due process and "gun violence"

[Repairguy]

This is all based on what you think .
The constitution protects me from what you think...........
The actions you take are what you pay......
Molon Laub

 

[264Win]

If you look all but one of the school shootings from Littleton (columbine) to New-town (Sandy Hook) the shooter was on some kind of psychotropic drug having side effects of suicidal tendencies and depression . These drugs did not exist or were not used to the extent they are today and also provide the drug companies with millions if not billions of dollars of profit per year so it is not talked about. Just remove the guns not the problem?

 

[tionico]

If you look all but one of the school shootings from Littleton (columbine) to New-town (Sandy Hook) the shooter was on some kind of psychotropic drug having side effects of suicidal tendencies and depression . These drugs did not exist or were not used to the extent they are today and also provide the drug companies with millions if not billions of dollars of profit per year so it is not talked about. Just remove the guns not the problem?

so in which one did the perp NOT take those drugs? I am unaware of even one where the shooter is certified to not have been taking any such drugs.....

 

[264Win]

Oct.28, 2002 Tucson Az. had failing grades and was angry with school no known drug use or not documented.

 

[tionico]

Oct.28, 2002 Tucson Az. had failing grades and was angry with school no known drug use or not documented.

this is NOT the poarking lot shooting where the judge was assassinated and Gabby the Gifford was wounded, right> It is a school shooting.. if so its one I had not heard of. Still, in all, ONE out of how many? And most of the non-school shootings were perpetrated by folks on those same drugs.. Aurura theatre, Navy Yard, etc.

The other "common" (near universal) denominator for ALL "mass shootings" is that they took place in gun free zones..... I can only tjhink of three exceptions.. the Arizona parking lot shooting mentioned above, the Tacoma/Lakewood, WA coffee shop cop killing (4 officers murdered) aboiut five years ago, and the Colorado Springs bank robbery turned into street shooting where the guy sought cover in the local Planned Parenthood office cause it happened to be there (falsey dubbbed as THE PP shooting, but it was only conicndence he ended up there). The streets in that city are not gun free zones. . Cant think of one other ....... but do you think gummit will move to "cure" either of these seemingly signficant correlative factors? Nope. But they WIULL call for more backgruond checks, registration, inspections, "safe storage" mnandated, one gun a month restrictions....... punishing we who obey the lws.

 

[skjos]

It seems like there should be a way to establish a due process for removing someone's guns from them but I cant think of anything good. What I don't understand is when someone gets to the point they seek a restraining order on someone why are they not pressing charges instead?

Like you said you need to establish a process that is inline with the Constitution's protection of due process. You can't just yell "That person is crazy!" and remove their rights (like a restraining order), you need something with more checks and balances. The process below likely violates the Constitution, but at least it is an attempt to answer your question:

1) Establish a criteria that defines someone as dangerous to themselves and others; this has to be something that can be verified, proven, and agreed upon (including the gun lobby).
2) Take the person before a judge to evaluate the criteria, and if necessary before a licensed independent psychiatrist.
3) If found to be a danger (beyond a reasonable doubt), then action can be taken to remove firearms for an established period of time (unless the person is so far gone they need to be mentally committed).
3a) If found to be non-dangerous, the accuser will be held liable for all incurred costs and be subject to a felony charge - in which case they loose their rights. This will discourage false accusations.
4) Appeals can be made to retry the case have the firearms returned prior to the established suspension.
5) If the suspension needs to be extended, the case needs to come before the court again.
6) Any damage or loss to personal property while not in the person's possession will need to be repaid at twice the market value when it is returned. If mentally committed, the confiscated firearms will be auctioned back to the public and not destroyed.

This process is riddled with issues, and I am not advocating it, and I will not defend it; I'm just throwing something out there for the OP.

 

[tionico]

Like you said you need to establish a process that is inline with the Constitution's protection of due process. You can't just yell "That person is crazy!" and remove their rights (like a restraining order), you need something with more checks and balances. The process below likely violates the Constitution, but at least it is an attempt to answer your question:

1) Establish a criteria that defines someone as dangerous to themselves and others; this has to be something that can be verified, proven, and agreed upon (including the gun lobby).
2) Take the person before a judge to evaluate the criteria, and if necessary before a licensed independent psychiatrist.
3) If found to be a danger (beyond a reasonable doubt), then action can be taken to remove firearms for an established period of time (unless the person is so far gone they need to be mentally committed).
3a) If found to be non-dangerous, the accuser will be held liable for all incurred costs and be subject to a felony charge - in which case they loose their rights. This will discourage false accusations.
4) Appeals can be made to retry the case have the firearms returned prior to the established suspension.
5) If the suspension needs to be extended, the case needs to come before the court again.
6) Any damage or loss to personal property while not in the person's possession will need to be repaid at twice the market value when it is returned. If mentally committed, the confiscated firearms will be auctioned back to the public and not destroyed.

This process is riddled with issues, and I am not advocating it, and I will not defend it; I'm just throwing something out there for the OP.

And NONE of what you mention here deals with the FACT that most divorce lawyers, particularly for the female half, simply fill out and file a restraining order, including the imagined fear that the man being sued for divorce is a danger and will be violent toward the female.... even though in most cases he is no danger to her at all, but that's no matter. It gets buried in the pile of papers she signes to start the ball rolling, and she signs it right along with the rest of the pile, barely noticing any of them. NOW the guy has lost his right to self-protection, often the county sheriff comes round to collect ALL his guns, seizing them as if he were actually plotting her murder, or other shootemup rampages. NO process is in place, most times, for him to contest this, nor to get any specific information from her that she feels threatened because of XYZ...... one more way of disarming the law abiding innocents. This is standard proceedure for most divorce lawyers. Of course, its another few hundred or thousand dollars HE will likely end up paying out of the settlement/alimony/punishment for not figuring out in advance who she is and what she's made of, and marrying her anyway.

 

[skjos]

And NONE of what you mention here deals with the FACT that most divorce lawyers, particularly for the female half, simply fill out and file a restraining order, including the imagined fear that the man being sued for divorce is a danger and will be violent toward the female.... even though in most cases he is no danger to her at all, but that's no matter. It gets buried in the pile of papers she signes to start the ball rolling, and she signs it right along with the rest of the pile, barely noticing any of them. NOW the guy has lost his right to self-protection, often the county sheriff comes round to collect ALL his guns, seizing them as if he were actually plotting her murder, or other shootemup rampages. NO process is in place, most times, for him to contest this, nor to get any specific information from her that she feels threatened because of XYZ...... one more way of disarming the law abiding innocents. This is standard proceedure for most divorce lawyers. Of course, its another few hundred or thousand dollars HE will likely end up paying out of the settlement/alimony/punishment for not figuring out in advance who she is and what she's made of, and marrying her anyway.

My buddy had this happen to him; when he went to court about it, they dismissed the restraining order because she was making false accusations.

To combat this abuse you would need concrete evidence to substantiate your claim (item 1 examples - chronic illegal drug use, recorded conversations of legitimate threats of violence, recorded violent tantrums, verified stalking, etc) proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also if false accusations are being made that person gets hit with a felony (item 3a)

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And NONE of what you mention here deals with the FACT that most divorce lawyers, particularly for the female half, simply fill out and file a restraining order, including the imagined fear that the man being sued for divorce is a danger and will be violent toward the female.... even though in most cases he is no danger to her at all, but that's no matter. It gets buried in the pile of papers she signes to start the ball rolling, and she signs it right along with the rest of the pile, barely noticing any of them. NOW the guy has lost his right to self-protection, often the county sheriff comes round to collect ALL his guns, seizing them as if he were actually plotting her murder, or other shootemup rampages. NO process is in place, most times, for him to contest this, nor to get any specific information from her that she feels threatened because of XYZ...... one more way of disarming the law abiding innocents. This is standard proceedure for most divorce lawyers. Of course, its another few hundred or thousand dollars HE will likely end up paying out of the settlement/alimony/punishment for not figuring out in advance who she is and what she's made of, and marrying her anyway.

This is because they have removed the mental health professionals and sanity hearings from the process. Now it's accusation = confiscation without due process. It goes straight from accuser to enforcer without any investigation in between.