Minority Report, here we come....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Minority Report, here we come....

    Can you say slippery slope?...


     


    California Mulls Bill To Remove Guns From Potential Offenders


    Aug 27 (Reuters) - A bill allowing family members to ask a judge to order firearms removed from people likely to commit gun violence advanced in California on Wednesday, one of several gun control measures up for votes in the last week of the state's legislative session.


    The measure was introduced after police near Santa Barbara said they were unable to confiscate weapons from a man who later went on a rampage and killed six people, despite concern from his family that he was in poor mental health and might become violent.


    The bill passed the senate 23-8. It passed the assembly once, but now goes back for a vote on amendments before heading to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.


    If Brown, who has steered a centrist course on gun control legislation, signs the bill, California would be the first U.S. state to enact such a law.


    "Nothing can bring back the life of my son, but there are common-sense solutions that can help ensure other loved ones aren't killed by preventable gun violence," said Richard Martinez, whose son, Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, was killed by 22-year-old Elliott Rodger in the rampage in Isla Vista in May.


    "This bill will save lives and spare other families from suffering the anguish we experience each day."


    The bill, sponsored by Assemblymembers Nancy Skinner and Das Williams, creates a so-called gun violence restraining order in the court system. Under it, immediate family members and law enforcement agencies could petition a judge to order guns temporarily removed from certain individuals.


    The restraining order would last 21 days, and could extend it up to a year, after a notice and a hearing.


    The bill has wide support from law enforcement agencies, and is based on an existing law that temporarily blocks people with domestic violence restraining orders from owning a gun.


    "If it can save one life, one family from that agony, it will be worth it," state senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Democrat, said during debate.


    Several Republican senators spoke against the bill, saying there are already measures to keep guns away from dangerous and unstable people.


    Critics also say the bill infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.


    "This bill really misses the mark of trying to achieve a public policy goal without infringing on constitutional rights," said Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees.


     


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/27/california-guns_n_5725656.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/27/california-guns_n_5725656.html


     


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    This sounds like one of those common sense regulations that anyone with common sense could support.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    This sounds like one of those common sense regulations that anyone with common sense could support.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Apparently I have no common sense ; )

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    This sounds like one of those common sense regulations that anyone with common sense could support.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Apparently I have no common sense ; )

     




    But you do generally so I am curious ..if you don't support this kind of thing..then why? Isn't the idea of common sense gun regulation to keep guns away from unstable people?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to miscricket's comment:


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to miscricket's comment:


    This sounds like one of those common sense regulations that anyone with common sense could support.


    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)




    Apparently I have no common sense ; )


     





    But you do generally so I am curious ..if you don't support this kind of thing..then why? Isn't the idea of common sense gun regulation to keep guns away from unstable people?




    How does one prove someone MIGHT do something?


    And, I didn't say I flat out don't support it...just saying it could be a very slippery slope.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    When any criminal in particular is sentenced, the judge looks at his personal and criminal history to consider what he MIGHT do.

    After sex offenders serve their sentence, we lock them up for up to life with "civil commitment" based on what they MIGHT do.

    You can petition a judge to civilly and involuntarily commit a mentally ill person based on what they MIGHT do.

    Etc.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    When any criminal in particular is sentenced, the judge looks at his personal and criminal history to consider what he MIGHT do.

    After sex offenders serve their sentence, we lock them up for up to life with "civil commitment" based on what they MIGHT do.

    You can petition a judge to civilly and involuntarily commit a mentally ill person based on what they MIGHT do.

    Etc.



    Right...we were talking about the issue in the OP..."concern from his family that he was in poor mental health and might become violent." Not sex offenders or criminals with history. That I get. Those are people who've been convicted of certain crimes...people who have criminal HISTORY. We're talking about someone who family members considered to be in "poor mental health" and "might" become violent.

    So basically you can just say..."yeah...I think my brother is nuts so can we have him committed" and that's ok? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    This sounds like one of those common sense regulations that anyone with common sense could support.

     

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     

     



    Apparently I have no common sense ; )

     

     

     

     




    But you do generally so I am curious ..if you don't support this kind of thing..then why? Isn't the idea of common sense gun regulation to keep guns away from unstable people?

     



    How does one prove someone MIGHT do something?

     

    And, I didn't say I flat out don't support it...just saying it could be a very slippery slope.




    Okay..point taken. I think family and close friends would in general have a good sense of what someone is capable of. Of course..it wouldn't be perfect but what law is really? If the benefits outweigh the risk, I am okay with it. 

    I agree on the slippery slope part though. However it doesn't appear as though that has stopped lawmakers before ;-)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    When any criminal in particular is sentenced, the judge looks at his personal and criminal history to consider what he MIGHT do.

    After sex offenders serve their sentence, we lock them up for up to life with "civil commitment" based on what they MIGHT do.

    You can petition a judge to civilly and involuntarily commit a mentally ill person based on what they MIGHT do.

    Etc.



    A judge looks at the history, not someone living within the household as proposed in this law. I suppose a judge might look at some history as a result of a request for the restraining order. How well do normal restraining orders work? WHy is this going to work any better? Not saying I am against it, just seems like it is something easily abused.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    When any criminal in particular is sentenced, the judge looks at his personal and criminal history to consider what he MIGHT do.

    After sex offenders serve their sentence, we lock them up for up to life with "civil commitment" based on what they MIGHT do.

    You can petition a judge to civilly and involuntarily commit a mentally ill person based on what they MIGHT do.

    Etc.



    Right...we were talking about the issue in the OP..."concern from his family that he was in poor mental health and might become violent." Not sex offenders or criminals with history. That I get. Those are people who've been convicted of certain crimes...people who have criminal HISTORY. We're talking about someone who family members considered to be in "poor mental health" and "might" become violent.

    So basically you can just say..."yeah...I think my brother is nuts so can we have him committed" and that's ok? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. 




    Crazy people don't commit themselves.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    We already have this idea under general police duties.


    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to high-road's comment:

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

     "In a 2006 article attorney Jeffrey Leving and activist Glenn Sacks noted that nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active in California. They referred to a recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." The authors note that protective orders are"...almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person...it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes."


    Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually two weeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearings generally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can be gauged by the State of California's advice for men contesting restraining orders:


    "Do not take more than three minutes to say what you disagree with. You can bring witnesses or documents that support your case, but the judge may not have enough time to talk to the witnesses."


    Slippery slope, indeed....


    What will happen with this new law is the same;  this will be abused routinely, and is a back door effort to ignore the Second Amendment... 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.




    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.

    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.

    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?

    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.




    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.

    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.

    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?

    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.

     



    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    We already have this idea under general police duties.


     


    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?




    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.





    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.


    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.


    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?


    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.


     




    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 





    Well, if this law passes then it will fulfill your concern that a person's craziness be 'documented' ... in this case by a judge in a court of law.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

     

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?

     

     



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.

     

     




    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.

     

    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.

     

    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?

     

    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.

     

     

     



    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 

     




    Well, if this law passes then it will fulfill your concern that a person's craziness be 'documented' ... in this case by a judge in a court of law.



    You're assuming those reported will actually have mental health issue. Again...my point about the slippery slope.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []


    When any criminal in particular is sentenced, the judge looks at his personal and criminal history to consider what he MIGHT do.


    After sex offenders serve their sentence, we lock them up for up to life with "civil commitment" based on what they MIGHT do.


    You can petition a judge to civilly and involuntarily commit a mentally ill person based on what they MIGHT do.


    Etc.


    []
    A judge looks at the history, not someone living within the household as proposed in this law. I suppose a judge might look at some history as a result of a request for the restraining order. How well do normal restraining orders work? WHy is this going to work any better? Not saying I am against it, just seems like it is something easily abused.





    I am particularly wary of any law passed after a specific tragedy. They usually go way too far.


    Since this is CA, I would suspect the potential for abuse is higher. But we cannot assume all the judges will simply ignore the rights of gun owners.


    Abuse potential comes down to what they look at in determining whether to confiscate guns. I'd imagine it'd be something similar to restraining orders. If they're not screwing those up now, I don't see a reason to be particularly worried unless evidence of abuse arises.



    How well do normal restraining orders work? I really don't know. That depends on how much of a hothead they are aimed at and how much that hothead wants to avoid an(other) arrest. At least with a gun restraining order, someone who is targeted would have to go to the black market to get a gun if others were confiscated. Most people don't know where to buy illegal guns...     one has to usually already be in that world....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    We're talking about someone who family members considered to be in "poor mental health" and "might" become violent.


    So basically you can just say..."yeah...I think my brother is nuts so can we have him committed" and that's ok? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. 






    You can just say anything, but you'll get charged with perjury and likely sued by your brother if you were lying.


    Judges aren't going to commit someone just because you say they're crazy. You have to point to actual facts that indicate the person is likely to harm themselves or others; maybe the person just called you and threatened suicide. Often enough, the crazy also got the police involved.


     


     


    Restraining orders work much the same way. You get a temporary one based on your word. There is usually also police involvement due to whatever the other person did. Then both parties go back and argue about whether it should be extended and what the terms should be. I don't see why a gun restraining order would work differently.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

     

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?

     

     



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.

     

     




    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.

     

    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.

     

    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?

     

    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.

     

     

     



    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 

     




    Well, if this law passes then it will fulfill your concern that a person's craziness be 'documented' ... in this case by a judge in a court of law.



    You're assuming those reported will actually have mental health issue. Again...my point about the slippery slope.




    No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

    If a family is concerned about the mental health of a member ... and they believe that if that person is armed that they would pose a real and immediate threat to themselves or others ... then there is a legal process whereby they can petition the court for a legal and impartial ruling to determine whether that person should be allowed deadly weapons.

    If they are deemed competent, then they get their guns ... if they are found to be a danger then their weapons are confiscated.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    We're talking about someone who family members considered to be in "poor mental health" and "might" become violent.

     

    So basically you can just say..."yeah...I think my brother is nuts so can we have him committed" and that's ok? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. 

     

     




     

     

    You can just say anything, but you'll get charged with perjury and likely sued by your brother if you were lying.

     

    Judges aren't going to commit someone just because you say they're crazy. You have to point to actual facts that indicate the person is likely to harm themselves or others; maybe the person just called you and threatened suicide. Often enough, the crazy also got the police involved.

     

     

     

     

     

    Restraining orders work much the same way. You get a temporary one based on your word. There is usually also police involvement due to whatever the other person did. Then both parties go back and argue about whether it should be extended and what the terms should be. I don't see why a gun restraining order would work differently.



    Well sure...of course you're not SUPPOSED to make things up. Of course your not SUPPOSED to perjure yourself...yet it happens...quite often. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

    We already have this idea under general police duties.

     

     

     

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?

     

     



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.

     

     




    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.

     

    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.

     

    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?

     

    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.

     

     

     



    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 

     




    Well, if this law passes then it will fulfill your concern that a person's craziness be 'documented' ... in this case by a judge in a court of law.



    You're assuming those reported will actually have mental health issue. Again...my point about the slippery slope.




    No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

    If a family is concerned about the mental health of a member ... and they believe that if that person is armed that they would pose a real and immediate threat to themselves or others ... then there is a legal process whereby they can petition the court for a legal and impartial ruling to determine whether that person should be allowed deadly weapons.

    If they are deemed competent, then they get their guns ... if they are found to be a danger then their weapons are confiscated.



    Meanwhile their life is turned upside down for nothing. Remember the Duke "rape" case? Turned out to be a false accusation...no biggie all is well....except it wasn't. Those guys went through hell. Point being that it's easy for you to say..."hey if you're deemed competent, then all is well and you get your guns back, no harm no foul". If life were only as black and white as you want to make this out to be.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Well sure...of course you're not SUPPOSED to make things up. Of course your not SUPPOSED to perjure yourself...yet it happens...quite often. 

    I'm not sure we have statistics on the rate of perjury in seeking restraining orders....  but ok

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    We already have this idea under general police duties.

    How many times do cops get a call to investigate people acting suspiciously even though no crime may have been committed?



    'Suspiciously' being relative many times. Many times it's nothing. Which is my point.





    It still gets investigated and can lead to an arrest that is unrelated to the call.


    Crazy people are already denied gun permits.


    There's also the fact that mental healthcare is a woefully unutilized and under-insured sector of medicine in this country. Often there is no outward signs and goes undetected. Who better to alert authorities to a potential disaster in the making than the people closest to the unstable person?


    Virtually every mass murder in this country had, in hindsight, red flags prior to the person going on the killing spree.




    Right...people with documented mental health issues are denied a gun. Rightly so. 





    Well, if this law passes then it will fulfill your concern that a person's craziness be 'documented' ... in this case by a judge in a court of law.


     




    You're assuming those reported will actually have mental health issue. Again...my point about the slippery slope.


     





    No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort.


     


    If a family is concerned about the mental health of a member ... and they believe that if that person is armed that they would pose a real and immediate threat to themselves or others ... then there is a legal process whereby they can petition the court for a legal and impartial ruling to determine whether that person should be allowed deadly weapons.


     


    If they are deemed competent, then they get their guns ... if they are found to be a danger then their weapons are confiscated.


     




    Meanwhile their life is turned upside down for nothing. Remember the Duke "rape" case? Turned out to be a false accusation...no biggie all is well....except it wasn't. Those guys went through hell. Point being that it's easy for you to say..."hey if you're deemed competent, then all is well and you get your guns back, no harm no foul". If life were only as black and white as you want to make this out to be.





    Now you're the one assuming ...


    Innocent people on death row have been exonerated of capital crimes yet that doesn't change your support for the death penalty.... so spare me the sanctimonious "They went though hell" canard ... unless you're arguing that we shouldn't have capital crimes trials either.


    Arguing against a law based on a few anecdotal cases is not very convincing, especially in light of the real threat of people being murdered.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Minority Report, here we come....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Well sure...of course you're not SUPPOSED to make things up. Of course your not SUPPOSED to perjure yourself...yet it happens...quite often. 

    I'm not sure we have statistics on the rate of perjury in seeking restraining orders....  but ok



    I was talking about perjury in general...point being...people lie all the time...that isn't a secret as far as I know.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share