DaveTN

I’d go with JHP. A robbery situation where you would be justified in shooting someone in a car that wasn’t fleeing would be less likely than needing to make a gunman standing within feet of you unwilling or unable to fire his weapon at you.

The best description I have heard of why that guy was not still in jail was because on Monday, Wednesday, Friday we discuss making sure we are protected from violent offenders and they get sent to prison. On Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday we discuss why violent offenders deserve a second chance and we need to let some of them out. I’ve never changed by view on that. I was disappointed to see Trump roll over for the criminal huggers; but I guess sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do; plenty of conservatives were high fiving letting criminals go when they were parading them around the White House.

Doug, I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting seizure of guns based on an anonymous complaint, or a person not being told who made the complaint. Now, an anonymous complaint of a violation of the law is something else. That’s up to the cops to make their own case. However, I don’t know what’s being suggested for sure because I have not seen any legislation. I heard legislation was proposed here in TN, but when I went to the Legislatures web site; I found nothing. When I asked here; nothing. So the only intelligent discussions we can have right now are about generalities, or what would happen right now.

Yes, but a new question was asked hours ago.

If you are trying to get me to say that I would take whatever I felt was required…Okay… I would seize whatever I felt the need to seize. I would be required to act within the limits of the Constitution, the State Law, and Department Policy. Or in short…Due Process. As I said before… you can’t handle your own family’s business; so, I was called. If you threatened a family member (or someone else) with violence you would not like what I (or most Police Officers) would have done, you probably would feel like your constitutional Rights had been violated and you were not treated fairly. As recourse there are thousands of Attorneys waiting to hear your story. I’m only saying that for the people that wonder what happens in these situations. If anyone thinks the cops will be called to someone threatening someone with a gun and there will be a lot of hand wringing on the part of the Officers trying to decide what to do, or court being held on the street; that’s not reality.

I absolutely support Due Process. It’s one of the very few things that protect you from the system. If the person threatened someone with a chain saw. I would arrest them, seize it and tag it into evidence. If the wife said her husband threatened her with a chainsaw and he was headed off for commitment in the local mental hospital; I would seize the chainsaw if she didn’t want it in the house. Same with knives, baseball bats, or yes….even guns.

No. Really??

Sure, but you don't answer to anyone about it unless a Command Officer questions it. Once it goes to the DA; they do whatever they want.

If you threaten someone with violence the cops can seize you guns without violating your Constitutional Rights. To violate your rights the word “unreasonable” would need to be removed from the 4th amendment. Its in there for a reason.

Lets post the text of what I said....

I don’t want a Red Flag Law. All I have done is point out that it may give you specifics on due process you don’t have now. The cops are going to take your guns if they want to; they don’t need Red Flag laws to do that. If they are seized as evidence in a criminal case, it is clearly defined when you will get them back; when the court says you can have them back. It a mental health case it isn’t as clear cut. I just keep seeing all the drama and people scared that the cops will be able to seize their guns if these Red Flag laws pass. They can do that right now. These Red Flag laws and enhanced background checks (doing away with private sales without a background check) are just some legislators way of doing “something” without impacting law abiding voters. Let me repeat….I don’t want Red Flag laws, I would like to see due process even though it will have zero impact on me. Legislation specifying how and when these things will happen is the only way to have due process. If you want to keep things the way they are now; that’s fine, tell your legislators that. They will be happy to hear it.

The death penalty is one of those things you have to get right every single time. If not, you are just another murderer and you will have some explaining to do if you have a hand in it. (I believe) It’s one of those things where you don’t get to say “I was just following orders” (orders, being the law).

No. 1. Tennessee doesn’t have firearm registration. 2. If you are justified in using deadly force in Tennessee; weapons charges don’t apply.

That sounds illogical to me also. I’m not suggesting taking anyone’s guns and setting them free. Taking guns wouldn’t be important to me. Saving someone’s life who has asked me for help would be.

For what purpose? Chapter 55 cited above is the vehicle code and doesn’t have anything to do with deadly force.

Not once did your wife ever have to tell you “Honey, you left the boys in the car”? .....Just checking.

If you think anonymous calls can be made to the Police and they will show up at your house and seize your guns; I can understand your fear. That would be terrible. In none of our scenarios have we discussed the cops showing up without having interviewed a complainant, and taking your guns. That would be unreasonable and a law like that would never hold up in court. Has a law like that been suggested somewhere?

If they were going to do that why would they wait for Red Flag laws? No need really, and I would guess most states have some form of them already. Who said people can’t be held responsible for filing a false Police Report? It’s a felony in many places.

ESPN is live streaming them. http://www.espn.com/watch/_/id/3123066/little-league-world-series

I find it repulsive that any government thinks it’s okay for them to kill someone that is locked in a cell, and is a danger to no one while in that cell, but they want to require you, I, and Police Officers to wait to shoot someone that has a gun in their hand and is and immediate threat. I personally would like to see it returned to the way it used to be where you could kill a forcible felon or a fleeing forcible felon if they refuse to stop. Heck…I’ll even take that one step farther. I would like to see it where once it is proven you had intent to commit a forcible felony; your Constitutional Rights are gone. Of course that would never cut it with the SCOTUS, them being the interpreters of the Constitution and all.

Once again...it depends on who you are, and who your attorneys are.

No, not if you have enough of the required ID.

or vote.

Same here. When the Governor of Illinois was faced with 13 death row inmates that had been proven they were innocent; he had a choice to make. I also don’t believe in it for religious reasons, the crazy defense costs involved, and the fact that I believe a murderer should have to suffer. If I knew I was going to spend the rest of my life in prison, I would rather be executed; it’s the easy way out.

In this state I don't know. And no one "in the know" has answered that yet. I suspect, yes, they can take your guns. I also suspect there is not documented due process addressing getting them back. But that's just a WAG.