Bill Aims To Take Guns From Those At Risk Of Inflicting Harm

Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
17,644
Likes
5,836
Location
South Coast
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Last edited:
"The initial order would remain for 10 days after which an individual could petition to have the order removed."

Talk about no due process. Take away your right "temporarily" based on nothing by hearsay and without you even being given the opportunity to defend yourself. And then after 10 days you're assumed to be guilty unless you can prove otherwise (up to you to initiate a challenge in court and pay for an attorney).

Now that I think about it, how is this any different from suitability? The PD can already suspend/revoke you license at will and force you to argue the negative that you are not a risk. This is just the next step. Maybe we should have fought suitability when we had the chance. They are going to take away all guns sooner than you think.
 
Why can't the family just say, "You seem to be in a bad place right now and I'd like to hold onto your guns for awhile, and your rope, and your pharmaceuticals, and your car, and your lawnmower and garage door, and your razors and your knives."
 
Why can't the family just say, "You seem to be in a bad place right now and I'd like to hold onto your guns for awhile, and your rope, and your pharmaceuticals, and your car, and your lawnmower and garage door, and your razors and your knives."

'Cuz, then they're the bad guys, and at future holiday gatherings, it will be uncomfortable. It's easier to blame a faceless bureaucracy. Even if you set the wheels in motion.
 
Why can't the family just say, "You seem to be in a bad place right now and I'd like to hold onto your guns for awhile, and your rope, and your pharmaceuticals, and your car, and your lawnmower and garage door, and your razors and your knives."

Because this is really a underhanded gun grab. Every moonbat relative will be meritlessly screwing over family members as soon as the activist group think brigade suggests it to them.
 
If a family member is in a bad state, I. Put all guns in the safe. 2. Change the combination/lock. you can always change it back when they recover.
 
What a crock. There is nothing in the bill that I could find that requires the subject of the order to get any sort of help.

I would support this bill under 3 conditions:
1. It requires the subject of the order to be placed into the civil commitment process, with all the rights and protections therein. If the victim is not committed then the order would be removed;
2. Add a section requiring that all firearms confiscated from any 209 restraining order (A, E or others) be returned to the owner when the order is lifted in the same condition as when confiscated, at no cost to the owner, with any the cost of any damages or loss borne by the confiscating law enforcement department; and,
3. Require that each petitioner individually put up a $1000 bond per firearm, plus $500 for ammunition, to be paid to the subject for pain and suffering if the petition is found to be false. The bonds shall be paid in full to the subject if an emergency (immediate) order is not renewed by the 10 day mark, or if a subject's petition to have the order lifted is granted.

Given the likelihood of such modifications, I am full against this bill.
 
“Gun advocates for years have been saying it’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem. Here it is a court finding that there is a mental health problem and the gun extremists still want these individuals to have guns to kill themselves or their family members or innocent people,” Linsky said.

Doesn't even bother trying to hide his hatred of gun owners.

The order would let police temporarily restrict the individual’s access to firearms. The initial order would remain for 10 days after which an individual could petition to have the order removed. A judge could agree or could extend the order for up to a year.

So the PD comes based on the word of a relative, revokes your LTC, and ships your guns off to Village Vault. After ten days the burden is then on you to hire a lawyer and fight the order in a kangaroo court. The judge will most likely extend the order for the maximum time because guns, and by the time you're able to get them back it will be too cost prohibitive. Great idea.

That dirtbag Linsky is scapegoating veterans and the mentally ill to get this bill passed. If he truly cared about the mentally ill, why isn't a psych evaluation part of this bill?
 
Last edited:
Can't deprive Americans of their rights without due process. Writing this type of legislation should result in the lehislator(s) losing their right to legislate.
 
Can we extend this to the 1st amendment also? We can suspend a moonbats right to speech if we feel they are going to incite violence. After 10 days they can hire a lawyer and try to get it back.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Doesn't even bother trying to hide his hatred of gun owners.



So the PD comes based on the word of a relative, revokes your LTC, and ships your guns off to Village Vault. After ten days the burden is then on you to hire a lawyer and fight the order in a kangaroo court. The judge will most likely extend the order for the maximum time because guns, and by the time you're able to get them back it will be too cost prohibitive. Great idea.

That dirtbag Linsky is scapegoating veterans and the mentally ill to get this bill passed. If he truly cared about the mentally ill, why isn't a psych evaluation part of this bill?

I'm going to write my reps and ask them to propose an amendment to this bill to also suspend sixth amendment rights too.
 
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?
 
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

In my case family can take care. Since I can't speak for everyone else see post #2 by MisterHappy.

We already have avenues to go down.
 
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous.
A workable plan has been been articulated, and is routinely ignored, because it doesn't increase government oversight and over-reach. Enforce the laws in place, ensure people who should be reported IAW applicable legal and due process protections do get reported, and allow people to defend themselves.

Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue.
"Getting in front of the issue" does not mean more legislation further restricting the peoples' fundamental rights, removing due process, and stigmatizing those who are seek mental health help such that they won't seek the help they need.

Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive?
Federal law already bars the possession or acquisition of firearms by anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution. The NRA already supports this law. We don't need more laws that will be misused to abuse the rights of normal folks.

Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?
Nobody, consistently, which is why part of the solution has to include allowing people the right to defend themselves from those who snap with little or no real warning. Process and laws are already in place to commit those who need it.
 
Last edited:
yeah, we shouldn't be recommending other solutions to their made up problem. We should just be looking to squelch this proposed legislation. This is a backdoor gun grab and nothing more. They are no longer looking at reducing crime. They are targeting law abiding citizens. This is not governing...this is ruling. There is a difference. They need major push back on this. Otherwise I will propose that we also take people's cars and kitchen knives and shoe laces and not allow them in buildings above the first floor or on bridges.
 
yeah, we shouldn't be recommending other solutions to their made up problem. We should just be looking to squelch this proposed legislation. This is a backdoor gun grab and nothing more. They are no longer looking at reducing crime. They are targeting law abiding citizens. This is not governing...this is ruling. There is a difference. They need major push back on this. Otherwise I will propose that we also take people's cars and kitchen knives and shoe laces and not allow them in buildings above the first floor or on bridges.

Trains. All trains should stop for 10 days. Including light rail and trollies.
 
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

Your drunk. Go home.
 
GOAL should be working to have a rep introduce a "confiscation procedures bill" that would require a PD to hold confiscated non-evidence guns for a minimum of 14 days during which time the owner would have the opportunity for a dealer (209A) or any LTC holder (other confiscation) to accept transfer.

The time period would need to be short to prevent a backroom deal where the police kill the bill (like they did with the Katrina disaster confiscation bill), but long enough to make arranging such transfer practical. Also, it would need to have a legislative sponsor, not be an "on behalf of" bill.

If this was enacted, you would probably see more shops step forward and offer non-bonded warehouse services, competing at free market rates on prices and terms.
 
You guys are arguing about this bill but the fact is that the PD can already do this. And if a relative tells the PD they are afraid of what a gun owner might do they will gladly take his guns. It's called suitability and it's already in use.

This bill is a total waste of time. Someone should explain to the sponsors that they can already do this and stop wasting tax payer's money.
 
You guys are arguing about this bill but the fact is that the PD can already do this. And if a relative tells the PD they are afraid of what a gun owner might do they will gladly take his guns. It's called suitability and it's already in use.

This bill is a total waste of time. Someone should explain to the sponsors that they can already do this and stop wasting tax payer's money.


That's not how suitability is supposed to work....
 
Can't deprive Americans of their rights without due process. Writing this type of legislation should result in the lehislator(s) losing their right to legislate.

Yup. Need to start adhering to 5A
 
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

The NRA is in favor of preventing extra-judicial witch-hunts to disarm law-abiding citizens based on irrational paranoia (who's crazy again?) about guns from 1) family, 2) neighbors, 3) cops, or 4) politically motivated judges.

See Mr. Happy post #2 for general ways for dangerously mentally ill to be handled.

Per the Constitution, rights can only be denied as the result of a Trial by a Jury.
 
I'm glad I told Linsky to go **** himself to his face when I had the chance. What a douche.

So imagine trying to stay calm enough to show that you're a "suitable" person after 16 cops, 3 police dept's and a Letter Agency come to your house, toss everything looking for hidden weapons and ammo while you and your family are proned out, watching Hogans Heroes from the floor, all because you called your brother, sister, step mother, whatever, an ******* earlier in the day over a family argument on FB and they got a hair across their ass. Wtfo.

I hope Linskys own mother punches him in the face.
 
Last edited:
Rights-Champions have yet to provide a workable plan that disarms the mentally dangerous. Being silent on the issue shows a lack of leadership- don't blame someone else for their legislation while you refuse to get out in front of this issue. Is the NRA in-favor of gun rights for paranoid schizophrenics, the severe bipolar, and the manic depressive? Who do you think has a Birdseye view of someone's mental state?

So more government to infringe on the rights of the law abiding is the answer. Come on now. You are smarter than that!
 
Back
Top Bottom