Laugh Out Loud Laugh Out Loud:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: NRA and Trump support California style confiscation.

  1. #1
    Senior Member nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    348 Post(s)

    NRA and Trump support California style confiscation.

    This isn't good... Betrayal is not sitting well with me.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...cation-orders/
    Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. my personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct; but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,202
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    413 Post(s)
    At this point Trump or the NRA betraying it's members and both fine with more gutting of the 2A surprises us why?
    Nra and Trump are all for fix NICS also.

    Nothing out of either suprizes me at this point.
    Odd how most folks who say they support the Constitution as written ,,,,,,,,,,,,really don't.

  3. #3
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,216
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1145 Post(s)
    In this case, I think the term "betrayal" is a bit strong.

    Due Process. The one legitimate method, short of the Amendments process, that may constitutionally be used to place limits on a person. I'm much more comfortable with a conviction for charges made in open court, before a jury. But I'm not completely against formal adjudication by an equally independent court for reasons of "extreme" threat. Where it's clear, obvious, manifest and imminent.

    Normally, such due process will take the form of something like charges related to revelations that are found out regarding a person's affiliations (ie, he/she was the driver in a recent robbery, where the other cohorts "ratted" on him). In which case, legal charges are made and a warrant is issued. That's for an actual crime having been committed.

    In the case of crimes that don't quite rise to the same level, particularly in cases where it's a threat instead of an outright crime yet (ie, a string of "contacts" for violence, reports of passing statements of threat made, etc), it's this bench warrant process based on adjudication as a "threat."

    I think we need to be extremely cautious. But so long as it's due process, where the independent judiciary is part of the process, where it depends ultimately on a warrant being issued, and where that independence and transparency helps guard against abuse, it's little different than the other form of due process we typically see in crimes committed.

    Just so long as it's never allowed that a secret psych report and secret claims/accusations makes it to a bench warrant where a person's liberties get limited based on that.

    Due Process. It's what most have been howling about, that we keep such strippage limited to independent due process independently being done upon a person for cause. So long as any limitations accrue upon an individual for cause, via such due process, through the warrants process, where's the infraction?

    I don't like the path much. But then, there aren't a lot of choices but awaiting outright crimes. If that's the path we take, along with the formal indictment/warrants process, so be it. But this is about the only other option I can see that leverages the formal, independent legal process that's short of the Amendments process.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  4. #4
    Senior Member SOS24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,550
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    270 Post(s)

    NRA and Trump support California style confiscation.

    This is one area that I have mentally struggled with.

    I have seen situations where someone or a group of people may have information that clearly demonstrates a person is a danger to others or them-self, yet LE or mental health professional are not taking action. Having a process that allows that information to be presented to a court would have value and allow for due process.

    My big concern is in the execution to ensure the process is not abused and just an avenue for someone to make an unfounded accusations that then strips someone of their rights. A process like this could easily be too subjective and at risk of liberal anti-gun judges defaulting to granting the order rather than requiring definitive proof.

    There needs to be very clear requirements in what the standard of proof is and is not. The accused” needs to be notified and have an opportunity to hear what is being said and refute. There has to be set requirements on who oversees so that “judge shopping” cannot occur, and there needs to be a set time where the order expires and the person’s rights are automatically restored with any guns being returned unless new/recent proof is presented.
    "It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory." Gen George S. Patton

  5. #5
    Senior Member jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    @ccw9mm: I say respectfully you are on a slippery slope with your post. As with any law, the devil is in the details. I have read California's law and it has some details that are concerning. And you know that with the CA legal system, "if you give an inch, they will take a mile."

    Some features of the law:

    • Any law enforcement officer or close family member can petition a court for a confiscation order, without you knowing about it. It doesn't even have to be a written petition, it can be oral. That can result in an order to confiscate all your guns and ammo for 21 days with you having no due process.
    • You don't have to have actually done anything wrong to get one of these orders against you. It is just someone's opinion that you are a danger.
    • There is a list of things the court may consider in determining you are an extreme risk. Most of the list is "common sense," such as threatening violence, a history of violence, etc., but nestled at the end of the list is "recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition." "Recent" is defined as six months. So if you have bought a box of ammo in the last six months, technically the court could issue the order.
    • Of course this confiscation would be a de facto search and allow LE to determine if you have any illegal stuff. So if there is a subsequent ban on hi-cap magazines and this confiscation finds one, you're busted.
    • The penalty for a close family member making a false report is only a misdemeanor. And that would be hard to prove. I doubt "exaggerating" would be considered a false report.
    • You can get due process after your guns are confiscated. But you would have to either represent yourself or hire your own attorney. If the confiscation order is upheld, the order can last up to a year and it is renewable after that.
    • There is no requirement in the law that a psychology professional be consulted in any of this. I attended a panel discussion where a CA-type law was being proposed for VA and the psychologist on the panel said that the consensus of the psychology community is they are for these laws, but they feel it is unethical for psychologists to have a role in the procedure. Their rationale is that it will inhibit people from seeking treatment. I thought that was a cop-out, but there it is. So you would be evaluated strictly by your accusers and the court, making a amatuer prediction that you are a danger.


    In addition, do you think the above could be abused? I can think of two likely scenarios:
    • An ex, a petulant teenage child, a relative who just hates guns, or hates you, just decides to do this to stick it to you.
    • LE wants to search your place but doesn't have probably cause. They can use this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    1,546
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    285 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    @ccw9mm: I say respectfully you are on a slippery slope with your post. As with any law, the devil is in the details. I have read California's law and it has some details that are concerning. And you know that with the CA legal system, "if you give an inch, they will take a mile."

    Some features of the law:

    • Any law enforcement officer or close family member can petition a court for a confiscation order, without you knowing about it. It doesn't even have to be a written petition, it can be oral. That can result in an order to confiscate all your guns and ammo for 21 days with you having no due process.
    • You don't have to have actually done anything wrong to get one of these orders against you. It is just someone's opinion that you are a danger.
    • There is a list of things the court may consider in determining you are an extreme risk. Most of the list is "common sense," such as threatening violence, a history of violence, etc., but nestled at the end of the list is "recent acquisition of firearms or ammunition." "Recent" is defined as six months. So if you have bought a box of ammo in the last six months, technically the court could issue the order.
    • Of course this confiscation would be a de facto search and allow LE to determine if you have any illegal stuff. So if there is a subsequent ban on hi-cap magazines and this confiscation finds one, you're busted.
    • The penalty for a close family member making a false report is only a misdemeanor. And that would be hard to prove. I doubt "exaggerating" would be considered a false report.
    • You can get due process after your guns are confiscated. But you would have to either represent yourself or hire your own attorney. If the confiscation order is upheld, the order can last up to a year and it is renewable after that.
    • There is no requirement in the law that a psychology professional be consulted in any of this. I attended a panel discussion where a CA-type law was being proposed for VA and the psychologist on the panel said that the consensus of the psychology community is they are for these laws, but they feel it is unethical for psychologists to have a role in the procedure. Their rationale is that it will inhibit people from seeking treatment. I thought that was a cop-out, but there it is. So you would be evaluated strictly by your accusers and the court, making a amatuer prediction that you are a danger.


    In addition, do you think the above could be abused? I can think of two likely scenarios:
    • An ex, a petulant teenage child, a relative who just hates guns, or hates you, just decides to do this to stick it to you.
    • LE wants to search your place but doesn't have probably cause. They can use this.
    I agree this is total BS.
    If the law enforcement in Florida had done their job or at at least piddled at it, this shooting would never have happened.
    I mean 39 or more calls out to the perps house, you got to be kidding!
    Now they are say an anonymous call will get the hounds sicced on you.
    The libs are gonna love this one.

    If the NRA is indeed supporting this, They will never get another dime from me.

  7. #7
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,216
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1145 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    @ccw9mm: I say respectfully you are on a slippery slope with your post. As with any law, the devil is in the details.
    IMO, it's only a slippery slope IF it sidesteps legitimate due process, legitimate and public use of the independent judiciary, and the BOR prohibition. So long as the standard, Constitutionally appropriate warrants and courts process is used, I don't see how it can be claimed to be outright unconstitutional.

    That said, you're correct. Any plan to go after a protected liberty (indeed, any liberty) is highly suspect until the details are specified and known. I suspect the little buggers to attempt an end-around. Absolutely. And that must be shot down, if that attempt is made.

    But so long as it's the warrants process, so long as that's backed up by sworn oath or affirmation, and so long as that's part of the public courts process, it ought to pass constitutional muster. That's all I'm saying.

    Am not a proponent of slopes, slippery or otherwise.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; March 13th, 2018 at 06:20 AM. Reason: spelling, grammar
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  8. #8
    Senior Member Hammer1270's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    1313 Mokingbird Lane
    Posts
    6,189
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    709 Post(s)
    Brick by brick,, piece by piece all rights are being stripped,,, nothing but a pretty label on a bottle of poison....
    Nonsensical Gibberish Talkin Clown,,, Das Me,,,, hehehehe.....

  9. #9
    Senior Member nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    348 Post(s)

    This is NOT due process. Seems it's OK to strip ones rights before the even know what they are being accused of. Who their accuser is? Due process does can NOT exist in the absence of a suspected crime "committed".. basically in a vacuum SMH

    In this case simply a crime they "might" have the potential to commit in the future.. There is not a human alive that lacks such potential. Innocent until "proven" guilty. Where exactly does " due process" fit in, in the absence of a crime, a victim, damages...??? Yes we have as a society accepted this mindset as somehow constitutional, but it is not.

    Our founders were extremely clear in the recognition of the rights of the accused. Although virtually completely accepted that be totally ignored today. All of it!!!

    Hey Johnny law my future X wife has posted many times on social media that no one will take her guns. I have screenshots. Since you are the only segment of society sanctioned to commit violence, could you please secure her guns? But be careful because as you can see in these screenshots she is armed and therefore dangerous. Hey on a side note, can you have CPS bring me the kids, while you are at it?

    More than a slippery slope, a mortal abyss!!!! In a society and system where "guns" have already been redifined as synonymous with threat, terror, danger, and anything but an inherent birth right!!!

    Trump's, the NRAs, and many peoples inability to see the threatening and disquieting nature of such a policy is quite troubling to me!!!
    Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. my personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct; but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.

  10. #10
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,216
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1145 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyric View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is NOT due process. Seems it's OK to strip ones rights before the even know what they are being accused of. Who their accuser is? Due process does can NOT exist in the absence of a suspected crime "committed".. basically in a vacuum SMH
    That would make all statutes/codes existing that speak of "credible, manifest threat" unconstitutional, along with the "restraining orders" that all states have.

    Forget the firearms aspect, for a moment.

    So long as whatever process is done upon a person IS affording that person one's most-vigorous defense against the accusations (of threat, in the case of a restraining/protective order), how is this not due process?

    Of course, so long as a person is merely railroaded based on opinions and/or isn't actually afforded a fair and vigorous defense against those accusations, then I agree with you that that manner of accusation fails on all counts.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  11. #11
    Senior Member chuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Fl.
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    409 Post(s)
    Chip, chip and again the much touted NRA gleefully falls on their sword.
    NRA-ILA’s Chris Cox said, “We need to stop dangerous people before they act, so Congress should provide funding for states to adopt risk protection orders.
    U.S. Army (Ret) 1953-1977 ‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’
    — Patrick Henry

  12. #12
    Senior Member nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    348 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That would make all statutes/codes existing that speak of "credible, manifest threat" unconstitutional, along with the "restraining orders" that all states have.

    Forget the firearms aspect, for a moment.

    So long as whatever process is done upon a person IS affording that person one's most-vigorous defense against the accusations (of threat, in the case of a restraining/protective order), how is this not due process?

    Of course, so long as a person is merely railroaded based on opinions and/or isn't actually afforded a fair and vigorous defense against those accusations, then I agree with you that that manner of accusation fails on all counts.
    As stated in my post our system is no longer even remotely constitutional. Although I'm not familiar with the process involved with a restraining order, I suspect the are issued without any participation of the accused..

    Which raises questions for me... Is anyones birthrights stripped in the process of a restraining order? If not then maybe your argument doesn't apply. If it does then it's a good argument.. I honestly am not seeing how an order to " leave someone alone" equates to stripping someone of their RTKBAs

    Not saying I'm right here because you got me thinking... Fill me in on what inherent rights are being stripped with a restraining order? None that I see listed in our BORs. Although I'm completely aware they are not to be construed as being all inclusive.

    Also completely aware there are many other laws on the books today that could be used to argue the point..

    Founders were clear when "freedom" can be stripped!!!! And it's not upon accusation, less suspected crime, less charges, less trial, less guilt beyond a shadow of doubt, and most importantly less presumption of innocence. Althoughough common practice these days. The way it is!!! They had just rid themselves of the same chains. Clearly inspired when they " came for the guns".

    Also common practice to jail people for even contemplating a crime... So this is really no different. Which was my point when I gave the example of social media posts.
    Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. my personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct; but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.

  13. #13
    Asst. Administrator ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,216
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1145 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyric View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Founders were clear when "freedom" can be stripped!!!! And it's not upon accusation, less suspected crime, less charges, less trial, less guilt beyond a shadow of doubt, and most importantly less presumption of innocence.
    Exactly so.

    And if the process of being "blacklisted" follows "conviction" (adjudication) through a process in which one is afforded the opportunity to face one's accusers and give one's most-vigorous defense (whether it's called a trial or whatever), then it gets hard to not call that due process.

    Failing that sort of process, I agree with you that it's unconstitutional to dump on a given person without those things, without that opportunity.

    Of course, we're all familiar with the procedures we've seen in which it's easy for a person to get tagged (listed) but nearly impossible to secure a hearing to even question having been placed on such a list, let alone getting off of it. None of which should meet constitutional muster. But then, I can't recall the last time I saw such a process before the courts, let alone SCOTUS, where such a process was taken out to the "woodshed" for cause via a lawsuit.

    I fear this whole path we're on, same as you. I question it all. About the only thing that's the same, from one attempt to the next, is that they're coming for liberty. About the only thing that changes is, the manner of their assault.
    Cardinal principle: Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Philosophy: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
    On the RKBA: Most of what you think you know about our Constitution is wrong -- Michael Badnarik

  14. #14
    Senior Member nlyric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,033
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    348 Post(s)

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Chip, chip and again the much touted NRA gleefully falls on their sword.
    And the galactic irony is their membership will soar!!!
    Pardon me, Sir, for this difference of opinion. my personal interest in such questions is entirely extinct; but not my wishes for the longest possible continuance of our government on it’s pure principles.

  15. #15
    Senior Member jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nlyric View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And the galactic irony is their membership will soar!!!
    There are some who say that is their strategy to increase revenue. What would happen to them if the gun rights problem were solved once and for all? Out of business.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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