Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said it didn't entitle the person to a full hearing.  Quit arguing points that aren't being made.  What is being said, and it is true, is that this type of law allows for the confiscation of private property without the opportunity of the accused to defend themselves.  You don't think that having to lug all your firearms, and ammunition, to a dealer, who will charge you for the storage, or to your local police station is a significant burden?  That the stigma of having to do so isn't real?



In such cases the person is almost always entitled to be cited out and released OR.  It would be out of the norm for a person to be detained in jail based on nothing more than a person's word.  Even in those cases the accused will see a judge within 48 hours (business day hours).  Is such a short turn around time guaranteed under these restraining orders?  Absolutely not, as that is the amount of time allotted to the accused to surrender their private property.

However, as usual, we are arguing minutiae, the point was that what Trump stated already occurs.  This isn't really a fact in dispute.

Wouldn't the stigma of being accused of domestic violence be more of a concern to an innocent person than having to give up their guns for a day or so?

[Griever]

(03-02-2018, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wouldn't the stigma of being accused of domestic violence be more of a concern to an innocent person than having to give up their guns for a day or so?

Gun Owner: You can touch my daughter, but you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2018, 08:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, I used to love living here.  I've been in Southern California for the past 32 years, the past three or four I'm really growing to dislike it.  If not for my job, family and friends, and the weather I'd likely move tomorrow.  It's getting batshit crazy here.  Plus the traffic can be nightmarish.


The homeless problem has effing exploded the last two years.  


Trump doesn't phrase anything well.  If there was a judge involved, the person had the right to defend themselves during the proceeding, and the effects were temporary, that would be the basis for a discussion.

I'd still love to get to LA again.  Haven't been since I was a kid.  I mean ocean, mountains, canyons, the billion different neighborhoods you read about if you read any books that take place there.  And who doesn't want to see Venice beach or the Santa Monica Pier.

As for Trump, meh.  Dude says crap every day, and since i never claimed Obama was going to take our guns I don't feel the need to chime in much here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 12:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wouldn't the stigma of being accused of domestic violence be more of a concern to an innocent person than having to give up their guns for a day or so?

I would imagine so, if the DV restraining order were public knowledge.  

(03-02-2018, 12:37 PM)Griever Wrote:

Gun Owner: You can touch my daughter, but you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands

There's a very large flaw in this debate coming from your side of the aisle.  The fact that the property being confiscated is firearms is not the issue, the issue is that private property is being confiscated without the accused having any opportunity to defend themselves.  GM, in typical Fred fashion, has attempted to couch this objection as a support of domestic violence.   This is as absurd as it is disingenuous, another common tool in the arsenal of GM and his buddies.  The system, as set up, is ripe for abuse by ill intentioned people.  Restraining orders are not uncommonly used as weapons by parties who feel aggrieved, or simply spiteful.  Normally, the effects are not onerous, staying 500 feet away from, and having no contact with, someone you have no desire to interact with, is something the accused would happily do.  When you throw the confiscation of personal property in the mix, and all that entails, now there is a significant burden imposed on the accused, again, all occurring before the accused has any chance to defend themselves.

What you are seeing with this type of law is unfortunately typical, unintended consequences.  Lawmakers often have no practical first hand experience with the real world impacts of the laws they pass.  As said in another thread, Feinstein's bill that would ban anything that "increased a firearms rate of fire" would effectively ban trigger upgrades, as a good trigger group will do exactly that.  In this instance the good intentions of the law, to prevent a real domestic abuser from possessing weapons with which they could kill a woman who is attempting to leave the abusive relationship, can quite easily be subverted by anyone with ill intentions, acting out of malice or spite.  I'm sure we'd all like to think that there aren't many people who would go through the restraining order process just to cause grief and hardship to someone they now loathe.  It is unfortunately not as uncommon as we'd like to think.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 12:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'd still love to get to LA again.  Haven't been since I was a kid.  I mean ocean, mountains, canyons, the billion different neighborhoods you read about if you read any books that take place there.  And who doesn't want to see Venice beach or the Santa Monica Pier.

Venice and Santa Monica are getting slammed with crime due to the metro line that runs right from the more crime impacted neighborhoods to Santa Monica.  Santa Monica PD is under orders to not comment on this, at all.  LA is not the place to live that it once was.  However, I fully allow that the only real change may be in me getting older and grumpier.

Quote:As for Trump, meh.  Dude says crap every day, and since i never claimed Obama was going to take our guns I don't feel the need to chime in much here.

I honestly don't recall anyone saying Obama was going to take away all of our guns.  I'm sure this will send GM scrambling for a Lucie quote he can dust off and claim his internet points for the day.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would imagine so, if the DV restraining order were public knowledge.  


There's a very large flaw in this debate coming from your side of the aisle.  The fact that the property being confiscated is firearms is not the issue, the issue is that private property is being confiscated without the accused having any opportunity to defend themselves.  GM, in typical Fred fashion, has attempted to couch this objection as a support of domestic violence.   This is as absurd as it is disingenuous, another common tool in the arsenal of GM and his buddies.  The system, as set up, is ripe for abuse by ill intentioned people.  Restraining orders are not uncommonly used as weapons by parties who feel aggrieved, or simply spiteful.  Normally, the effects are not onerous, staying 500 feet away from, and having no contact with, someone you have no desire to interact with, is something the accused would happily do.  When you throw the confiscation of personal property in the mix, and all that entails, now there is a significant burden imposed on the accused, again, all occurring before the accused has any chance to defend themselves.

What you are seeing with this type of law is unfortunately typical, unintended consequences.  Lawmakers often have no practical first hand experience with the real world impacts of the laws they pass.  As said in another thread, Feinstein's bill that would ban anything that "increased a firearms rate of fire" would effectively ban trigger upgrades, as a good trigger group will do exactly that.  In this instance the good intentions of the law, to prevent a real domestic abuser from possessing weapons with which they could kill a woman who is attempting to leave the abusive relationship, can quite easily be subverted by anyone with ill intentions, acting out of malice or spite.  I'm sure we'd all like to think that there aren't many people who would go through the restraining order process just to cause grief and hardship to someone they now loathe.  It is unfortunately not as uncommon as we'd like to think.

I have simply asked why the guns are more important than the potential safety of the alleged victim.  If the accused is simply removed from their residence they also do not have access to their private property.  Any difference?  In that case they didn't take his guns away from him...they too him away from his guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have simply asked why the guns are more important than the potential safety of the alleged victim.  If the accused is simply removed from their residence they also do not have access to their private property.  Any difference?  In that case they didn't take his guns away from him...they too him away from his guns.

Is there any difference between not being able to go home for a few days and having to take all your firearms and ammunition to a gun dealer, paying them to store it, or a police station?  Seems like this question answers itself.  Your question also supposes that the accuser and the accused reside in the same residence, which would be required for the accused to be affected in the former, and not the latter, example.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 01:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Venice and Santa Monica are getting slammed with crime due to the metro line that runs right from the more crime impacted neighborhoods to Santa Monica.  Santa Monica PD is under orders to not comment on this, at all.  LA is not the place to live that it once was.  However, I fully allow that the only real change may be in me getting older and grumpier.


I honestly don't recall anyone saying Obama was going to take away all of our guns.  I'm sure this will send GM scrambling for a Lucie quote he can dust off and claim his internet points for the day.

Without doing other people's work for them many "on your side of the aisle" have said that either Obama, or democrats, or liberals or "someone" is after your guns.  Either through the "slippery slope" argument or by showing how one law affects one segment of society accused of breaking another law, etc.

Whether it is on this board (which I assume you meant) or in the general public, "your side of the aisle" spreads a paranoid, fear-filled message about something that has not be seriously considered.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 03:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so you have a PROBLEM with those accused of domestic violence losing their guns (temporarily assuming they are found not guilty)?

That's sad....but an interesting look into your thinking about guns.

(03-02-2018, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have simply asked why the guns are more important than the potential safety of the alleged victim.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 01:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without doing other people's work for them many "on your side of the aisle" have said that either Obama, or democrats, or liberals or "someone" is after your guns.  Either through the "slippery slope" argument or by showing how one law affects one segment of society accused of breaking another law, etc.

If you're going to lump me in with Alex Jones then you're going to lumped in with Yvette Falarca.  Stick to people on this board when hurling accusations or be much more specific when you do.

Quote:Whether it is on this board (which I assume you meant) or in the general public, "your side of the aisle" spreads a paranoid, fear-filled message about something that has not be seriously considered.

This discussion has been had ad naseum.  One need only look to the laws in CA to see the endgame of the anti-gun side.  Pointing that out is not paranoid.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Thanks for showing what I said.

That the law is more a problem for some people because they lose their guns fo a temporary amount of time.  Heck someone might suggest it is a stigma to have to be without their property versus the accusation of domestic abuse!

(03-02-2018, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said it didn't entitle the person to a full hearing.  Quit arguing points that aren't being made.  What is being said, and it is true, is that this type of law allows for the confiscation of private property without the opportunity of the accused to defend themselves.  You don't think that having to lug all your firearms, and ammunition, to a dealer, who will charge you for the storage, or to your local police station is a significant burden?  That the stigma of having to do so isn't real?

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're going to lump me in with Alex Jones then you're going to lumped in with Yvette Falarca.  Stick to people on this board when hurling accusations or be much more specific when you do.


This discussion has been had ad naseum.  One need only look to the laws in CA to see the endgame of the anti-gun side.  Pointing that out is not paranoid.

How does it go? Oh yeah! "Stop making accusations about things I never said and arguments I didn't make."  


So you've never discussed the "slippery slope" of gun laws?

Really want to go that route that no one on this board on "your side of the aisle" has never said that?

[Griever]

(03-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would imagine so, if the DV restraining order were public knowledge.  


There's a very large flaw in this debate coming from your side of the aisle.  The fact that the property being confiscated is firearms is not the issue, the issue is that private property is being confiscated without the accused having any opportunity to defend themselves.  GM, in typical Fred fashion, has attempted to couch this objection as a support of domestic violence.   This is as absurd as it is disingenuous, another common tool in the arsenal of GM and his buddies.  The system, as set up, is ripe for abuse by ill intentioned people.  Restraining orders are not uncommonly used as weapons by parties who feel aggrieved, or simply spiteful.  Normally, the effects are not onerous, staying 500 feet away from, and having no contact with, someone you have no desire to interact with, is something the accused would happily do.  When you throw the confiscation of personal property in the mix, and all that entails, now there is a significant burden imposed on the accused, again, all occurring before the accused has any chance to defend themselves.

What you are seeing with this type of law is unfortunately typical, unintended consequences.  Lawmakers often have no practical first hand experience with the real world impacts of the laws they pass.  As said in another thread, Feinstein's bill that would ban anything that "increased a firearms rate of fire" would effectively ban trigger upgrades, as a good trigger group will do exactly that.  In this instance the good intentions of the law, to prevent a real domestic abuser from possessing weapons with which they could kill a woman who is attempting to leave the abusive relationship, can quite easily be subverted by anyone with ill intentions, acting out of malice or spite.  I'm sure we'd all like to think that there aren't many people who would go through the restraining order process just to cause grief and hardship to someone they now loathe.  It is unfortunately not as uncommon as we'd like to think.

TL;DR

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2018, 01:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: How does it go? Oh yeah! "Stop making accusations about things I never said and arguments I didn't make."  


So you've never discussed the "slippery slope" of gun laws?

Really want to go that route that no one on this board on "your side of the aisle" has never said that?

It's not really slippery slope if he can point to real life situations in California.  All's he's saying is it will eventually move east.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

I'll be interested to see if this were to stand up to judicial scrutiny. Confiscation like this isn't due process. Were it just to be prevention from acquiring a firearm, that's one thing, or if there is a license required to carry and that being revoked, but confiscation of private property requires due process.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2018, 02:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really slippery slope if he can point to real life situations in California.  All's he's saying is it will eventually move east.

Nah, he (and others on that "side of the aisle") claim that every new regulation (even just proposed) will eventually lead to full gun confiscation.  

I'd take the time to find every post but it wouldn't matter to those who wouldn't admit it anyway.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said it didn't entitle the person to a full hearing.  Quit arguing points that aren't being made.  What is being said, and it is true, is that this type of law allows for the confiscation of private property without the opportunity of the accused to defend themselves.  You don't think that having to lug all your firearms, and ammunition, to a dealer, who will charge you for the storage, or to your local police station is a significant burden?  That the stigma of having to do so isn't real?

Yes.  I agree that it is a burden.  But the burden has to be weighed against the public safety issue.  That is what we do in every aspect of the law. (see below)

(03-02-2018, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   It would be out of the norm for a person to be detained in jail based on nothing more than a person's word.  Even in those cases the accused will see a judge within 48 hours (business day hours).  Is such a short turn around time guaranteed under these restraining orders?  Absolutely not, as that is the amount of time allotted to the accused to surrender their private property.

Multiple fails here.

I have multiple clients who have spent long periods in jail just because someone cliamed my clients pulled a gun and threatened them or stole their cars or molested a child or any of a multiple number of crimes that were based on nothing more than a witness or victim statement.  It absolutely happens all the time.  They are entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days, but if the case is bound over the the grand jury they could be in jail for weeks or even months unless they make a bond. And taking someones personal liberty away is MUCH worse than taking their guns.  But all of that satisfies the Constitutional guarantee of "due process"

Hearings on Orders of Protection are civil in nature (like these gun confiscation hearings would be) and they are usually resolved within a week or two.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2018, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Restraining orders are not uncommonly used as weapons by parties who feel aggrieved, or simply spiteful.  Normally, the effects are not onerous, staying 500 feet away from, and having no contact with, someone you have no desire to interact with, is something the accused would happily do.  When you throw the confiscation of personal property in the mix, and all that entails, now there is a significant burden imposed on the accused, again, all occurring before the accused has any chance to defend themselves.

Hey Mr Gun Law Expert.  It is already against the law to possess a firearm while being subject to an order of protection.

[ballsofsteel]

(03-02-2018, 02:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really slippery slope if he can point to real life situations in California.  All's he's saying is it will eventually move east.

Your trying to tell everyone in this post what he really meant like Sarah mule face Suckabee does for Drumph. Good job, carry on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 02:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really slippery slope if he can point to real life situations in California.  All's he's saying is it will eventually move east.

Shh, you're actually making a logical point.  This is anathema to the three headed hyrda.

(03-02-2018, 02:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'll be interested to see if this were to stand up to judicial scrutiny. Confiscation like this isn't due process. Were it just to be prevention from acquiring a firearm, that's one thing, or if there is a license required to carry and that being revoked, but confiscation of private property requires due process.

Careful Matt, you're interfering with the narrative that some are trying to push, that objecting to such confiscation is supporting domestic abuser.  It's just not possible that people are actually concerned about due process.

(03-02-2018, 03:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nah, he (and others on that "side of the aisle") claim that every new regulation (even just proposed) will eventually lead to full gun confiscation.  

I'd take the time to find every post but it wouldn't matter to those who wouldn't admit it anyway.

Nope, we claim that confiscation is the end game of the anti-gun side.  To support this I have cited multiple laws and sources.  You have done nothing, not a single thing, to refute this logically.

(03-02-2018, 04:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  I agree that it is a burden.  But the burden has to be weighed against the public safety issue.  That is what we do in every aspect of the law. (see below)

To be sure.  Is depriving someone of their constitutional rights without due process something you find acceptable?

Quote:Multiple fails here.

I have multiple clients who have spent long periods in jail just because someone cliamed my clients pulled a gun and threatened them or stole their cars or molested a child or any of a multiple number of crimes that were based on nothing more than a witness or victim statement.  It absolutely happens all the time.  They are entitled to a preliminary hearing within 10 days, but if the case is bound over the the grand jury they could be in jail for weeks or even months unless they make a bond. And taking someones personal liberty away is MUCH worse than taking their guns.  But all of that satisfies the Constitutional guarantee of "due process"

A few things.  You're not being honest here.  They stayed in custody because they were either remanded, meaning the judge found the case credible enough, and the person dangerous enough (or a flight risk) to remand them.  Alternatively, they could not pay the set bail, or even the 10%, or lower, to bond out.  (I'd further inquire as to why you don't attempt to have them released on electronic monitoring, but I don't think I'd get an honest answer)  So, they are not kept in custody because of one person's word, they are kept in custody by an order of the court.  In effect, you just made my argument because they were just given DUE PROCESS.  They saw a judge, they argued their case, their argument was denied.  The restraining orders we are discussing initially allow for none of that!  You should probably work on your arguments as well, if you're having that many of your clients remanded you're either catching the majority of the heavy cases or you're not doing a very good job.

Quote:Hearings on Orders of Protection are civil in nature (like these gun confiscation hearings would be) and they are usually resolved within a week or two.

Depends on how impacted the courts are, but even allowing for that, you just admitted a person is denied due process for up to 14 days.

(03-02-2018, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Hey Mr Gun Law Expert.  It is already against the law to possess a firearm while being subject to an order of protection.

After the order of protection is no longer temporary and you've had... wait for it... due process.  You could also give them to someone other than the police or a gun store, but I have much less issue with that part.