National American Bar Association Asks States to Adopt Firearm Confiscation Laws

[Diamondback]

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.

Of course not... it can't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that the more they extract from the other guy the bigger their cut is...

Frankly, I'm starting to favor the model in an alternate-history Western I read... where the "lawyers" went through Bar accreditation, but made their arguments by meeting with sixguns at High Noon.

 

[USMC-03]

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...

Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court. Article 5 Convention of States is the only way...

 

[WWShooter]

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.

Okay, you want to rely on a government agent who's got a huge case load and may be able to evaluate your kid or get around to this death threat in two to five weeks to keep your kid safe, that's your choice.

Me, I'm going to be a little more pro-active.

Who knew folks on this board placed so much faith in governmental social welfare agencies?

 

[Diamondback]

Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court. Article 5 Convention of States is the only way...

People whine about "rogue convention"... most of the oppo is financed by George Soros.

Antonin Scalia was for it. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are for it. George Soros and his minions are reacting to it like Dracula to the threat of a garlic enema administered via high-pressure firehose. That tells me all I need to know to pick a side right there...

 

[USMC-03]

People whine about "rogue convention"... most of the oppo is financed by George Soros.

Antonin Scalia was for it. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are for it. George Soros and his minions are reacting to it like Dracula to the threat of a garlic enema administered via high-pressure firehose. That tells me all I need to know to pick a side right there...

I simply tell people to read Article 5. What does it say and mean vs what is being spouted as conventional wisdom.

 

[No_Regerts]

Okay, you want to rely on a government agent who's got a huge case load and may be able to evaluate your kid or get around to this death threat in two to five weeks to keep your kid safe, that's your choice.

Me, I'm going to be a little more pro-active.

Who knew folks on this board placed so much faith in governmental social welfare agencies?

Nope, using the government is the last thing we want, to include inacting unconstitutional laws restricting our rights without due process of the law.

Grab your mentally ill kid and go to an ER and use your insurance. Take some responsibility for yourself without handcuffing the rest of the people who already have.

Then teach your daughter to defend herself and be proactive with the police in having the guy arrested. Biggest issue police have with DV cases? Wishy-washy victims who won't testify.

 

[nammac]

Nope, using the government is the last thing we want, to include inacting unconstitutional laws restricting our rights without due process of the law.

Grab your mentally ill kid and go to an ER and use your insurance. Take some responsibility for yourself without handcuffing the rest of the people who already have.

Then teach your daughter to defend herself and be proactive with the police in having the guy arrested. Biggest issue police have with DV cases? Wishy-washy victims who won't testify.

Huh, who'd a thought taking personal responsibility was a good thing...

 

[albin25]

Unless the "threat" specifically and provably indicated the intent to use a firearm and it also possibly be interpreted to include some other means, I suppose they should also take any knives, baseball bats, gasoline and matches, anything with a point or edge like scissors, shears or axes, razors, hammers, etc.... up to and including restraining his hands and feet.

Okay, you want to rely on a government agent who's got a huge case load and may be able to evaluate your kid or get around to this death threat in two to five weeks to keep your kid safe, that's your choice

You seem to have no qualms about relying on that same "government Agent" to evaluate whether a citizen should have his legally owned property confiscated and to carefully evaluate if a threat was even actually made....and, even though earlier you intimated a strong dislike of the current AG's love for civil forfeiture, you are arguing for even more of it.

 

[Diamondback]

Then teach your daughter to defend herself and be proactive with the police in having the guy arrested. Biggest issue police have with DV cases? Wishy-washy victims who won't testify.

One thing that never made sense with my ex... proactive enough to learn to shoot, proactive enough to put me on the payroll to run interference knowing that I would probably end up trading my life for hers if the Call to Arms came, but NOT proactive enough to have her a**wipe stalker ex prosecuted because she thought "he'd lose everything and that'd make him MORE dangerous." No, lady, you don't GET more dangerous than somebody who's ALREADY almost snuffed you out like a candle once...

I was young, I was stupid, and I was a late bloomer head over heels for the first time, and that's about all I can plead in my own defense for the rather questionable judgment I had placing myself in that situation for her.

 

[Crohnos01]

Okay, you want to rely on a government agent who's got a huge case load and may be able to evaluate your kid or get around to this death threat in two to five weeks to keep your kid safe, that's your choice.

Me, I'm going to be a little more pro-active.

Who knew folks on this board placed so much faith in governmental social welfare agencies?

Gee... you sound like you have ties to the legal profession? Really sorry about that... Maybe try a career change to something more honorable.... like snake oil sales?

The law as passed in Washington is a hideous twisted ill conceived attempt at materializing frustrated feelings about suicides and shootings into law. I'm not as familiar with the Oregon version but I believe it's basically the same. Someone who has a grudge, like a bad breakup with a wife or girlfriend, can insinuate that you are a danger to yourself or others and, ta-da...you lose your guns. Law enforcement shows up and takes them...Not to worry though, you can jump through legal hoops to prove its a trumped up charge...in a year... maybe. In the meantime, you are guilty til proven innocent.... But of course nobody would ever abuse such a law, right? Sorry, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is unconstitutional IMHO in this case. Do we need to do something about the mental health crisis in this country? Duh.... is stripping honest citzens of their right the way to do it? Hell no!

 

[WWShooter]

LOL, you guys are amusing - wanting to have it both ways. Guns for everyone, regardless of mental health, intention or risk to others.

I get it. It's a nice clean line - that is until someone you care about is at risk. So, let's play the game of guns for all, regardless of mental stability, evil intent, and so on.

But don't then talk of tragic losses. Anyone killed by someone who shouldn't have had a gun is simply an unavoidable statistic, because "oh, well 2nd Amendment," right?

 

[bbbass]

One thing that never made sense with my ex... proactive enough to learn to shoot, proactive enough to put me on the payroll to run interference knowing that I would probably end up trading my life for hers if the Call to Arms came, but NOT proactive enough to have her a**wipe stalker ex prosecuted because she thought "he'd lose everything and that'd make him MORE dangerous." No, lady, you don't GET more dangerous than somebody who's ALREADY almost snuffed you out like a candle once...

I was young, I was stupid, and I was a late bloomer head over heels for the first time, and that's about all I can plead in my own defense for the rather questionable judgment I had placing myself in that situation for her.

When my then girlfriend told me that her ex had shot at her down the hall, I should have wondered if there was a reason. Instead I believed the monster she made him out to be. I was her meal ticket for 10yrs because I had a baby with her. Later she refused to go to her first ex for child support and wanted me to pay it. Wasn't gonna happen. I paid for mine. Period.

LOL, you guys are amusing - wanting to have it both ways. Guns for everyone, regardless of mental health, intention or risk to others.

I get it. It's a nice clean line - that is until someone you care about is at risk. So, let's play the game of guns for all, regardless of mental stability, evil intent, and so on.

But don't then talk of tragic losses. Anyone killed by someone who shouldn't have had a gun is simply an unavoidable statistic, because "oh, well 2nd Amendment," right?

That's totally assinine!!! And typical of your ilk.

BTW guys, arguing with a lawyer is like wrestling a pig in the mud... after awhile you realize the pig is enjoying it!!!

 

[Diamondback]

When my then girlfriend told me that her ex had shot at her down the hall, I should have wondered if there was a reason. Instead I believed the monster she made him out to be. I was her meal ticket for 10yrs because I had a baby with her. Later she refused to go to her first ex for child support and wanted me to pay it. Wasn't gonna happen. I paid for mine. Period.

No marriage or kids, thank God...

That's totally assinine!!! And typical of your ilk.

Translated into Legal Douchebagese: "OBJECTION! Badgering."
List of objections - Wikipedia

 

[WWShooter]

I get it, no will to discuss policy - simply "the 2nd amendment says" and then relying on a questionable reading, despite Scalia, of an absolute right to bear arms. It might surprise many of you that Heller could easily have gone either way, and that at some point the SCOTUS will look at the Heller decision, just like they look at Roe v. Wade, and see it as something to be pared back with each new case.

But stick to the most extreme interpretation - enjoy the sense of invincibility, and then decide what to do when the gun control SHTF, because God knows, there's no reason so act now, while gun control folks are on the run, to cement our rights to most of what we want.

And yes, I'm a lawyer, and, yes, I'm a flaming liberal and yes, I own 20 firearms. I'm exactly the person you want here and do your absolute best to drive away.

 

[Outrider]

Gee... you sound like you have ties to the legal profession? Really sorry about that... Maybe try a career change to something more honorable.... like snake oil sales?

There are people who are good and there are people who are bad.

It's the same with lawyers. Some are good and some are bad.

It is a mistake to believe that the ABA advocates policies all lawyers agree with or that the organization even represents all lawyers. Despite its name, membership in the ABA is voluntary.

Most lawyers are not members of the ABA. If an individual lawyer disagrees with a position the ABA advances, it does not stop the ABA from advancing it.

Sorry, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is unconstitutional IMHO in this case. Do we need to do something about the mental health crisis in this country? Duh.... is stripping honest citzens of their right the way to do it? Hell no!

Right, but what you are advocating? The law sucks so strike it down and do nothing?

You know there is a problem. Some individuals are nuts and they shoot innocent people. Others lose their temper and kill people. And some are in deep depression and suicidal.

What's your solution?

Clearly, the laws that passed in OR and WA are bad laws for the stated purpose. Those laws have been written in a way that will provide ample opportunity to use the laws as mechanisms to interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens who own guns.

But what do you do with people who are showing signs they may be a danger to themselves or others? Wouldn't there have to be some sort of investigation just to figure out what is going on? Did the person say anything? Is this an ex trying to use the system to punish a former partner? Is this a personal enemy using the police to jerk around an opponent? Are people calling in the tip on their neighbor because they are upset the neighbor leaves his trashcans by the curb too long or is parking in their preferred spot or something equally petty?

Is there a method to intervene before the person shoots up a place that you would suggest? Is it workable? Is it a good alternative? Is it cost-effective?

The thing is, by doing nothing to institute desirable approaches, we are giving our opponents the opportunity to make unreasonable laws.

Think of it this way- The Four Rules of Firearm Safety were developed by people who shoot. They work very well.

If we were to let anti-gunners create gun safety programs, do you think they would devise a workable set of rules or a set that was completely impractical?

The anti-gun side is not trying to institute a workable solution for the stated problem. They are looking for a law that helps them achieve their goal of confiscation.

However, because we did not come up with our own preferred approach of how to address people who legitimately are having real mental health issues or really are threatening other persons, we let the anti-gunners score an easy win.

We are going to have to come up with good policy solutions for things that we know are real problems.

 

[No_Regerts]

I get it, no will to discuss policy - simply "the 2nd amendment says" and then relying on a questionable reading, despite Scalia, of an absolute right to bear arms. It might surprise many of you that Heller could easily have gone either way, and that at some point the SCOTUS will look at the Heller decision, just like they look at Roe v. Wade, and see it as something to be pared back with each new case.

But stick to the most extreme interpretation - enjoy the sense of invincibility, and then decide what to do when the gun control SHTF, because God knows, there's no reason so act now, while gun control folks are on the run, to cement our rights to most of what we want.

And yes, I'm a lawyer, and, yes, I'm a flaming liberal and yes, I own 20 firearms. I'm exactly the person you want here and do your absolute best to drive away.

Im pretty sure I provided alternatives and cited actual laws that describe your hypotheticals as being already illegal....without once citing the 2nd Amendment....

 

[etrain16]

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...

100% Yes!! I only wish the founding fathers would have seen fit to put mandatory term limits on all congressional seats. I have a feeling if they had seen what we have become today, they would have done it in a heartbeat. I would also like to have seen a constitutional requirement that all politicians are strictly bound by all laws, no exceptions for those damn POS's - no special favors, no special benefits, no special pensions, no special insurance. Get in there, do your damn job and go back to the private sector. Now, they all want the job for the lifetime of benefits as well as the power and connections. Scum, all of them, scum. Lawyers - well, they're a few levels below that.

 

[etrain16]

Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court. Article 5 Convention of States is the only way...

Problem is that an Article 5 convention of the states would be run by even more career politicians, who also have no vested interest in term limits. An Article 5 convention must be called by the state legislators - and why they hell would they call one to establish term limits when they won't do it in their own states to begin with? I don't think I will ever truly trust a politician until and unless strict term limits are put on ALL elected political offices.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Problem is that an Article 5 convention of the states would be run by even more career politicians, who also have no vested interest in term limits. An Article 5 convention must be called by the state legislators - and why they hell would they call one to establish term limits when they won't do it in their own states to begin with? I don't think I will ever truly trust a politician until and unless strict term limits are put on ALL elected political offices.

Yeabut if Trump got rid of 80% of all career government employees (teachers included), I'd present him with an Imperial margarine crown. lol

 

[Heywood]

100% Yes!! I only wish the founding fathers would have seen fit to put mandatory term limits on all congressional seats. I have a feeling if they had seen what we have become today, they would have done it in a heartbeat. I would also like to have seen a constitutional requirement that all politicians are strictly bound by all laws, no exceptions for those damn POS's - no special favors, no special benefits, no special pensions, no special insurance. Get in there, do your damn job and go back to the private sector. Now, they all want the job for the lifetime of benefits as well as the power and connections. Scum, all of them, scum. Lawyers - well, they're a few levels below that.

Term limiting alone regarding getting rid of carreer politicians is not enough. I don't believe for one second that most pols. Write or even read most of the legislation they advocate. Along with term limits we must require the pols. To bring with them and take with them all staffers. Many of those have been there for decades.
Edited to change carrier pols. to career pols. Though, I'm not sure it didn't work the other way as well....