El Paso Mall shooting

[Dirtshooter]

Exactly  criminals don't abide by laws no matter how many hundreds or thousands of them are passed. They only harm or impede the lawful citizen that wants to buy a gun to give his grandson or buy one to shoot sporting clays. This all started about 50-75 years ago. Parents quit disciplining their children, the Bible says if you love your children you will discipline them. Proverbs 13:24. It is all about not loving, it all boils down to a heart problem.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Dirtshooter
changes

[gregintenn]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456545-schumer-blasts-red-flag-legislation-as-ineffective-cop-out

 

Never fear! Trump my be trying to shove gun control down our throats, but good ole Chuck Schumer is having none of it.

[AuEagle]

1 minute ago, gregintenn said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456545-schumer-blasts-red-flag-legislation-as-ineffective-cop-out

 

Never fear! Trump my be trying to shove gun control down our throats, but good ole Chuck Schumer is having none of it.

Schumer & the rest of the prog/soc/comm's want nothing less than total confiscation.

 

[gregintenn]

4 minutes ago, AuEagle said:

Schumer & the rest of the prog/soc/comm's want nothing less than total confiscation.

 

And if Trump proposed precisely that today, they’d fight it tooth and nail. I’d like to think he’s doing it on purpose, but perhaps not, but he has a great knack for getting the Democrats to publicly out themselves as the frauds they are. To a degree, he’s done similarly with the republicans.

Name another instance where Schumer has come out against a gun control proposal.

Edited August 7, 2019 by gregintenn

[DaveTN]

7 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456545-schumer-blasts-red-flag-legislation-as-ineffective-cop-out

 

Never fear! Trump my be trying to shove gun control down our throats, but good ole Chuck Schumer is having none of it.

Well of course not. Schumer doesn’t want incentives to states to pass Red Flag laws; he wants Federal Red Flag laws passed. That and of course he doesn’t want anything Trump might be agreeable to. He’s such a loser.

[AuEagle]

6 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

And if Trump proposed precisely that today, they’d fight it tooth and nail. I’d like to think he’s doing it on purpose, but perhaps not, but he has a great knack for getting the Democrats to publicly out themselves as the frauds they are. To a degree, he’s done similarly with the republicans.

Name another instance where Schumer has come out against a gun control proposal.

Like my question yesterday in another post, cite for me any gun control law that's stopped a mass shooting or any murder.

Hasn't happened...

Edited August 7, 2019 by AuEagle

[DaveTN]

23 minutes ago, AuEagle said:

Like my question yesterday in another post, cite for me any gun control law that's stopped a mass shooting or any murder.

Hasn't happened...

And it won’t happen. But no one, including politicians is going to throw their hands up and say “There is nothing we can do; deal with it”

I think there is something that can be done. But I also think the laws are already in place to do it.

[Alleycat72]

If red flag laws are passed, we need something in the law that says any falsely accusing someone out of malice gets a mandatory 1 year in prison. 

[DaveTN]

6 minutes ago, alleycat72 said:

If red flag laws are passed, we need something in the law that says any falsely accusing someone out of malice gets a mandatory 1 year in prison. 

It’s filing a false police report. That’s a felony in many places. You have to be able to prove it was malicious. That can be really hard to do. I agree with you, but I can think of a lot of worse crimes that don’t have a mandatory prison sentence.

My main concern should Tennessee decide to make changes is due process. An absolute amount of time a person has, to go before a Judge. And if it is decided that person is not a threat; the weapons are returned immediately with no further BS requirements.

[GlockSpock]

34 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

It’s filing a false police report. That’s a felony in many places. You have to be able to prove it was malicious. That can be really hard to do. I agree with you, but I can think of a lot of worse crimes that don’t have a mandatory prison sentence.

My main concern should Tennessee decide to make changes is due process. An absolute amount of time a person has, to go before a Judge. And if it is decided that person is not a threat; the weapons are returned immediately with no further BS requirements.

Serious question. How would you, Dave, prove to a judge that you are not a threat? In all honesty? If someone accused you as to making a death threat to them. Perhaps a Judge with an anti-gun slant and/or connections to the accuser is the person overseeing the "case".

How would you, the accused, prove you were not a threat? 

Edited August 7, 2019 by GlockSpock

[DaveTN]

15 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Serious question. How would you, Dave, prove to a judge that you are not a threat? In all honesty? If someone accused you as to making a death threat to them. Perhaps a Judge with an anti-gun slant and/or connections to the accuser is the person overseeing the "case".

How would you, the accused, prove you were not a threat? 

You don’t have to prove you are not a threat. The state has to prove you are, to the satisfaction of a Judge or possibly a jury. In a civil hearing the burden is preponderance of the evidence, in a criminal trial it is beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s usually going to boil down to credibility.

Is someone going to lose their guns because of a pizzed off wife in a dispute? You bet. It happens now and these laws won’t change that. You picked her and you have to deal with the consequences of that action.

Is a Judge going to rule you aren’t a threat and give you your guns back? Probably not, unless of course the people making the claims against you don’t show up. Which is usually what happens in BS family disputes.

Nothing in a family dispute will be “fair” for everyone. And as always… you will get just as much “justice” as you can afford. You need to be the one able to afford the attorney that has “connections” with the Judge.

Now let me ask you a serious question. Have you seen something in proposed Red Flag laws that allow the cops some rights to seize your guns that they do not have right now?

[OLDNEWBIE]

Another "remedy" I surprisingly haven't heard this time around is age resrictions bumped up to 21. (I am against this but perhaps an enhanced BG for under 21s is something they will look at?) unconstitutional I'm sure. And not fair to young people.

 BTW,  Might stronger BG checks that have been discussed entail just fixing the glitches in the system we already have in place? Nothing new...Just clean up the errors and ommisions that occur. Haven't there been cases where people who are banned by existing laws gotten a gun despite a BG check? 

Dems and Repubs should be able to agree on that without debate. That's low hanging fruit. 

 

 

[Alleycat72]

Tie voting age to age restrictions on guns.

[GlockSpock]

15 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

You don’t have to prove you are not a threat. The state has to prove you are, to the satisfaction of a Judge or possibly a jury. In a civil hearing the burden is preponderance of the evidence, in a criminal trial it is beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s usually going to boil down to credibility.

Is someone going to lose their guns because of a pizzed off wife in a dispute? You bet. It happens now and these laws won’t change that. You picked her and you have to deal with the consequences of that action.

Is a Judge going to rule you aren’t a threat and give you your guns back? Probably not, unless of course the people making the claims against you don’t show up. Which is usually what happens in BS family disputes.

Nothing in a family dispute will be “fair” for everyone. And as always… you will get just as much “justice” as you can afford. You need to be the one able to afford the attorney that has “connections” with the Judge.

Now let me ask you a serious question. Have you seen something in proposed Red Flag laws that allow the cops some rights to seize your guns that they do not have right now?

I personally have not looked at any proposed Red Flag laws. I admit, I am just against them in general.

I also believe convicted felons should be able to own guns, so I personally may be a bit biased towards the Shall Not Be Infringed law on the books.

[DaveTN]

29 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I personally have not looked at any proposed Red Flag laws. I admit, I am just against them in general.

Against what? Against what they will do? Against what the procedure you now have is? What are you against?

And what would GlockSpock do as a Police Officer when a woman has told you her husband threatened to kill her, there are guns in the house, she does not want them there, and she is in fear for her life and the lives of her children. Go…

Second scenario. An elderly woman has told you her elderly husband has been depressed and has threatened to kill himself. There are firearms in the house and she believes he will kill both her and himself. Go…

29 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I also believe convicted felons should be able to own guns, so I personally may be a bit biased towards the Shall Not Be Infringed law on the books.

I don’t believe in violent convicted felons owning guns, and I don’t believe in second changes for some violent offenses. I don’t have a problem with restoring the rights of a convicted felon as long as it goes before a Judge, preferable the Judge that heard the case if possible, and as long as the victim is notified and allowed to be heard.

Some crimes don’t deserve a second chance; actions have consequences. Some people have trouble understanding that.

 

[beebee233]

21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Against what? Against what they will do? Against what the procedure you now have is? What are you against?

And what would GlockSpock do as a Police Officer when a woman has told you her husband threatened to kill her, there are guns in the house, she does not want them there, and she is in fear for her life and the lives of her children. Go…

Second scenario. An elderly woman has told you her elderly husband has been depressed and has threatened to kill himself. There are firearms in the house and she believes he will kill both her and himself. Go…

I don’t believe in violent convicted felons owning guns, and I don’t believe in second changes for some violent offenses. I don’t have a problem with restoring the rights of a convicted felon as long as it goes before a Judge, preferable the Judge that heard the case if possible, and as long as the victim is notified and allowed to be heard.

Some crimes don’t deserve a second chance; actions have consequences. Some people have trouble understanding that.

 

I'd like to jump in and say, in scenario 1, I would tell the lady she better get the h$// out of dodge. Find an attorney and a judge, and don't go near him until the courts have determined he is fit/unfit.

Same for 2. Get the h$\\ out.

That's if I was a cop.

If it were my sister/mother, I'd tell them to get the h$\\ out NOW.

[GlockSpock]

21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Against what? Against what they will do? Against what the procedure you now have is? What are you against?

And what would GlockSpock do as a Police Officer when a woman has told you her husband threatened to kill her, there are guns in the house, she does not want them there, and she is in fear for her life and the lives of her children. Go…

Second scenario. An elderly woman has told you her elderly husband has been depressed and has threatened to kill himself. There are firearms in the house and she believes he will kill both her and himself. Go…

I don’t believe in violent convicted felons owning guns, and I don’t believe in second changes for some violent offenses. I don’t have a problem with restoring the rights of a convicted felon as long as it goes before a Judge, preferable the Judge that heard the case if possible, and as long as the victim is notified and allowed to be heard.

Some crimes don’t deserve a second chance; actions have consequences. Some people have trouble understanding that.

 

I am against laws that restrict the rights of citizens. 

First scenario. If there is sufficient evidence to support that her husband has threatened to kill her, arrest him. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at in the meantime. Send him to trial for making a threat to kill her.

Second scenario. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at if she wants.

Let's be honest, even if you take guns away from both of those husbands, there are other means. Knives. Fires. Poisons. Cars. Is taking away the husband's firearms in either of those cases truly going to stop anything?

For the record, I respect most LEO's but would not want their job. As you've stated before, people will take months and years to decide whether they act reasonably when in truth they have to make a decision in seconds...or even less. And...often-time their decisions are only shown to be "wrong" with the added benefit of hindsight.

I personally believe that if a person is free (not incarcerated), they should be able to own and possess a firearm. If someone has evil on their mind, a law forbidding them from owning a firearm isn't going to stop them.

If they are truly bad enough to not be trusted with a firearm, perhaps they should still be in prison.

[btq96r]

21 hours ago, Erich said:

Actually, they are straight up crazy. They suffer from classic disorders. Textbook. Antisocial Personality Disorder / Psychopathy

If they're competent enough to stand trial, then they're not mentally ill to the point of that being a factor in my mind.  Dylan Roof is a good example of someone who may be looked at as "he's crazy", but actually had a cogitative thought process drawn from a lack of moral checks.

 

2 hours ago, AuEagle said:

Like my question yesterday in another post, cite for me any gun control law that's stopped a mass shooting or any murder.

Hasn't happened...

The premise of your question invalidates it.  We don't know how many people who have been denied for background checks, or would if they could have gotten an AR or AK during the ban years meant to kill.  I'm sure the number is fractional at best to the overall sample size, but you can't rule it out.  Pretty impossible to prove such, really.

Make no mistake, I'm not for overhanded government regulation of firearms, but let's be intellectually honest on things...we tend to slide on that when this topic raises temperatures.

[DaveTN]

17 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I am against laws that restrict the rights of citizens. 

First scenario. If there is sufficient evidence to support that her husband has threatened to kill her, arrest him. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at in the meantime. Send him to trial for making a threat to kill her.

Second scenario. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at if she wants.

Let's be honest, even if you take guns away from both of those husbands, there are other means. Knives. Fires. Poisons. Cars. Is taking away the husband's firearms in either of those cases truly going to stop anything?

For the record, I respect most LEO's but would not want their job. As you've stated before, people will take months and years to decide whether they act reasonably when in truth they have to make a decision in seconds...or even less. And...often-time their decisions are only shown to be "wrong" with the added benefit of hindsight.

I personally believe that if a person is free (not incarcerated), they should be able to own and possess a firearm. If someone has evil on their mind, a law forbidding them from owning a firearm isn't going to stop them.

If they are truly bad enough to not be trusted with a firearm, perhaps they should still be in prison.

Okay, that’s fair. You are willing to let innocent people die instead of what you see as either a rights violation, or just that you can’t stop the inevitable. I’m not. The right of an innocent to be safe and secure trumps the gun rights of a criminal every single time. Someones rights are going to be violated, if its me choosing the choice is going to be an easy one. Your job is to make the situation safe for the innocent family members using whatever laws and procedures you have available to you.

When people call the Police they expect someone to show up that can help them. Too often anymore that is not the case. 

I can absolutely assure you that if an innocent person dies because you didn’t do everything you could, even though you did what the law requires; it would eat at you the rest of your life.

[gregintenn]

Red flag laws are a violation of the 4th amendment as much as, if not more than the 2nd amendment.

[Omega]

59 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I am against laws that restrict the rights of citizens. 

First scenario. If there is sufficient evidence to support that her husband has threatened to kill her, arrest him. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at in the meantime. Send him to trial for making a threat to kill her.

Second scenario. Leave the guns in the house. Help her find a safe house to stay at if she wants.

Let's be honest, even if you take guns away from both of those husbands, there are other means. Knives. Fires. Poisons. Cars. Is taking away the husband's firearms in either of those cases truly going to stop anything?

For the record, I respect most LEO's but would not want their job. As you've stated before, people will take months and years to decide whether they act reasonably when in truth they have to make a decision in seconds...or even less. And...often-time their decisions are only shown to be "wrong" with the added benefit of hindsight.

I personally believe that if a person is free (not incarcerated), they should be able to own and possess a firearm. If someone has evil on their mind, a law forbidding them from owning a firearm isn't going to stop them.

If they are truly bad enough to not be trusted with a firearm, perhaps they should still be in prison.

I don't feel that felons with violent criminal pasts should get their 2A rights back.  I've seen way too many felons that are repeat offenders that go around killing again, sometimes for a second time. Our court system and penal institutions are just not very good at putting, and keeping people in prison.  Sure, some get sentenced for a bunch of years, but released in 2 for "good" behaviour, murderers in some cases, out for "good" behaviour.  If I had better trust in them I may agree, but as it stands, that is a firm no.  Now, the non violent ones, yea sure give them a trial and let the judge decide on a case by case basis if they should get them back. that way the ones that have picked up violent tendencies in jail don't fall through the cracks.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

Red flag laws are a violation of the 4th amendment as much as, if not more than the 2nd amendment.

You think it’s an unreasonable seizure to take firearms from someone threatening homicide or suicide?

[Erich]

1 hour ago, btq96r said:

If they're competent enough to stand trial, then they're not mentally ill to the point of that being a factor in my mind.

I think you put it perfectly with that last qualifier, "in your mind".  Which is fine, just not the case clinically.  Trial competence (fortunately) has little to do with a person being crazy as much as it means they have an awareness and can respond to proceedings. Psycopaths are perfectly fit trial but not to be out running around.

I trust you are not saying you think its normal (clinically acceptable behavior) to go around killing people without any remorse. Put another way, "My doc told me its OK to work out my anger by shooting people as I am not insane and is a fine coping mechanism for me"

 

[beebee233]

21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

You think it’s an unreasonable seizure to take firearms from someone threatening homicide or suicide?

If the threat is that real then the person should be removed from the firearms, not the other way around.

[DaveTN]

10 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

If the threat is that real then the person should be removed from the firearms, not the other way around.

That would work.  Keep them in jail until trial. Great idea!

Would you give them the option of being able to bond out if they voluntarily surrender their firearms? Because that’s what they are going to want to do.