Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

Temporary Firearm Restraining Order


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Guy was on MSNBC from the National Review talking about this.  Looking at Florida and a few other shootings I might be able to get behind this if there are some restrictions from Judges making the only decisions.

Basically evidence is taken in front of a judge and presented if the person is a threat to others with firearms.  Now I would think it would need to be more than simply "my neighbor threatened me" type of thing and actually include physical evidence such as a social media post, letter, email, recording.....something undeniably provable.   The person would have the right to testify on their behalf giving it some sense of due process.   Judge issues the TEMPORARY order for their guns to be taken or denies it.  This is only for a set period of time (60-90 days) then needs to come back to the judge.   If no further evidence is presented then the firearms are returned.  If the individual continues to make presentable threats then the order is extended.   At no point does it become permanent until the person commits a felony.   Then the normal rules apply.

There are obvious issues like them obtaining more guns, does the govt need to then track or create a system of tracking which I do not support.   Will people simply learn not to show red flags (Vegas shooter for example) or even just stay out of trouble until you get the guns back then go off.    If the person is ruled temporarily unsafe to possess guns and does not turn in all in their possession it could be a lower class felony where they lose them permanently.  

Did not research it but the person said California has just implemented a similar system where 60 cases have caused people to lose their guns temporarily and in only 5 of those was it extended.

Not going to stop all shootings but we can't just start throwing everyone in mental hospitals because they are a bit strange or flew off the handle and posted something they never would follow thru with.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

Edited by Highmark
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, SSFB said:

That's a good process and one I would get behind.

I brought this up a while back when it came to the No Flight list, should work the exact same way. 

Yes, shouldn't be able to be put on a no fly list without being able to defend yourself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Mainecat said:

There still needs to be a national permit issued that goes above every states laws or non laws. Required safety training bi annually would be mandatory and every state would provide current info.

Then its dead in the water.   That will never happen in this country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

:bc:

Neal

8.  Add a Gun Violence Restraining Order which allows any person with standing, to indicate a flag on a buyer's permit.

With standing?   What the hell does that mean?   

No evidence no GVRO.   Human word alone is not enough....too high a percentage of pieces of shit liberals going around claiming everyone is threatening them just to get their guns taken away and cause trouble. 

Edited by Highmark
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

But it is silly not to.  If we don't come to some kind of national firearms exchange card/ID we will end up with bans.  It will happen.

Neal

I was more referring to the bi annual training.

We sort of have the other system in place.   4473 and background checks should be able to handle it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

8.  Add a Gun Violence Restraining Order which allows any person with standing, to indicate a flag on a buyer's permit.

With standing?   What the hell does that mean?   

No evidence no GVRO.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

One must have involvement/relation to the issue.  You would have standing if you have knowledge of a reason someone should have a GVRO.  It keeps fraudulent claims away.  It's the same as you are proposing, just more legal term defined.  There needs to be a path for one to claim a GVRO, it can't just be brought up against a random person for no reason.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I was more referring to the bi annual training.

We sort of have the other system in place.   4473 and background checks should be able to handle it. 

We can exchange bi annual training for bi annual renewal, mental health evaluation is included in that.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

There still needs to be a national permit issued that goes above every states laws or non laws. Required safety training bi annually would be mandatory and every state would provide current info.

it's called the second amendment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I was more referring to the bi annual training.

We sort of have the other system in place.   4473 and background checks should be able to handle it. 

Not at all, no documentation path for private to private sale.  Buyers and sellers should have a path to document exchanges.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

One must have involvement/relation to the issue.  You would have standing if you have knowledge of a reason someone should have a GVRO.  It keeps fraudulent claims away.  It's the same as you are proposing, just more legal term defined.  There needs to be a path for one to claim a GVRO, it can't just be brought up against a random person for no reason.

Neal

You mean like a bitter ex wife or husband?   No way they would do that to get back at them for fucking around.  :lol:  

Has to be concrete evidence.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

We can, have, and should do better than just claiming 2nd amendment.  You can't own a machine gun, tank, rocket or other such firearms simply claiming 2nd amendment.

Neal

those items aren't part of anyone's discussion that i've seen.

but you can carry on with the hyperbole if it makes you feel good.

Edited by oleroule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Guy was on MSNBC from the National Review talking about this.  Looking at Florida and a few other shootings I might be able to get behind this if there are some restrictions from Judges making the only decisions.

Basically evidence is taken in front of a judge and presented if the person is a threat to others with firearms.  Now I would think it would need to be more than simply "my neighbor threatened me" type of thing and actually include physical evidence such as a social media post, letter, email, recording.....something undeniably provable.   The person would have the right to testify on their behalf giving it some sense of due process.   Judge issues the TEMPORARY order for their guns to be taken or denies it.  This is only for a set period of time (60-90 days) then needs to come back to the judge.   If no further evidence is presented then the firearms are returned.  If the individual continues to make presentable threats then the order is extended.   At no point does it become permanent until the person commits a felony.   Then the normal rules apply.

There are obvious issues like them obtaining more guns, does the govt need to then track or create a system of tracking which I do not support.   Will people simply learn not to show red flags (Vegas shooter for example) or even just stay out of trouble until you get the guns back then go off.    If the person is ruled temporarily unsafe to possess guns and does not turn in all in their possession it could be a lower class felony where they lose them permanently.  

Did not research it but the person said California has just implemented a similar system where 60 cases have caused people to lose their guns temporarily and in only 5 of those was it extended.

Not going to stop all shootings but we can't just start throwing everyone in mental hospitals because they are a bit strange or flew off the handle and posted something they never would follow thru with.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

I'd sure like to see what is considered evidence enough to take a citizens guns.  And I'd sure want to know the judges background in these matters not to mention his political "sway".  But, I think something like this could be done.  I mean, you already be arrested by threatening to kill someone, why not take a look at social media and above all...the reports of others seeing it?  Makes sense to me.  

As far as the bold: Yeah, this last one falls on some heads other than his...and I bet we can look back to see who else was showing some clear signs and blame some others there too.  But, the real scary ones are the intelligent ones.  They aren't looking for any "celebrity" after the deed...and have a plan to carry out the mess no matter what.  Nothing we can do about those.

Meh...this shit gets to be a slippery slope....one the left just can't wait to start sliding down.

7 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

But it is silly not to.  If we don't come to some kind of national firearms exchange card/ID we will end up with bans.  It will happen.

Neal

You'll get some of your so called "token bans" but that will be it.  I never see a ban on weapons happening here because there is no way to collect them and they sure as fuck aren't getting turned in.  Well, you'll probably turn yours in as you are also "happy" with the amount of taxes you pay.  :lmao:

I see some fuckery happening with ammunition availablity before the weapons.  That will get REAL interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Not at all, no documentation path for private to private sale.  Buyers and sellers should have a path to document exchanges.

Neal

Personally I would never sell a gun to anyone without going thru a FFL.   To risky they are a felon.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Thus standing required....

Neal

Sure but I want it defined a bit more than just "standing."   A judge could easily take that as very, very minimal evidence.   

Maybe a 3 judge panel that must be unanimous.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

We can, have, and should do better than just claiming 2nd amendment.  You can't own a machine gun, tank, rocket or other such firearms simply claiming 2nd amendment.

Neal

Nope! chisel at the real issue, not more gun laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Personally I would never sell a gun to anyone without going thru a FFL.   To risky they are a felon.     

Indeed.  Federal firearms exchange cards make that easy, and doesn't have to involve a FFL.  It can even be optional to document make model and SN of weapons, although like you, I would do it for any exchanges.

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, NaturallyAspirated said:

Indeed.  Federal firearms exchange cards make that easy, and doesn't have to involve a FFL.  It can even be optional to document make model and SN of weapons, although like you, I would do it for any exchanges.

Neal

I'd prefer to keep in on the state level where the states can share info.  I don't really want it a requirement for private sales I just wouldn't do it to protect my own ass.  I would concede on it if would stop there but it NEVER will.   

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...