NY hoping your troubled kids teacher can take your guns

[AHM]

I suppose it is best to advise the young ones to not say anything. My kids have known about my guns since the day they were born. They have been instructed to never mention guns in school. Both in high school now and to my knowledge they never have.

Indeed; anyone is smack out of their minds who hasn't laid down the law that
under no circumstances are their kids to say word one about guns (especially yours)
to anyone outside your household. In school or after class.

Not just K-12, even after they graduate and move out.

Tolerating anything less than that invites:

• Fatal accidents
• Burglaries
• School suspensions or expulsions
  
• Findings of "unsuitability"
• Lawsuits by helicopter parents of playmates
• Sidewalk protests and swattings by moonbats
  
• etc., etc., etc.

Nobody has the need to know about your guns.

But I expect you are right. The kids in most of these cases are probably saying something. Or on the case of Mass could the local PD's be sharing licensing information with the schools? Rhetorical question really as I suppose we would never be able to know that....just a thought though.

Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title X, Chapter 66, Section 10
Public inspection and copies of records; presumption; exceptions
Section 10.
...
(d) ...
The commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services, the department of criminal justice information services and its agents, servants, and attorneys including the keeper of the records of the firearms records bureau of said department, or any licensing authority, as defined by chapter one hundred and forty shall not disclose any records divulging or tending to divulge the names and addresses of persons who own or possess firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and names and addresses of persons licensed to carry and/or possess the same to any person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request.​

 

[swatgig]

Note two points: 1) Specific threat, so justified for LEO's to check it out. 2) Only asking for assurance of no access, not confiscation.

So it's OK for the police to come in to your home to make sure all of your guns are properly stored, because one kid said that your kid said something?

 

[71montess]

Teachers really do sick it. 90% commie.

 

[Mountain]

So it's OK for the police to come in to your home to make sure all of your guns are properly stored, because one kid said that your kid said something?

Damn right it's OK.

So I should have ignored the fact that a kid with an established record of violence directly threatened to come to school and shoot and kill my kid and ~7 of his friends?

My kid was not the one to notify the school- I dragged it out of him when I noticed something was up and confirmed the exact same story with the school per another kid's account of the incident that was given to the school. It's not a case of one 'kid' saying something- it was a case of ~8 young adults with the same account. These were 17+ year olds, not 5 year olds. Not that it matters, but the problem escalated from my kid and one or two of his friends defending a smaller kid who was being bullied by the problem kid.

So yeah, I'm good with the police going to that home to make sure that kid did not have access to firearms, at least via an interview with the parents / guardians.

 

[swatgig]

So yeah, I'm good with the police going to that home to make sure that kid did not have access to firearms

And what happens when the parents of that kid say "Come back with a warrant"? In reaity, no warrant should issue, since there is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be, committed.

Or...

What happens when the police show up at your house demanding to check your gun storage because a moonbat has accused your kid of making a threat?

, at least via an interview with the parents / guardians.

That's significantly different from demanding to search

 

[Obie1]

Indeed; anyone is smack out of their minds who hasn't laid down the law that
under no circumstances are their kids to say word one about guns (especially yours)
to anyone outside your household. In school or after class.

Not just K-12, even after they graduate and move out.

Tolerating anything less than that invites:

• Fatal accidents
• Burglaries
• School suspensions or expulsions
  
• Findings of "unsuitability"
• Lawsuits by helicopter parents of playmates
• Sidewalk protests and swattings by moonbats
  
• etc., etc., etc.

Nobody has the need to know about your guns.

I don't disagree with your sentiments, but I'm too old to hide a perfectly legal activity I engage in. I own guns.

 

[AHM]

I don't disagree with your sentiments, but I'm too old to hide a perfectly legal activity I engage in. I own guns.

You're absotively the best judge of your jurisdiction.

 

[AHM]

And what happens when the parents of that kid say "Come back with a warrant"? In reaity, no warrant should issue, since there is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be, committed.

Arrest the bully for A&B.
Prosecutor demands a verified gun-safe home environment as a condition for bail.
I know of it being done in at least one case (albeit young adult not student).
=====
ETA: Or would the bully's parents prefer to be found unsuitable?

 

[Whutmeworry]

So yeah, I'm good with the police going to that home to make sure that kid did not have access to firearms, at least via an interview with the parents / guardians.

I hate to say it but you're projecting the exact same thing as all the anti-gunners. Namely that the tool is the cause of the problem, not the person. Taken to it's logical conclusion, shouldn't this situation also allow police officers to go to little Johnny's house to ensure he doesn't have access to baseball bats, or machetes, or car keys, or poison chemicals, or.....you get the idea.

 

[Mountain]

And what happens when the parents of that kid say "Come back with a warrant"? In reaity, no warrant should issue, since there is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be, committed.

Or...

What happens when the police show up at your house demanding to check your gun storage because a moonbat has accused your kid of making a threat?



That's significantly different from demanding to search

Specific words from the threat were that the student was going to go get a gun, then come back and kill the group. Not 'teach a lesson' or some other watered down version, kill. Threat + means to do it, ~8 witnesses. What more probable cause do you need? Additionally, not 100% on this but likely he had been section 12'ed in the recent past so ensuring safe storage is probably a good idea anyway. Prior record would have made him a PP if he were an adult.

And yes, never did I say 'search' or 'take'. Yes, parents can say come back with a warrant but based on the specific threat I bet there's a good chance one would be issued. My request was primarily that the issue be investigated by the local PD and that they either confirm it's an idle threat or take the kid in. And yeah- the kid stated a specific means to kill so I asked that they verify he did not have access to that means. And yes, I fully knew that parents could say pound sand come back with a warrant, but I was going to ask anyway.

You have kids? I'd like to know how you would handle a deadly threat to your kid when the one making the threat specifies the means to do it and has a prior record that gives a higher probability he actually might do it, and at a location that your kid wouldn't be legally allowed to have an adequate means to defend himself?

Anything constructive to add? I'm open to it...

Arrest the bully for A&B.
Prosecutor demands a verified gun-safe home environment as a condition for bail.
I know of it being done in at least one case (albeit young adult not student).
=====
ETA: Or would the bully's parents prefer to be found unsuitable?

Yep, it could have gone down that way.

I hate to say it but you're projecting the exact same thing as all the anti-gunners. Namely that the tool is the cause of the problem, not the person. Taken to it's logical conclusion, shouldn't this situation also allow police officers to go to little Johnny's house to ensure he doesn't have access to baseball bats, or machetes, or car keys, or poison chemicals, or.....you get the idea.

Not exactly. You are assuming that the 'accused' has a right to keep and bear. This kid did not and probably should not, based on prior violations.

 

[Whutmeworry]

You are assuming that the 'accused' has a right to keep and bear. This kid did not and probably should not, based on prior violations.

I'm assuming if he's out of jail that yes, he has a right to keep and bear arms. If he is a proven violent risk to free society, he needs to be immediately removed from free society until he's no longer a threat.

 

[Mountain]

I'm assuming if he's out of jail that yes, he has a right to keep and bear arms. If he is a proven violent risk to free society, he needs to be immediately removed from free society until he's no longer a threat.

So my approval that an individual with relevant priors and who threatened to shoot and kill my kid is a 'prohibited person' makes me an anti-gunner? Got it.

 

[Whutmeworry]

I'm simply saying that labeling someone a "prohibited person" forces you to buy in to the antigun narrative that we can somehow keep violent people from committing violence without removing them from free society. That antigun narrative is a lie.

Say the parents diligently lock up their guns. What if the kid gets a hold of the keys or combination to the safe (a la Adam Lanza)? What if he breaks into a neighbor's or friend's house and steals their guns? What if he simply decides to change his choice of weapon, steals his dad's car and runs over his victims with the car instead (a la Nice, France)?

The point is, an individual with "relevant priors" has no business being ANYWHERE among innocent free citizens, at any time. ESPECIALLY if he has (once again) proven his inability to operate in that free society without harming others. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Nick Fury]

So it's OK for the police to come in to your home to make sure all of your guns are properly stored, because one kid said that your kid said something?

Damn right it's OK.

This is a perfect example of a normally rational 2A supporter being overridden by his own personal experience and feelings.

I have kids. In a similar situation I would probably want the same. But that does not suddenly make it right...

 

[Mountain]

This is a perfect example of a normally rational 2A supporter being overridden by his own personal experience and feelings.

I have kids. In a similar situation I would probably want the same. But that does not suddenly make it right...

Perhaps not 'right' in terms of 2A principles, but relative to the reality of what would be the most effective way to deal with the problem in Mass, that's the direction I took.

FWIW, I've handled related situations differently when in a different environment. Back in TN while canoeing with my niece we were actually shot at by a little prick who thought he'd be able to drive away and not get caught. Small enough town, so getting away with it wasn't going to happen. His vehicle was spotted the next day at the high school with shotshells matching the hulls left at the scene in clear view through the vehicle windows. Nobody really gave a sh!t about the shells at school or what was the disposition of the gun (might have also been in the vehicle, I don't remember)- it was all about him being prosecuted for what he did. I knew that the judge there would put the hammer down, so to speak, and I never had a second thought about guns owned by the kid or his family.

 

[AHM]

The point is, an individual with "relevant priors" has no business being ANYWHERE among innocent free citizens, at any time. ESPECIALLY if he has (once again) proven his inability to operate in that free society without harming others. That's all I'm saying.

Would you prefer that fugitives, felons, misdefelons (including drunk drivers), addicts, mental cases, stalkers, wife-beaters, the dishonorably discharged, illegal aliens, and foreign tourists should all be sentenced to life in prison without parole? Because in the PRM that list pretty much sums up those with relevant priors who aren't entitled to lay a cuticle on guns or ammo.

Or would you prefer a return to the good old days where if Mountain's kid was threatened by a fugitive, felon, misdefelon (including a drunk driver), addict, mental case, stalker, wife-beater, dishonorable dischargee, illegal alien or foreign tourist, that he should just lay them in a shallow unmarked grave and be done with the problem?

Or is there some third method I missed of preventing people from being anywhere among innocent free citizens at all times besides throwing them in a dungeon for good or killing them?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

In reaity, no warrant should issue, since there is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be, committed.

What is one trying to disprove when faced with an ERPO in MA? What is the burden of proof?

 

[Drix]

What is one trying to disprove when faced with an ERPO in MA? What is the burden of proof?

I wasn't under the impression you were trying to disprove anything with ERPO, but rather prove that you are a rational person, which is equally problematic.

Lets face it, ERPO is going to be like the witch trials just without the hangings.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Would you prefer that fugitives, felons, misdefelons (including drunk drivers), addicts, mental cases, stalkers, wife-beaters, the dishonorably discharged, illegal aliens, and foreign tourists should all be sentenced to life in prison without parole? Because in the PRM that list pretty much sums up those with relevant priors who aren't entitled to lay a cuticle on guns or ammo.

Or would you prefer a return to the good old days where if Mountain's kid was threatened by a fugitive, felon, misdefelon (including a drunk driver), addict, mental case, stalker, wife-beater, dishonorable dischargee, illegal alien or foreign tourist, that he should just lay them in a shallow unmarked grave and be done with the problem?

Or is there some third method I missed of preventing people from being anywhere among innocent free citizens at all times besides throwing them in a dungeon for good or killing them?

I realize there is a huge chasm between reality and the ideal that is my argument. My point is that there should be NOWHERE in free society where a law-abiding citizen does NOT have the right to be armed - in defense of himself, his loved ones and other innocent people. This responds to Mountain's last question from one of his earlier posts about how I would expect my kid to be able to defend himself against a credible, armed threat.

I also realize that there truly is no "ideal" anyway, and that based on the fact that human beings are flawed, likewise so will society forever be. I am however, adamant that erring on the side of liberty must always be the prevailing practice in a free society.

Now, how to determine who is violent and/or likely to continue to be violent such that they should be locked up? I realize also that this is a very difficult question to answer. I think the difficulty in answering this question underscores the necessity of legalizing RTC everywhere.

 

[Mountain]

I realize there is a huge chasm between reality and the ideal that is my argument. My point is that there should be NOWHERE in free society where a law-abiding citizen does NOT have the right to be armed - in defense of himself, his loved ones and other innocent people. This responds to Mountain's last question from one of his earlier posts about how I would expect my kid to be able to defend himself against a credible, armed threat.

I also realize that there truly is no "ideal" anyway, and that based on the fact that human beings are flawed, likewise so will society forever be. I am however, adamant that erring on the side of liberty must always be the prevailing practice in a free society.

Now, how to determine who is violent and/or likely to continue to be violent such that they should be locked up? I realize also that this is a very difficult question to answer. I think the difficulty in answering this question underscores the necessity of legalizing RTC everywhere.

I think everyone will agree on that point.

 

[Al-Jim19]

I’m a teacher. A few years ago at my school a student was blabbing to his friends about how cool dads guns were. The teacher overheard and reported to the resource officer. A few days later the 5-0 were at the kids door and dads guns were history. The kid matriculated out of my school shortly after so I’m not sure how it all turned out in the end.

A lot of the pants shitting hysteria over this stuff is years too late. Your overlords are already here to save you.

 

[AHM]

I realize there is a huge chasm between reality and the ideal that is my argument. My point is that there should be NOWHERE in free society where a law-abiding citizen does NOT have the right to be armed - in defense of himself, his loved ones and other innocent people. This responds to Mountain's last question from one of his earlier posts about how I would expect my kid to be able to defend himself against a credible, armed threat.

I also realize that there truly is no "ideal" anyway, and that based on the fact that human beings are flawed, likewise so will society forever be. I am however, adamant that erring on the side of liberty must always be the prevailing practice in a free society.

Now, how to determine who is violent and/or likely to continue to be violent such that they should be locked up? I realize also that this is a very difficult question to answer. I think the difficulty in answering this question underscores the necessity of legalizing RTC everywhere.

Thanks much for spackling in the gaps - I totally get your points here.

 

[Mountain]

I’m a teacher. A few years ago at my school a student was blabbing to his friends about how cool dads guns were. The teacher overheard and reported to the resource officer. A few days later the 5-0 were at the kids door and dads guns were history. The kid matriculated out of my school shortly after so I’m not sure how it all turned out in the end.

A lot of the pants shitting hysteria over this stuff is years too late. Your overlords are already here to save you.

Yeah, that's awful. THIS is likely a case of moonbattery at work. My situation involved a specific threat, and no guns confiscated.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Teachers should not be allowed to drink alcohol. How would that pan out?

 

[AHM]

Teachers should not be allowed to drink alcohol. How would that pan out?

There was a rumor in junior high school
that one of the history teachers had a bottle in the desk drawer.
He looked the part, maybe.
Looked like he brooked no nonsense, definitely.
I gave him a wide berth, on all those principles.
Everyone went home safe.

 

[MaverickNH]

‘Red flag’ gun law should include minors, Washington state prosecutors say

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said....“There appears to be a legitimate question of whether or not ERPOs can be sought against a juvenile who does not have the legal right to own firearms under Washington law, but does have the right to access and possess firearms under certain circumstances,” the task force said.”

My son had a BS Temporary Protective Order filed against him (dropped in Juvie Court) and the NH cops who served him only said that if I had any guns I should make sure they were locked up so he had no access to them. I said yes and they left.

 

[oppressed]

More on that subject.

Washington State Prosecutor Seeks Expansion of Red Flag Laws

Here is the important takeaway.

"Wyatt explained that a ERPO for the 18-year-old would not allow the confiscation of the father’s guns but it would create a situation where the father could either have the 18-year-old in the house or the guns, but not both."

 

[sieveboy]

Our society would be better off if we had a mechanism for reporting shitty teachers and their transgressions and derilections.

 

[Roof gunner]

So once they have taken away all the legally owned guns , do the bad guys automatically give up theirs ?

 

[MaverickNH]

"Wyatt explained that a ERPO for the 18-year-old would not allow the confiscation of the father’s guns but it would create a situation where the father could either have the 18-year-old in the house or the guns, but not both."

Pretty much like having a convicted felon in your home, but without the arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing, time-served and parole or release from jail.

Of course, if you can break into a safe and steal your Ftaher’s guns, you can break into your neighbor’s home and steal theirs too. Or break into cars. Or buy a gun on the street. Determined killers find a way.