03-02-2018, 06:27 PM
(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.
