Gun Restraining Orders

It is a sound idea in theory. My concern is the accused often has no means to defend their rights before the order is issued. Due Process is not when your opponent has access to the judge but you do not.
 
JN01 said:
You can read the agreement: http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/... - MOU.pdf

It was supposed to cover only misdemeanors, but apparently didn't work out quite that way.
Click to expand...
It couldn't possibly work, when the stated (and real) intent was to reduce the number of "disadvantaged" students arrested for crimes. The problem is that, once there's an initial "improvement" in statistics, the powers that be want to see continued improvement. So it starts by ignoring misdemeanors, and the statistics look better. But more serious crimes continue, and once you've completely stopped reporting misdemeanors, the only way to show continuing improvement is to incrementally ignore more and more serious offenses.

A few years ago I read a series of articles about a grammar school principal who was ultimately canned for much the same sort of Ponzi scheme, except in her case it was grades rather than crimes. To make her school look better, she started changing grades. The school started being written up as a success and she was being widely praised. The problem was, the dumb kids weren't any less dumb, and to continue showing improvement year after year she had to change more grades every year, and by greater margins. I think (IIRC) it fell apart when someone finally realized that the kids coming into middle school from this award-winning grammar school weren't doing any better than kids from the other schools in the city. Then someone started an investigation, and the truth came out. Bye-bye career in education. (Although by then I'm sure she qualified for her pension, so she probably just retired.)

You can't fake statistics to show non-existent improvements forever. It just doesn't take long for it to catch up with you.
 
The laws on the books need to be enforced. What good will new laws do if they don't enforce them properly. It was report the Parkland shooter was expelled for fighting, 3 fights in 6 months. It was also reported a DV assault which he was not arrested for, as well as animal cruelty charges again not arrested for. Any of those would have made him a prohibited person from buying or possessing a firearm legally or possibly had him locked up which would have prevented that shooting by him.
 
Any of those would have made him a prohibited person from buying or possessing a firearm legally or possibly had him locked up which would have prevented that shooting by him.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

First, you'd need a conviction. (or guilty plea)

THEN, you'd also need that it not be a juvenile conviction and that the records not be sealed or expunged when he turned 18.

A background check doesn't check expunged records, nor can it look into sealed court record, either. It might find sealed records and cause a delay or it might not, I don't know the system well enough to know if it could.

NICS is not the indepth kind of investigation done for a security clearance. Some want it to be, but currently, it isn't.

And, even if it was, its not a guarantee that any individual won't commit murder or mass murder. We've seen it happen, both in Texas and Florida in recent years.

And, even if he had been convicted and become a prohibited person, that is no guarantee that the shooting would have been prevented. Only that he wouldn't have been able to get the gun through legal channels.

Nor would having him be locked up be positive prevention, unless he stayed locked up. These things might have changed his mind, and therefore "prevented" the shooting, but might have is not would have.

They might only delay the killer. They might only have prevented him from going on his killing spree on that particular Valentine's Day.

Claiming that had these things happened he would have been stopped is intellectually dishonest, and wishful thinking, at best.
 
Devil is always in the logistics, rules, details

I have way too many personal knowledge of Husband or/and Wife Lying about domestic crap to have any faith in ANY system to derive the truth and preserve either citizens full right to due process and a FAIR impartial judgment....

Domestic violence is real and I know it first hand with a LOT of my soldier families over 24 year career.... UN fortunately too many of the incidents resulted in my soldier...both female and male being arrested, cuffed and stuffed ...just on the say so of the other person claims to being in fear for their life

later deep instigation revealed a complete opposite set of events, threats and actions

I personally as a First Sergeant was accused of sexual misconduct... fortunately since E-6 Staff sergeant I had a personal, strict, "never be alone during counseling"

IG investigated, interviewed my witnesses, reviewed all my past counseling paper work to that soldier.... and found me good to go.... BUT for three weeks I was suspended from Job and had chain of command thinking I might need to go away

I personally do not know the answer because I have seen to many beat near to death spouses.... but leaving it too arbitrary and in the realm of "he said she said" I have a serious problem with

I also have another concern on same lines....Gulf war 91 helicopter crash...survived later pretty significant PTSD.... took year but eventual VA Mental Health...later needed a Top Secret clearance...had a chat with my shrink of the sooner or later review by the investigators.... he told me they respond all the time with their assessment of the patient...and told me that they had already asked about me...while he would NOT give ma a copy of the response he told me not to worry....I got the ckearance

I asked him if MY conditions were reported to any outside agency... and told him I was considering of I should get the new Concealed Carry License and they had questions on the application about mental health...he told me apply nothing in you diagnoses or observed behavior precludes you from being an 100% full rights citizen

Over time he an I have had many discussions on these issues

I got the sense that this One psychiatrist took his job seriously and knew the implications of his diagnosis, writing, and opinions....

BUT over the last 20 years I have been seen by MANY VA sociologists who gave me the impression they are not so constitutional minded an very hard nosed anti gun.... I am very careful in my interaction with these folks

I guess point is....too much grief can be caused by people in power with NO clear facts to asses and too may others have a bias and agenda... with the power to remove or restrict rights....Then it is a expensive and burden to fight an up hill battle to be made whole
 
You might be surprised what the VA has. Did you know they have chiropractors, and acupuncturists? The VA hospital I go to has both. Many people consider both to be quacks.
 
I could also see this as a way for an abuser to disarm the victim...

"judge, we got into an argument and she threatened to shoot me if I came over I think she should have her guns removed shes violent"
 
Slippery Slope

Walk into a job, have a bad day, yell at a coworker, have the cops show up at your house because somebody who has a grudge found a reason to get back at you. The burden of proof is basically zero! It's like mexico where you are guilty until proven innocent. rc
 
This is an excellent discussion.

Anytime a change in the law is considered, what unintended consequences might result should be considered as well.

As a cop I think some kind of protective order prohibiting some people from having access to firearms would be a good thing. But as a cop, I have also witnessed some outright lying and attempts at instigating a problem because one person wanted an advantage in a divorce settlement or child custody proceeding.

It's a complicated issue and passing bad law because elected representatives want to show that they're "doing something" is always a danger. Doesn't matter what the law is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top