Guns and Assault Rifles are not the Problem, mentally ill people with Guns and assault rifles are the problem.

[M14 Shooter]

I can not understand how the news media fails to see the real problem in America today. There are millions of Gun and assault rifles owners that live in America today. And they are not mass killers. The real problem is mentally ill people with guns and or assault rifles. It seems that the news media networks have this agenda to demonize assault rifles and guns in America. These two items are not active until a person picks them up. Wake up America, and see what is really going on.!?

Correct.

There should be a psychological test to screen purchasers of all weapons before they can be sold, to weed out the nut cases. Your thoughts.?

This violates the 2nd and 5th Amendments.
Sorry, no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do other developed nations not have mentally ill people? How come their rates of firearms homicide and mass killings are so much lower than that of the US?

Dunno.
Tell us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some of these 2nd Amendment fanatics are truly nuts. Even here in Conservative FL we have a “red flag law” that has worked well.

Red flag laws do not remove the danger sposed by the people in question.
They only serve to disarm the law abiding.

Many “common sense” gun control measures would be helpful, and can be passed without in any way forbidding responsible citizens from buying and owning semi-automatic rifles and / or legally carrying handguns.

There's no sense to be found in unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of he righ to keep and bear arms by the law abiding -- and "withuout forbidding" is the wrong standard.

On a related historical note, the 2nd amendment has not always been interpreted as it is today.

The USSC has never held the 2nd Amendment to protect anything but an individual right to keep and bear arms not related to service in the militia.

IMO, it has been misinterpreted by Supreme Court rulings in recent decades. A wiser Supreme Court would interpret it very differently.

Yor have no rational or factual basis for this opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you define “due process”?

At minimum: the state takes you before a court, makes its case, and the judge decides if there is probable cause.

As I understand matters, in urgent cases where family or friends and neighbors testify or swear under oath that a gun owner threatened to shoot them...

Anyone who is a danger to himself and others remains a danger to himself and others after the state takes his firearms.
If a person is indeed such a danger, he should be take into custody and held.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

“Due process” has many definitions and applications in law, depending on the urgency and seriousness of the individual case, or even of the context and the authorities involved … but feel free to make up your own definition.

 

[progressive hunter]

“Due process” has many definitions in law, depending on the urgency and seriousness of the individual case, but feel free to make up your own definition.

no it doesnt,,its very clear and specific,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

“Due process” has many definitions and applications in law, depending on the urgency and seriousness of the individual case, or even of the context and the authorities involved … but feel free to make up your own definition.

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

Several items here can be applied to red flag laws.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If the object becomes cool enough, the air around the object will also cool. Colder air is less able to hold water vapor than warm air. This forces water vapor in the air around cooling objects to condense. When condensation happens, small water droplets form

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

Several items here can be applied to red flag laws.

Thanks. I read that very link earlier, and it is an interesting exploration of the evolution of how the phrase was interpreted in cases of rights and privileges in the past. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think that the Supreme Court has ruled on this precise issue before, though I’m confident that if this Supreme Court were to rule on it, they would come to a very different conclusion than past Supreme Courts would have.

I’m not even sure what The Federalist Society position is on this issue. But of course “due process” in different contexts has been interpreted in widely different manners. For example in many state and even county courts a judge can hold even a lawyer “in contempt of court” and immediately put him in prison and not thereby violate accepted rules of “due process.” Appeals can only follow such action. So there is no guarantee of “real fairness” even if an ordinary person gets one’s “day in court.”

This is also true of imany cases where judges or panels of judges order search warrants, seizures of property, etc., their decisions being accepted initially as fulfilling due process requirements.

But as I said, I am no lawyer.

 

[lantern2814]

The sane person plan is to use Red Flag Laws.
Identify the crazy, and take away their guns.

Yet, you think this in an "Infringement" and you support the crazy keeping their weapons, then you blame others by saying those others want to kill children and teachers, when in FACT it's you that demands that the crazy are allowed to keep their guns. Crazy huh!

Your simple mind allowed you to stray from anything sane to the crazy.

No. Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. It’s your side that wants mentally ill trannies to have guns. So they can shoot up schools and you can virtue signal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks. I read that very link earlier, and it is an interesting exploration of the evolution of how the phrase was interpreted in cases of rights and privileges in the past. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think that the Supreme Court has ruled on this precise issue before, though I’m confident that if this Supreme Court were to rule on it, they would come to a very different conclusion than past Supreme Courts would have.

Any comnposition of the USSC is likely to rule against the executive branch, acting on its own judgement and absent a judicial demonstration of probable cause, removing an individuals rights.

Even exigent circumstance requires imminent danger as judged by the agent on the scene, based on his assessment of the information in plain view at the time.

For example in most state and even county courts a judge can hold even a lawyer “in contempt of court” and immediately put him in prison and not thereby violate accepted rules of “due process.” Appeals can only follow such action, So there is no guarantee of “real fairness” even if one gets one’s “day in court.”

The -court- held him in contempt.
That's due process.

This is also true of imany cases where judges or panels of judges order search warrants, seizures of property, etc., their decisions being accepted initially as fulfilling due process requirements.

Uh huh. Exactly. That's due process. A judge determines there is probable cause.

 

[Winco]

They already can under existing laws.....

its already illegal to threaten people

They already can under existing laws.....

They can take your guns before due process?

This was a Question for you?
You have a difficult time answering a direct question.

no they cant,,,

You RWI's are all over the spectrum on this.
They can....
They can't.....
Make up your mind.

 

[Winco]

What is it about affording the accused actual due process in a court that you hate?

None at all, IF it is done in an immediate timeline.
I support this 'due process' , just don't give the crazy time to go stalk and kill his next victim(s).

Yes, bring in immediately for an evaluation, and hold him until the due process.
Why do you have a problem with this ^^^^^.
progressive hunter

 

[progressive hunter]

None at all, IF it is done in an immediate timeline.
I support this 'due process' , just don't give the crazy time to go stalk and kill his next victim(s).

Yes, bring in immediately for an evaluation, and hold him until the due process.
Why do you have a problem with this ^^^^^.
progressive hunter

based on what you just said you are against due process not for it,,,

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Any comnposition of the USSC is likely to rule against the executive branch, acting on its own judgement and absent a judicial demonstration of probable cause, removing an individuals rights.

Even exigent circumstance requires imminent danger as judged by the agent on the scene, based on his assessment of the information in plain view at the time.

The -court- held him in contempt.
That's due process.

Uh huh. Exactly. That's due process. A judge determines there is probable cause.

Your points are always interesting, but I’m not sure these are relevant to the “Red Flag Law” — at least as it exists in Florida. In FL it is precisely a judge who rules on the evidence presented to confiscate guns under this law. It is a temporary order from the bench and it can be appealed afterwards. Other states may have different policies, but this one has led only to a few thousand such “time outs” and a not readily publicized number of therapeutic interventions over the last several years. We can only speculate how many lives may have been saved by it.

As I said, I only know what I have read in the local news and what I hear from a shooting buddy who is better informed than I. I’ve also read interviews with one such special judge and with police officials. As I said, the law has not yet been challenged or overthrown by the strong and very Conservative Republican majority in our state legislature — which I think is another sign that it is widely thought to be working quite smoothly in Florida … which has already seen too many mass murders of innocents.

 

[Winco]

based on what you just said you are against due process not for it,,,

How's that ^^^^^

Person makes a threat to kill.

When would you LIKE this Due Process to happen?

I want Due Process to happen immediately.
Arrest person or take person to an evaluation ASAP, like within an hour.
How can I make this any clearer?

Don't take person's guns away immediately, but DO take the person away from the guns, and give them their Due Process.
You got a problem with this ^^^^^?

 

[progressive hunter]

How's that ^^^^^

Person makes a threat to kill.

When would you LIKE this Due Process to happen?

I want Due Process to happen immediately.
Arrest person or take person to an evaluation ASAP, like within an hour.
How can I make this any clearer?

Don't take person's guns away immediately, but DO take the person away from the guns, and give them their Due Process.
You got a problem with this ^^^^^?

your comment I responded to said nothing about them making a threat

 

[Winco]

Person makes a threat to kill.

When would you LIKE this Due Process to happen?

I want Due Process to happen immediately.
Arrest person or take person to an evaluation ASAP, like within an hour.
How can I make this any clearer?

Don't take person's guns away immediately, but DO take the person away from the guns, and give them their Due Process.
You got a problem with this ^^^^^?

your comment I responded to said nothing about them making a threat

Quit dancing around the question.
Do you disagree with the above ^^^^.
Take the person immediately, within an hour, AWAY from the guns, AFTER the death threat, and give them their due process.

 

[progressive hunter]

Quit dancing around the question.
Do you disagree with the above ^^^^.
Take the person immediately, within an hour, AWAY from the guns, AFTER the death threat, and give them their due process.

asked and answered,,

 

[Winco]

asked and answered,,

You're a dick.