National American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws

[Joe Link]

The American Bar Association is pushing state and local governments to adopt firearm confiscation laws similar to those in California.

During their 2017 Annual Meeting, the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 118B, which "urges governments to enact statutes, rules, or regulations authorizing courts to issue gun violence restraining orders, including ex parte orders."

The ex parte aspect of the resolution means the ABA is pushing confiscation orders that can be issued without any input from the gun owner.

Breitbart News reported that California Democrats secured "gun violence restraining orders" after the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara attack. That attack was a carried out by an individual who passed a background check for his firearms, registered his guns with the state — per law — and only used standard capacity magazines (10 rounds or less).

American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws - Breitbart

Read More

 

[Heywood]

Anyone surprised?
Most lawyers are leftist asswipe's and this will have the added benefit of creating potential clients for suing .gov
When I was a child I always wondered why people hated lawyers. Now I wonder why they aren't hated enough.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'mna work on getting "Cornhole a Lawyer Day" passed by congress. it's only fair

 

[albin25]

Given the number of suicides and hardship caused by the legal profession....
.... perhaps we should consider confiscating lawyers

 

[WWShooter]

Given the number of suicides and hardship caused by the legal profession....
.... perhaps we should consider confiscating lawyers

Fair enough. The next time you or any of your family has a legal problem, call a plumber.

 

[Alexx1401]

Given the high percentage of bottom feeders who are VERY liberal this comes as no shock to me at all.

 

[Diamondback]

I'd like to request that the ABA take a bath in gasoline and light themselves on fire.

 

[bbbass]

F'ing ABA!!!

Considering that most politicians are lawyers too, I agree that this may be self-serving instead of altruistic. Remembering how the eco-Nazi movement got started.

 

[Certaindeaf]

F'ing ABA!!!

Considering that most politicians are lawyers too, I agree that this may be self-serving instead of altruistic. Remembering how the eco-Nazi movement got started.

Speaking of self-serving, I heard that the forestry department wants to outlaw that supertanker jet.. because it'll put the fires out.
logic! and more money in their pocketses

 

[Certaindeaf]

You'd think that someone that went to a special lawyering school woulda heard about the Constitutional Bill of Rights.

 

[nammac]

F'ing ABA!!!

Considering that most politicians are lawyers too, I agree that this may be self-serving instead of altruistic. Remembering how the eco-Nazi movement got started.

This is why we need to get back to the model the founding fathers created, no professional politicians... They should be farmers, tradesmen, business owners, even former soldiers, but certainly not lawyers...

 

[11Charlie]

This is why we need to get back to the model the founding fathers created, no professional politicians... They should be farmers, tradesmen, business owners, even former soldiers, but certainly not lawyers...

 

[Certaindeaf]

Climate change is because of Federal grant gravy.. lol

 

[WWShooter]

You'd think that someone that went to a special lawyering school woulda heard about the Constitutional Bill of Rights.

Well, yes, law students have heard of the bill of rights - all of it. That's why they support freedom of expression, even if they hate what's being said; the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures (ahem, civil forfeitures - Jeff Session's new best friend); equal rights for all citizens not just white folks with money; the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (ineffective or painful execution drugs); and so on - you know, all the stuff that the ACLU fights about because it's there in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

I know it comes as a huge shock, but there are 10 sections to the Bill of Rights - they didn't skip one, and three through ten. It seems some folks like to pick and choose what sections of the Constituion matter, just like folks selectively read the Bible. It's BS in both instances.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Well, yes, law students have heard of the bill of rights - all of it. That's why they support freedom of expression, even if they hate what's being said; the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures (ahem, civil forfeitures - Jeff Session's new best friend); equal rights for all citizens not just white folks with money; the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (ineffective or painful execution drugs); and so on - you know, all the stuff that the ACLU fights about because it's there in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

I know it comes as a huge shock, but there are 10 sections to the Bill of Rights - they didn't skip one, and three through ten. It seems some folks like to pick and choose what sections of the Constituion matter, just like folks selectively read the Bible. It's BS in both instances.

Erm, then why..? "American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws".

 

[Diamondback]

I'd like to propose a ten-year lifetime career limit for each legislative chamber--with terms that would stretch beyond that limit giving the officeholder an option between resigning at the end of year ten, or serving out the full term with an immediate hanging on the capitol steps upon end of that term. Also, MANDATORY retirement for legislative office at age 75, effective upon end of that session--no more senile, spiteful old fools given terminal-illness-means-douchebaggery-without-fear-of-consequence like Ship-His-A**-Back-To-Hanoi McSh*tstain.

 

[WWShooter]

Erm, then why..? "American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws".

Well then, take the time to read the article and discuss the points at issue.

What parts of a recommendation that states: "enact statutes, rules, or regulations authorizing courts to issue gun violence restraining orders, including ex parte orders, that include at least the following provisions: That a person with documented evidence that another person poses a serious threat to himself or herself or others may petition a court for an order temporarily suspending the respondent's possession of a firearm or ammunition; That there shall be a verifiable procedure to ensure the surrender of firearms and ammunition pursuant to the court order; and That the issuance of the gun violence restraining order shall be reported to appropriate state or federal databases in order to prevent respondent from passing a background check required to purchase a firearm or obtain a firearm license or permit while restraining order is in effect."

Why not debate the issue?

You think that a parent whose child is suicidal and possesses guns should just shrug and say "2nd Amendment, oh well"? How about your daughter's violent ex-husband who's threatened to kill her and her kids (your grand children), "2nd Amendment, oh well"?

Bright line answers are easy, until the real world intrudes and threatens you and yours. And I know, you'll trot out your guns and prevent all that, unless you're not there, in which case those you love are dead. But, hey, "2nd Amendment, oh well."

 

[cigars]

I'd like to request that the ABA take a bath in gasoline and light themselves on fire.

Ooh, ooh I've got a match!

 

[No_Regerts]

Why not debate the issue?

You think that a parent whose child is suicidal and possesses guns should just shrug and say "2nd Amendment, oh well"? How about your daughter's violent ex-husband who's threatened to kill her and her kids (your grand children), "2nd Amendment, oh well"?

Bright line answers are easy, until the real world intrudes and threatens you and yours. And I know, you'll trot out your guns and prevent all that, unless you're not there, in which case those you love are dead. But, hey, "2nd Amendment, oh well."

Nope. If your kid is suicidal, get them evaluated by a DMHP. If there is grounds to commit the person, so be it. Otherwise, this isn't the minority report.

Death threats are already illegal, at least in WA. Harrassment/Threats to Kill, RCW 9A.46.020. The whole due process thing has to happen though. You know, all that ACLU championed stuff you mentioned.

 

[No_Regerts]

And anyone who has been through a divorce knows lawyers NEVER blow anything out of proportion in their noble effort to provide a zealous representation for their client.