M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Recoil is an issue.
AND reloading via magazine is important.
AND reloading via magazine is important.
- Status
Listen, if you want to come up with reasons against the idea, that’s your choice. I think it is perfectly possible to respond to communication of a threat, as was the case with Parkland.
There is a reason for due process, because it protects the presumption of innocence.
I’m not in favor of placing innovative limited on any of the enumerated rights.
Is there an example of this?
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t see this. Mr. Cruz passed the background check and bought the AR15 legally. The laws were obeyed. What law specifically was not enforced?
Last edited:
He could have been “Bakered”.JonNC:
I don’t see this. Mr. Cruz passed the background check and bought the AR15 legally. The laws were obeyed. What law specifically was not enforced?
He made numerous threats. That’s against the law.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The question was what should the judge do. You say it is perfectly possible to respond to communication of a threat as in Parkland. But my question was a little more general. In the case of Parkland there were multiple reports corroborating each other, so the answer should have been easy. But I am asking how high the bar should be before a judge should order guns taken away without any notice? Should it require multiple reports from different people, or physical evidence (such as a facebook post), or could a judge issue the order on the word of just one witness? In the similar situation of domestic abuse, I think the judge usually looks for some corroboration before arresting the accused abuser, like other witnesses, or bruises on the victim. But in the case of a shooter planning to shoot up a school, you don’t always get visible bruises ahead of time.LeafByNiggle:
Listen, if you want to come up with reasons against the idea, that’s your choice. I think it is perfectly possible to respond to communication of a threat, as was the case with Parkland.
There is a reason for due process, because it protects the presumption of innocence.
I’m not in favor of placing innovative limited on any of the enumerated rights.
I know you are not in favor of “innovative” limitations on enumerated rights, but I don’t know if you would call Gun Violence Protective Orders “innovative.”
Is a person imprisoned without bail “without notice “? How high is the bar now?
T
Theo520
Guest
For home defense you really don’t need more than a modern handgun. Pretty easy to find a 9mm that holds 15-17 rounds in a magazine and the recoil is very manageable if it’s full sized. Though racking a shotgun might solve the situation without needing to fire a shot
.
T
Theo520
Guest
I think that’s something we’ll have to work out, and the line may shift around before settling into an area most feel is reasonable.
An indirect benefit of this approach is by changing the discussion and focus. It clearly raises the mental health and harm angle for explicit discussion, where in the past I think it was brushed over as ‘just talk’
To give an example, schools and the foster system must now take every threat of self harm seriously, even though teens often say stuff to get attention and have no intention of suicide or self harm.
Most Foster Care situations require that they are sent to a hospital for observation by a professional. This response is often overkill but I do think it reduces the number of suicides.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As usual, your response is quite reasonable, based on weighing different factors in an unavoidably difficult manner. But Jon’s responses seem to be based on absolutist ideologies with no room for compromise. So I was just trying to see if in this case he might bend a little a allow that in some cases an enumerated right might be temporarily suspended without the normal due process and based on less-then-overwhelming evidence.LeafByNiggle:
I think that’s something we’ll have to work out, and the line may shift around before settling into an area most feel is reasonable.
An indirect benefit of this approach is by changing the discussion and focus. It clearly raises the mental health and harm angle for explicit discussion, where in the past I think it was brushed over as ‘just talk’
To give an example, schools and the foster system must now take every threat of self harm seriously, even though teens often say stuff to get attention and have no intention of suicide or self harm.
Most Foster Care situations require that they are sent to a hospital for observation by a professional. This response is often overkill but I do think it reduces the number of suicides.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My nominee is a .410. Hardly any kick. Nobody could remain standing after taking even a single blast.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Or what we used to call “police locks” (I don’t know why) back in the bad old days of New York City, when I lived on Avenue B right up the street from one of the biggest heroin markets probably in the world.
Turn the lock and a bar extends across the whole door into the frame. And then, when you’re inside, there’s a steel rod (hard to explain this in words) that goes from a socket right in the center of the door into a socket on the floor, at about a 45-degree angle.
A good steel door and frame, and locks like that, you’re pretty safe.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sounds like it would stop a tank.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Of course, there were sleazebag landlords who would put in great doors, but had split up one or two huge apartments into several smaller ones, and made the walls out of nothing but sheet rock, so even though you didn’t have to worry about the doors, a child could punch his way through your walls. . .
When it comes to constitutionally protected rights, yes, you are right. But I think due process can be served and protecting to public, as well. If someone is charged with a crime, a judge looks at the preliminary evidence and determines what bail or bond should be.
That sane judge could look at the evidence and determine if the accused is a risk to himself or others, and just like holding someone unless bail is met, he can decide whether the accused should have to have his firearms held until the case is resolved.
It has been adjudicated. His due process rights are observed, and if he is innocent or found competent, give him his rights and property back.
What more do you want? Law enforcement take someone’s arms on a rumor, without a judge involved? I see a huge potential for abuse there
R
Rau
Guest
There are numerous things all parties will agree to. I’m not sure why you say otherwise.
T
Theo520
Guest
In most homes there are many windows that can be easily broken. What you are describing is high rise apartment security.
Also, most people will open a door to someone sounding reasonable on the other side. Kids answering the door increases the risk.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Oh, sure, I know that. I was talking about New York City.
Places like that usually have armed guards.
- Status