Firearms Talk banner

Safety: Risk to Self or Others.......

2K views 51 replies 14 participants last post by  JimRau 
#1 ·
i just read this article. rather moving and points to some things we are seeing happening currently.

for myself it's about balance. the safey of the general public, while respecting the rights of the person in regards to guns.

realistically, yes, i see there could be abuses of these type laws. honestly, there are abuses of every law! but there needs to be a balance between protecting the citizens, while protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of the people at the same time.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...is-guns/ar-BBKlRfC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
 
#3 ·
From the link:

""Probable cause: “McGuire stated to a medical technician that . . . he was going to kill himself by burning his house down and blowing his head off with a revolver.” "


Do not ever tell any medical person that you are depressed, contemplating suicide or anything like that. Nothing good can come of it.

Being trampled and gored by a big boar hog at 95 years old would be an honorable death.
 
#13 ·
From the link:

""Probable cause: “McGuire stated to a medical technician that . . . he was going to kill himself by burning his house down and blowing his head off with a revolver.” "


Do not ever tell any medical person that you are depressed, contemplating suicide or anything like that. Nothing good can come of it.

Being trampled and gored by a big boar hog at 95 years old would be an honorable death.
I'm planning to be shot by a jealous husband at around that age!:D
 
#5 ·
due process was followed. he got a court hearing, with his lawyer to present his case. the judge found in his favor, and his guns were returned.

is it perfect? not hardly, but the process worked, and there was no harm or foul. the man was grieving, and made a rash statement. it happens.
 
#12 ·
Bottom line, it all boils down to individuals who have mental issues and a danger to others and themselves should be acted upon, processed properly, and adjudicated one way or the other. In addition well as criminals should not have guns or access to guns. An example is if law enforcement goes to a location of a violent domestic with battery, or other similar cases. The guns at that time should be removed temporarily until adjudication takes place. But once again if they are adjudicated as mentally unstable they should not have guns or access.
Also the other key is shoring up the SECURITY at all schools and any possible soft target location.
I certainly believe the SRO numbers should be in accordance with the size of the school and buildings. Entry accesses should be limited with OFFICERS and possibly detectors. And possibly a back pack check policy if anything doesn't seem right. And well trained armed teachers or at least quick access to a weapon, or on Duty Officers, Retired Officers, or Prior Military could be present should an issue come up. Most of the shooters of the past were simply "COWARDS"! Who IMO would have possibly selected anther target if they would face a trained officer or school personnel. And God forbid it did happen at least they could limit the exposure time by holding off the attack or neutralizing the threat. I can not help but think that School's Coach would have no problem confronting that shooter with a gun if he would have had one!
With 350 million Guns in America all the laws in the World will not stop one of these mentally ill or demented individuals for trying to carry out some sort of carnage. So we must NOW! address the issues mentioned above that we can fix. And not going off on a "tangent knee jerk campaign" by attacking the law abiding citizens guns and Constitutional Rights.;)

03
 
#14 ·
Unfortunately for us in Maryland, the legislature included an "Interested person" as one who could petition the court and provide evidence ex-parte, with virtual immunity. (Extreme Risk Prevention Order, House Bill 1302). The judge will decide on initial seizure by a preponderance of the evidence. If that interested person is the only one there...preponderance. That interested person could be an anti-gun, NRA hating neighbor who's pissed off because your dog just crapped on his lawn and who wants to cause you grief. As written, with the inclusion of an interested person, it is just like the Salem Witch Hunts.
 
#22 ·
That is your theory. Show us when it happens. Judges are not fools to be easily manipulated by people who just had their yards crapped on by the neighbors mutt. The Salem witches had no access to council, no neutral judge, and no rights to appeal, so the two issues are not at all similar.
 
#16 ·
It's unlikely laws like this will stand after running the full course of appeals.

They violate the right to due process.
The 4th A
The 2A
Plus they remove judicial action before LE can act.
Judges don't like their turf stepped on.

The safe school act of 2018 passed the House .

I and many others I know across the state have warned Mitch allowing it to pass the Senate is a ticket out of office.

Hal Rodger committed political suicide by supporting it.
 
#21 ·
in the end, it worked out. the judge determined he was not a threat to his own safety, or others, and made a rash statement based upon he was grieving. he got his guns back. all is well.

life isn't perfect, and neither are our laws. people aren't perfect either.
 
#31 ·
just because something isn't specifically mentioned, doesn't make it necessarily legal, proper, ethical, or moral to do either!

show me anywhere it says a person can't marry their pet goat! LOL! :p
 
#43 · (Edited)
I don't have a problem if someone wants to marry their goat is if the goat is of legal age and as long as the goat consents. I may have even know the offspring of some such goat/human marriage, though I can't be sure.
 
#44 ·
Professor Jonathan Turley is one of the foremost legal minds in the country today. A scholar whose entire life has been devoted to the study of constitutional law.

Google him and read his writings. Believe it or not he knows more about the constitution and the law than all of the "bubbas" in the back woods beer bar put together. Same can be said of Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz.

Read their writings. Their opinions on what the constitution says and means, carry a helluva lot more weight then " old uncle Bubba from Brownhole.
"
 
#45 ·
One does not need a lawyer to read the BOR and understand what it says. It's written very clearly .

Corrupt lawyers, judges, and a made up out of thin air concept called "precedents" are what bastardized the the BOR and the COTUS over time.

Why would I study a lawyer 200 yrs removed from the actual writing who made a life study of how to corrupt it.?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top