mean he can't get them? No. He can go to court and get an order, which he'll probably do. That's fine. If the courts give him his guns back and nothing ever happens...good for him. If he gets them back and hurts himself or someone else...well I did all I could, its on the court.

I note for the record that guns produced before a particular year are not legally firearms under Federal law. So if you want to John Wayne it with your authentic Winchester Model 92 Carbine... http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/features/detail.asp?id=139

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:
Now six months later he wants his guns back. I have no legal reason to keep them, but I'm refusing to give them back (I have a problem giving guns to folks who try to commit suicide, I'm funny that way).

Somehow I find this ethically questionable on your part.

How long does the guy have to wait before YOU condescendingly allow him a right to his property based on your personal, non-professional opinion of his mental state? It's incredibly arrogant. Besides, if he wants to kill himself, he doesn't need the guns. He obviously didn't want to use them the first time around.

This seems less like concern and more like punishment to me, that you are imposing through an abuse of power - if you have no legal reason to keep the gun, withholding it is theft. Feels like it, anyways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Somehow I find this ethically questionable on your part.

I can live with that. We took the guns for safekeeping, which is legally fine.

I'm not giving them back unless someone tells me I have to.

Quote:

How long does the guy have to wait before YOU condescendingly allow him a right to his property based on your personal, non-professional opinion of his mental state?

It is a professional opinion. It relates not to his mental state but to my responsibility to the community. We took the guns because he was a danger to himself and others.

Just because he shows up a few months later "all better now" I'm not just going to go "ok, take all these guns back". That would be irresponsible.

By making him go to court and have a hearing he will have to show that the condition which allowed us to initially take the guns is no longer afflicting him. In other words...he'll need a note from his doctor (or just the doctor to testify) saying its ok. I think this is a reasonable solution.

Quote:

Besides, if he wants to kill himself, he doesn't need the guns. He obviously didn't want to use them the first time around.

I note for the record that killing yourself is illegal. Attempting to kill yourself...also illegal.

Your casually tossing around serious mental illness and your advocating the idea that mental stability is NOT required for gun ownership. I think that's crazy.

I'd never advocate a mental test for gun ownership...but if in our travels we happen to come across a fella who is demonstably crazy...I think its a pretty good idea to take his gun away and then require some kind of hearing on his crazyness before we give it back.

Quote:

This seems less like concern and more like punishment to me, that you are imposing through an abuse of power - if you have no legal reason to keep the gun, withholding it is theft. Feels like it, anyways.

Its the same reason why we don't let blind folks drive cars.

I'm a big pro gun guy. I think everybody should own a gun and learn how to safely use and care for it. I think they should teach gun safety in schools. I have no problem with semi-automatic assault weapons. I like concealed carry laws.

I draw the line with giving guns to felons and crazy people. Its not an unreasonable position.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Somehow I find this ethically questionable on your part.

I can live with that. We took the guns for safekeeping, which is legally fine.

I'm not giving them back unless someone tells me I have to.
Quote:

How long does the guy have to wait before YOU condescendingly allow him a right to his property based on your personal, non-professional opinion of his mental state?

It is a professional opinion. It relates not to his mental state but to my responsibility to the community. We took the guns because he was a danger to himself and others.

Just because he shows up a few months later "all better now" I'm not just going to go "ok, take all these guns back". That would be irresponsible.

By making him go to court and have a hearing he will have to show that the condition which allowed us to initially take the guns is no longer afflicting him. In other words...he'll need a note from his doctor (or just the doctor to testify) saying its ok. I think this is a reasonable solution.
Quote:

Besides, if he wants to kill himself, he doesn't need the guns. He obviously didn't want to use them the first time around.

I note for the record that killing yourself is illegal. Attempting to kill yourself...also illegal.

Your casually tossing around serious mental illness and your advocating the idea that mental stability is NOT required for gun ownership. I think that's crazy.

I'd never advocate a mental test for gun ownership...but if in our travels we happen to come across a fella who is demonstably crazy...I think its a pretty good idea to take his gun away and then require some kind of hearing on his crazyness before we give it back.
Quote:

This seems less like concern and more like punishment to me, that you are imposing through an abuse of power - if you have no legal reason to keep the gun, withholding it is theft. Feels like it, anyways.

Its the same reason why we don't let blind folks drive cars.

I'm a big pro gun guy. I think everybody should own a gun and learn how to safely use and care for it. I think they should teach gun safety in schools. I have no problem with semi-automatic assault weapons. I like concealed carry laws.

I draw the line with giving guns to felons and crazy people. Its not an unreasonable position.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Was this person legally declared to be bugnuts (I can't recall the exact legalese)?

If not, why would he be required to get a court order to have his property released back into his possession? How exactly were these guns taken "for safekeeping"?

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what the legal process (assuming there was one) was.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

How long does the guy have to wait before YOU condescendingly allow him a right to his property based on your personal, non-professional opinion of his mental state?

It is a professional opinion. It relates not to his mental state but to my responsibility to the community. We took the guns because he was a danger to himself and others.

To others, how?

Quote:

By making him go to court and have a hearing he will have to show that the condition which allowed us to initially take the guns is no longer afflicting him. In other words...he'll need a note from his doctor (or just the doctor to testify) saying its ok. I think this is a reasonable solution.

So why not just ask him to show YOU the doctor's note, instead of making him go to court?

Quote:

Quote:

Besides, if he wants to kill himself, he doesn't need the guns. He obviously didn't want to use them the first time around.

I note for the record that killing yourself is illegal. Attempting to kill yourself...also illegal.

Oh. Now that's just a plain stupid law.

Quote:

Your casually tossing around serious mental illness and your advocating the idea that mental stability is NOT required for gun ownership. I think that's crazy.

Never said such a thing. I just argue that your choice to withhold his property is questionable since it doesn't really have a legal basis and is entirely you imposing your personal judgment.

Quote:

I'd never advocate a mental test for gun ownership...but if in our travels we happen to come across a fella who is demonstably crazy...I think its a pretty good idea to take his gun away and then require some kind of hearing on his crazyness before we give it back.

So why a hearing and not just a doctor's note? Why that particular hassle?

Quote:

Quote:

This seems less like concern and more like punishment to me, that you are imposing through an abuse of power - if you have no legal reason to keep the gun, withholding it is theft. Feels like it, anyways.

Its the same reason why we don't let blind folks drive cars.

Blind folk driving endager other people knowingly and willingly.

This is more like witholding driving rights from a person who once happened to be blind. Would you make that person go to court and through a hearing?

Quote:

I draw the line with giving guns to felons and crazy people. Its not an unreasonable position.

So why NOT a mental health tests before selling guns? Apparently, it would be a lot easier for the guy to just go and buy a new gun instead of going through the hassle of court, so this ultimately amounts to a loss of money, not a loss of a gun, which is more like a fine for having owned a gun while suicidal than it does in any way keep guns out of a "crazy person's" hands.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 4:53 AM

This is an interesting scenario. Is this pre-crime profiling, or is this a public safety precaution?

I understand your reasoning behind this, Hero, but I have to agree with AR, I'm not really sure about your methods. I think you have good intentions here, but you haven't yet given us the smoking gun, so to speak, to show that how you dealt with this situation was warranted.

I think you may be justifying this confiscation to yourself USING public safety as the reason, and you may want to ask yourself why. Whenever I realize I'm justifying my actions to myself, that usually means they bear more careful scrutiny, because it means I could be jumping to conclusions, making assumptions, or even acting against my own sense of principles because of preconceptions or pressure to behave a certain way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 5:39 AM

Hero, under the recent study released by the Department of Homeland Security, don't YOU qualify as a "right-wing extremist"? Therefore, wouldn't YOU be one of those people who puts other at risk by having firearms? How would you like it if Obama sent his fed-goons to take YOUR weapons, under the rubric that "it's for your own good"?

And sure, you can have 'em back, just as soon as you can prove to their satisfaction that you're no longer a threat. I mean, they don't really have any LEGAL basis for doing this, but they really do think it's in your best interests, and if you really want to go to court, you can, if you can afford it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 6:09 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

During Katrina, instead of helping people, the very first thing they did was disarm them. Then put them in the Terror Dome.

Lessons people, lessons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 6:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Hero,

Thank you for your response. The scenarios you mentioned are very understandable. I'm sure we can all relate to them even if we disagree on particulars.

I would love to hear your take on the specific scenarios that inspired me to ask the question: The confiscation of arms from law abiding citizenry.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
Was this person legally declared to be bugnuts (I can't recall the exact legalese)?

If someone tries to commit suicide then they get involuntarily committed for a period of time (at least 72 hours).

Quote:

If not, why would he be required to get a court order to have his property released back into his possession? How exactly were these guns taken "for safekeeping"?

There are several ways. Most often the someone responsible for the person turns it over to us...wife, parents, etc. If not we can get a court order, or get the doctor to sign. Or we take it as evidence. Its all by statute.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:18 AM

So, how does it work that attempted suicide is a crime? Are you charged with one? What kind of sentence does a person receive if convicted?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Death ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To others, how?

People who try to commit suicide are crazy...crazy people can be dangerous to other people, even if they are merely trying to kill themselves. Suicide by cop for example.

Quote:

So why not just ask him to show YOU the doctor's note, instead of making him go to court?

A note to me means nothing. The issue is not the person...its the Doctor. Is he willing to write some meaningless note or to put his reputation on the line by putting this note "on the record"? Is it a real note? Is the doctor a real person with real credentials? Courts are good places to ask questions of folks under oath and on a record.

Quote:

I note for the record that killing yourself is illegal. Attempting to kill yourself...also illegal.

Oh. Now that's just a plain stupid law.

Homicide. If you try to kill someone its attempted murder.

Quote:

Never said such a thing. I just argue that your choice to withhold his property is questionable since it doesn't really have a legal basis and is entirely you imposing your personal judgment.

I'm a Prosecutor, not a Judge or neutral magistrate. I get paid to make personal judgements about things and to take society's side in issues like this.

Quote:

So why a hearing and not just a doctor's note? Why that particular hassle?

Part of it is because I want to see if the person can handle the hassle...its a good test of a person's ability to function.

If its not a crazy person...lets say we take a gun used to shoot someone in self-defense, I'll release that gun back to the person without anything more then they sign the form saying its their gun.

Dealing with a crazy person I just think reasonable prudence should require a more detailed examination of the facts. If the Court says 'give em back' thats fine...but I want the hearing first, just to be on the safe side.

Quote:

Blind folk driving endager other people knowingly and willingly.

This is more like witholding driving rights from a person who once happened to be blind. Would you make that person go to court and through a hearing?

A person with your example would be required to submit their medical information to the state AND take an eye test. My office lacks a "crazy" test. Courts have those resources (and the ability to order things like tests).

Quote:

So why NOT a mental health tests before selling guns? Apparently, it would be a lot easier for the guy to just go and buy a new gun instead of going through the hassle of court...

Not my department. If I have these guns I deal with these guns. Leave those guns to the person who deals with them.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What kind of sentence does a person receive if convicted?

Life.

And I would not charge the person unless they dramatically endangered others or caused severe hardship on the community...and even then there are other charges that would fit.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:22 AM

So an involuntary committal: is that the same as being adjudicated mentally defective? 'Cause if not, they're still legal to buy a gun, and, one would hope, have the gun they already own returned to them.

Quote:
There are several ways. Most often the someone responsible for the person turns it over to us...wife, parents, etc. If not we can get a court order, or get the doctor to sign. Or we take it as evidence. Its all by statute.

Im assuming, then, that you are a law enforcement officer, correct?

Edit: Sorry, didn't see your post saying you were a prosecutor.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:26 AM

Wait, wait wait wait wait. Life as in prison?

And would this go on a criminal record, or a medical record?

And what if the endangerment was unintentional?

You're making some good points here, all of them very practical, but something about all this still has me uneasy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I would love to hear your take on the specific scenarios that inspired me to ask the question: The confiscation of arms from law abiding citizenry.

Taking guns from law abiding citizens without cause and assuming they are obeying all the relevant laws (like not carrying them without a permit).

I can't imagine any justification. Person has a right to defend themself and to own a gun. Can't lose those rights without good cause...felon, crazy, etc. I can see saying "put that gun away" or "no carrying guns in the shelter". Not "give me that gun". Makes little sense and is Constitutionally questionable.

Guess my response would depend on what the circumstances are. If I'll have ready access to legal redress I'll comply. If law and order is breaking down ala the film classic 'Panic in Year Zero'...I'd probably resist.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
So an involuntary committal: is that the same as being adjudicated mentally defective?

Not always. There are different ways to get committed. Probate Courts handle that, so I'm not sure the process, I only deal with the end result (too crazy for trial).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:34 AM

So Suicide Poser Boy was in the "too crazy for trial" pile, I take it?

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
So Suicide Poser Boy was in the "too crazy for trial" pile, I take it?

Actually...I have a "no harm, no foul" pile.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:14 AM

But he can't have his gun back.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just to get back to this:

"they WILL send *enough* troops to make SURE resistance will be fatal"

Which is why I don't see guns as the safeguard of liberty.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:49 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 11:15 AM

I'd prefer to do neither.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 12:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Which is why I don't see guns as the safeguard of liberty.

That's cause they're *A* safeguard, not *THE* safeguard.

Some folk don't understand that.

Quote:
I'd prefer to do neither.

From: The Road to Damascus, by John Ringo
(Which you STILL need to bother reading, Wulfie.)

"You want my best guess? You'll be in custody before dawn. And I seriously doubt you'll live long enough to come to trial. The only choice you have is the one I've already made for myself. Disappear into the darkness. Then make them fear the shadows."

It's plain, flat out idiotic to go toe to toe with folks who outgun you, look at the OpFors over in the middle east which happen to be doing a damned good job of tying down and completely sandbagging our armed forces despite being completely outgunned, severely outnumbered and at a huge technical and equipment disadvantage - they're not going toe to toe with us, they're dancing rings around us, cause they know how to do it, been doin it for a couple hundred years, and our idiot generals are still thinking WWI human wave glory charges and epic gotterdammerung pitched field battles from WWII, with an army trained to civil war musket line tactics - against locals who are downright experts at 4GW and do a bitterly effective job of it on us.

And that doesn't even begin to address what would happen to the poor bastards having to face opponents capable of utterly paralysing them by removing their technological and C3 advantages while engaging in brutally effective PsyOps targeted at shattering their already shaky morale.

Why FIGHT them at all, when you can have em on YOUR side singin kumbiyah while carrying their former COs head on their guidon pike ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 5:31 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

...There are lots of good reasons for the govt to take your guns. Domestic Violence is the one I run into most often. In those cases, we take the guns pending the outcome of the case. If I win, the guns are mostly destroyed.

...Does that mean he can't get them? No. He can go to court and get an order, which he'll probably do. That's fine. If the courts give him his guns back and nothing ever happens...good for him.

Actually , there's just One Reason : Tyranny .

There's no part of the 2nd Amendment that describes a circumstance under which " the Gov't " is eligible to take away anyone's firearms . Rather , it says " The Right Of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED , period .

"...Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own ' conscience ' ." --C.S. Lewis

Now , we've got the robber-barons , too .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
But he can't have his gun back.

Sure he can...with a court order.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
There's no part of the 2nd Amendment that describes a circumstance under which " the Gov't " is eligible to take away anyone's firearms . Rather , it says " The Right Of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED , period .

I agree. But you forgot to quote the rest of the Constitution and whatever the 2nd Amendment states is not relevant because I don't work for the Federal Govt, I work for a City incorporated under the laws and Constitution of Ohio.

If Federal Marshalls had taken these guns it would be a different story.

I note for the record that you can't yell fire in a movie theater...despite the 1st Amendment. I can infringe on any right you've got so long as I have a compelling govt interest, my infringement is narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and is not overly intrusive. So you can't have a gun if you are convicted of Domestic Violence. A protection order can limit your speech, travel, etc under similar circumstances. You have a right to a hearing. Same as this case, I took the guns for safekeeping, he has the right to a hearing if he wants them back.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
But he can't have his gun back.

Sure he can...with a court order.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

You stil haven't replied to me, so I'll ask again here. Why the hassle of going to court? Why not just show you the doctor's note?

ETA: Ah, crap, now I see you did reply. Sorry, my mistake. I'll get back to your reply.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 9:52 AM

The response I saw Hero give was that it's a good test of how stable the person is, and that he can shuffle the person in question over to people who have the authority to minister a psychiatric evaluation (the courts) to determine whether the person is still fit to have a license to carry.

I'm not sure what I think of that, because it's still the person's possessions and they still have rights even if they make a mistake or lose it for a while, but I understand the reasoning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
But he can't have his gun back.

Sure he can...with a court order.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

So, in this case, Joebob McWannadie gun's was taken from him by court order. And he has not yet gotten a court order for you to release said boomstick back to him. Right?

And you'll have to explain a bit more why, in your town in Ohio, the 2nd amendment is not relevant. I'm kinda fuzzy on that one.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To others, how?

People who try to commit suicide are crazy...crazy people can be dangerous to other people, even if they are merely trying to kill themselves. Suicide by cop for example.

How did the guy in question try to kill himself? DID he endanger other people? I don't think you can lump it all into one big pot.

Quote:

Quote:

So why not just ask him to show YOU the doctor's note, instead of making him go to court?

A note to me means nothing. The issue is not the person...its the Doctor. Is he willing to write some meaningless note or to put his reputation on the line by putting this note "on the record"? Is it a real note? Is the doctor a real person with real credentials? Courts are good places to ask questions of folks under oath and on a record.

So it's verification you're worried about.

May I ask how much it costs to get a court order? What happens if the person never claims their property, what do you do with it, after how much time? Could you ever get into any trouble for withholding someone's property?

Quote:

Homicide. If you try to kill someone its attempted murder.

That's still profoundly stupid. Seems more like int he spirit of slavery. If your own body isn't yours to kill, whose is it?

Quote:

Quote:

So why a hearing and not just a doctor's note? Why that particular hassle?

Part of it is because I want to see if the person can handle the hassle...its a good test of a person's ability to function.

I don't know. Unless the psychiatric evaluation is extremely thorough and long-term, it seems more like a formality any non-hysterical person could fake their way through easily. Seems more like a question of money and time than actual lack of suicial impulses.

Quote:

Quote:

So why NOT a mental health tests before selling guns? Apparently, it would be a lot easier for the guy to just go and buy a new gun instead of going through the hassle of court...

Not my department. If I have these guns I deal with these guns. Leave those guns to the person who deals with them.

But you said you are opposed to mental tests for people who buy guns, which is why I brought it up. Seems like aninconsistent view on your part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AG05:
And you'll have to explain a bit more why, in your town in Ohio, the 2nd amendment is not relevant. I'm kinda fuzzy on that one.

They never taught you Civic in school?

We have a Federal Government AND States and (not capitalized) local govts. The Federal Govt is bound by the US Constitution and cannot take your guns away (without due process). State Governments are entirely seperate entities. They are bound by their own individual Constitutions. That means Federal agents can't just show up at your door and take your gun away for no reason. Its also why the President can't pardon you for a State crime.

The Legislature of Ohio pursuant to its State Constitutional authority then established various levels of local government, Counties, Cities, etc.

In Ohio the right to bear arms is "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;", simple, I like it.

So he has the right to bear arms. Arms are property. Per the Ohio Constitution: "Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare. When taken in time of war or other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate seizure..." Courts have held this means taking guns for "safekeeping" is ok under various circumstances including when the owner is crazy and 'dangerous to himself and/or others' (which is a legal standard.

Its then his responsibility to show those conditions no longer exist. In many cases this can be done simply, for example your house is burglarized while your on vacation, we take the guns we recover for safekeeping. Go to the station and show their yours and we'll give them right too you (unless we need them for evidence and in which case we'll get them back to you as soon as possible).

However, I require a higher standard for crazy folks and some types of criminals before I give them guns...call me crazy but I don't like just handing out guns to crazy people.

That does not end the issue because of due process, he can petition the courts for an order. He gets a hearing, he can show his proof, a more detailed examination on the facts can then be conducted, I can present my own evidence if I choose to contest the issue. If he gets his order I'll comply. Simple as that (unless I appeal, which I wont unless its really important because appeals cost money and my City hates to spend money).

This is entirely a state proceeding. The Federal Govt can't get involved...unless and until the Supreme Court says they can. Thus far they've declined to do more then declare specific laws unconstitutional WITHOUT fully incorporating the 2nd Amendment. You probably don't know what that means but incorporation is what allows the Federal Govt to make States read you Miranda rights or give you a lawyer and let black folks go to school with white folks. Its the 14th Amendment process that applied most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the States.

Watch out for the State sending the National Guard to live in your house. Your 3rd Amendment protections don't apply to State troops either (unless your guard has been Federalized).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
How did the guy in question try to kill himself? DID he endanger other people? I don't think you can lump it all into one big pot.

I can lump it into one pot. Its a legal pot made of the legal standard 'danger to himself and/or others'. That's the standard the Courts want me to use.

And its not unreasonable to expect a fella trying to off himself might accidently hurt someone else...they're not in their right mind.

For example, that bridge in Akron...really high and folks like to jump off it every now and then. They don't really consider that far far below are houses, streets, cars, kids, etc. Had a fella jump and hit a house...ended up in the basement dead, house owner...not home. Somehow I doubt the dead fella checked first or even bothered to shout "look out below!"

Quote:

May I ask how much it costs to get a court order? What happens if the person never claims their property, what do you do with it, after how much time? Could you ever get into any trouble for withholding someone's property?

Cost varies by Court in Ohio, but its not prohibitavely expensive. Most often the Court would have the City would pay the costs if we lose.

Quote:

If your own body isn't yours to kill, whose is it?

It belongs to you...just like your car belongs to you. Can't drive your car on the sidewalk...in other words just because its yours you can't do whatever you want...public interest has a role.

To cite the Ohio Constitution:
"Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare."

In other words you can't sell your extra kidney.

Quote:

But you said you are opposed to mental tests for people who buy guns, which is why I brought it up. Seems like aninconsistent view on your part.

A mental test requires an otherwise ordinary citizen to prove their mental capacity. I think this is an unreasonable expectation.

In comparison I'm asking a person with a demonstrated mental defect to prove they're no longer incapacitated. To me...that's reasonable.

Its a don't put the cart before the horse position.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 4:44 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare."

In other words you can't sell your extra kidney. "

Hello,

This could as easily be read to say that you MUST sell your extra kidney. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 6, 2009 6:55 AM