|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
There is some disturbing lack of clarity here.
"The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone", with WHOM, exactly? Is the law-abiding, legitimate gun owner given an opportunity to defend themselves at this time?
How about the second hearing, after 7 days?
"Under oath and penalty of perjury". Go and talk to a few divorced men and come back and tell the group if you believe that this is any guarantee whatsoever against false accusations being made.
It would appear that the law-abiding, legitimate gun-owner has no opportunity for defense until the 182-day period has commenced, and has, during that time, ONE and ONLY ONE chance to motion the court and present evidence on his behalf? This is the only specific mention of this fundamental right.
The paragraph about giving up the firearms states "Upon issuance of the ERPO", but does not clarify the temporary or continuing version. I believe this is deliberate ambiguity used to mask the severity of the action contained herein.
So, not a friend or co-worker, but a family member, someone who lives in the house, or law enforcement officer can do this. No mention if family or household member must be an adult.
On one person's uncorroborated statement, with a good story for a judge, with no chance to present any defense or factual reasons why this should not be done, anyone, anytime, can be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
NO.
I think that is the position the Sheriffs are seeing as bad. No chance for the accused to defend themselves, and unless there is something missing here, they wouldn't even know until they showed up to confiscate, it is not truly any sort of due process. I'm all for stopping people from using guns nefariously, and getting a handle on things before a person goes off, but the way this is written, there are several holes in the process.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
No need for all this, just yell out, "he's a witch". It worked in the 1600's.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,705
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 19,705 |
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412 |
No need for all this, just yell out, "he's a witch". It worked in the 1600's. I don't think they called for the preponderance of the evidence. But of course that doesn't fit into the narrative. Carry on.....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
No need for all this, just yell out, "he's a witch". It worked in the 1600's. I don't think they called for the preponderance of the evidence. But of course that doesn't fit into the narrative. Carry on..... I will, thank you.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Well, Pit, quite frequently, they did. Jury trials and everything. Visions and spiritual encounters were accepted as evidence.
It was mob violence with a veneer of civilization.
Not too different from many current fads where the mere accusation will be acted upon, regardless.
The current glorification of victim-hood is, IMO, the root of the problem.
A good sob story is all that is needed to deprive another of their rights and freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412 |
At some point steps are going to be taken to try and prevent gun violence and mass shootings. While you can fight it tooth and nail all you like, it's coming.
The only real question left is will it be gun owners who promote a common sense idea of their own? Some kind of common sense measures so they control the conversation?
Or will they fight every proposal tooth and nail until it's the liberal left who controls the conversation and legislate extremist measures?
Sadly the picture has come pretty well into focus. As a gun owner I would prefer we set a precedent of a common sense approach before we ignore doing that and have extreme measures thrust upon us.
Because make no mistake about it, pretending nothing will be done is sticking your head in the sand.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Simply have a hearing where a defense can be presented, and obtain opinions from qualified professionals, before such an action can be taken.
This is not a totalitarian dictatorship. It is not a Communist, nor Socialist, nor Fascist state. It is a Representative Republic based upon the essential freedoms of it's citizens. It is an imperfect concept, and sometimes can get messy. However, it is far, far better than the alternatives mentioned. More complex, though. Simplistic answers are for those who fear and distrust personal freedom.
Also, when you do catch one of the extremely small number of whacky people who actually commit criminal acts, put a hood over their heads, never publicize their name or likeness, and execute them as quickly as possible, after determining their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
We do not currently live in a society where it is made clear to the population that such acts are not acceptable. Those who commit them while failing to politely off themselves in the process are still sucking air. They even enjoy a measure of fame. This must stop.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
She's a witch, let's perform a trial by water.
Drop her in the lake with weights tied to her, if she floats, she is a witch, if she drowns, she is not.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
This already exists in Illinois. If your spouse thinks you may be dangerous, they can ask the court to take the guns and they will. No due process. The spouse can be legitimately concerned or just out to screw the other over, doesn't matter.
My CCL instructor warned everyone in the class, if you have a significant other that might do this, get out while you can.
He also said, if you're legitimately depressed, seek help.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
This already exists in Illinois. If your spouse thinks you may be dangerous, they can ask the court to take the guns and they will. No due process. The spouse can be legitimately concerned or just out to screw the other over, doesn't matter.
My CCL instructor warned everyone in the class, if you have a significant other that might do this, get out while you can.
He also said, if you're legitimately depressed, seek help. If my spouse was like that, I think I'd be depressed.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Reading through this, the one thing that keeps coming to mind is the No Fly List... Many democrats have suggested that being on the No Fly List should be grounds to make it illegal for you to own guns, which on the surface seems to be pretty logical... but the problem is the same, there are no hard and fast rules, no due process, no opportunity to defend yourself if you are put on the No Fly List... and there is really no established due process to get yourself removed once you are on it.
Any system that is implemented to prevent somebody from exercising their 2A rights needs to be based on some agreed-to objective standard and it absolutely must include a fair and reasonable opportunity for the person to defend themselves against allegations.... to be represented by counsel, to appeal, etc.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412 |
The difference I see in this is that you do have to go in front of a judge and provide a prepoderance of the evidence.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
The difference I see in this is that you do have to go in front of a judge and provide a prepoderance of the evidence. I'm sure the FBI, or whoever manages the No Fly List, also requires a "preponderance of evidence" before they put somebody's name on it... but nobody knows exactly how much a preponderance weighs or objectively what it means, or how to offer any counter-evidence to it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
The difference I see in this is that you do have to go in front of a judge and provide a prepoderance of the evidence. From the way it reads, a suspect is not included in the first hearing, they must surrender your weapons if the plaintiff can give enough reason (real or not), then there is a second hearing within 7-days, it does not state if the suspect is included in this one either, to determine if the ERPO order should be extended to 182 days. During that 182 days, a suspect could ask for a termination, and have a hearing where the plantiff must provide sufficient proof. The issue I see is that the way it reads, the suspects weapons are to be turned over BEFORE they have a chance to defend the allegations.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,788
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,788 |
The difference I see in this is that you do have to go in front of a judge and provide a prepoderance of the evidence. I'm sure the FBI, or whoever manages the No Fly List, also requires a "preponderance of evidence" before they put somebody's name on it... but nobody knows exactly how much a preponderance weighs or objectively what it means, or how to offer any counter-evidence to it. I don't know about that one DC, there were a lot of people put on the 'No Fly' that didn't belong. It was like they looked for and banned names without matching IDs to faces for a while there, not to mention I never heard any reasons given for the people that had to fight to get off the list.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974 |
The difference I see in this is that you do have to go in front of a judge and provide a prepoderance of the evidence. They may have to present evidence, however the accused should still get their chance to provide a counter and have their say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 78,412 |
From the way it reads, a suspect is not included in the first hearing, they must surrender your weapons if the plaintiff can give enough reason (real or not), then there is a second hearing within 7-days, it does not state if the suspect is included in this one either, to determine if the ERPO order should be extended to 182 days. I've never heard of "made up things whether they're true or not" being considered as evidence in a court of law. During that 182 days, a suspect could ask for a termination, and have a hearing where the plantiff must provide sufficient proof.
The issue I see is that the way it reads, the suspects weapons are to be turned over BEFORE they have a chance to defend the allegations.
I'm surprised that it seems people either aren't aware or seem not to have the same outrage over protective orders. There are already 16 state that when a protection order is granted against you, you are forced to turn over your firearms. This falls pretty much under the same guidelines as the very thing that seems to have many so upset about here.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,182 |
Bet all these sheriffs swore to enforce the laws and to serve and to protect. trump has proved that being sworn in doesn’t necessarily mean to uphold what you swore to. So it’s all good now. Moving on.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
trump has proved that being sworn in doesn’t necessarily mean to uphold what you swore to. So it’s all good now. Moving on. Yes, I remember when Trump voted to become the first sanctuary city in 1971.. And when he refused to turn over illegals to ICE, even if they were felons... I remember when he dropped all charges against Jessie even though the case appeared pretty open and shut... And those are just some of the more recent ones.. Just dems, living up to what they were sworn to do... I'm starting to figure out why you hate the statement that "both sides suck".. because in your own delusion, you have not yet accepted that your side sucks.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Can’t even say anything. I certainly don’t want cops enforcing weed laws so...
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,974 |
Bet all these sheriffs swore to enforce the laws and to serve and to protect. So you believe all illegal immigrants should be deported and denied sanctuary. If we are doing what officials were sworn and enforce to do, you must agree with that, correct?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Colorado Gun Bill Causes
Controversy..Some Sheriff's Won't
Enforce
|
|
