Post by: Colin on October 20, 2016, 12:21:19 PM
Post by: Mike450r on October 20, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Section 13 states it is only a misdemeanor for somebody to falsely report an at risk person.
Section 16 does not impose any criminal or civil liability beyond what is indicated in section 13.
Falsely reporting an at risk person which will undoubtedly be done should be a felony and if it is shown that any agent of the government abused their power it should be a civil rights violation with criminal and civil penalties.
Post by: huntnphool on October 20, 2016, 12:43:16 PM
Vote NO! :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on October 20, 2016, 12:47:16 PM
I am voting NO. This can and will be abused by vengeful people and overzealous or anti gun cops and judges without much in the way of recourse.
Section 13 states it is only a misdemeanor for somebody to falsely report an at risk person.
Section 16 does not impose any criminal or civil liability beyond what is indicated in section 13.
Falsely reporting an at risk person which will undoubtedly be done should be a felony and if it is shown that any agent of the government abused their power it should be a civil rights violation with criminal and civil penalties.
Correct........meanwhile, your guns have been seized and now it's up to the courts, yes you will have to pay a attorney and fight, to get them back, while you prove you are not mentally ill rather than them proving you are.
Bad Bad Legistlation!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 20, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Post by: Colin on October 20, 2016, 12:58:14 PM
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Mike450r on October 20, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
It is too easy to see through to even give a benefit of the doubt that their hearts are in the right place.
Post by: Cougartail on October 20, 2016, 02:17:04 PM
Post by: Henrydog on October 21, 2016, 09:45:01 AM
Post by: Zardoz on October 21, 2016, 03:24:37 PM
No question this is a No Vote. Nazi Germany comes to mind, I would not be surprised when Olympia sponsors book burnings as well
:yeah: Next session................... :bash:
Post by: quarterstaff on October 25, 2016, 07:05:56 PM
No question this is a No Vote. Nazi Germany comes to mind, I would not be surprised when Olympia sponsors book burnings as wellMaybe not books but if Hillary wins Hannity, Limbaugh, or any other non Socialist/Communist radio host might be looking for a job.
Post by: Mudman on October 25, 2016, 07:40:07 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 26, 2016, 07:10:18 AM
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
Post by: Fungunnin on October 26, 2016, 07:22:25 AM
What would you guys support then?I will not vote for a single piece of anti gun legislation regardless of how it is written until we enforce the laws we currently have.
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
NICS denies over 90,000 individuals a year for attempting to illegally buy a gun. Police need to take that list and start knocking on doors. I guarantee they will find people who are prohibited from ownership in possession of guns.
Once that list is gone through every year and every felon/domestic abuser that attempts to buy a gun is arrested and their home striped of illegal guns then we can talk about adding more laws.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 07:24:14 AM
What would you guys support then?
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
Support the constitution, there is nothing you can do to prevent that.
This is bad legistlation period! What would you suggest, WAcoyote, to keep Mercedes vans out of the hands of people intent on running people down with it?
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 26, 2016, 07:26:01 AM
Post by: lamrith on October 26, 2016, 08:26:42 AM
There have been mass murders forever. Crazy people and zealots will not be stopped by legislation. We will not make ourselves safer by forfeiting our rights. We can do better with reporting from trained mental health professionals and by eliminating killing zones in our schools and public places where murderers feel safe. But to put my rights in the hands of someone who may have an axe to grind against me or who has an anti-gun agenda, like my sister and niece, is ridiculous. That the government can come into my home and remove my guns and ammo without due process for 14 days is completely unconstitutional and tyrannous.and it will take you probably 6months to get them back IF you are able to hire a good enough lawyer to get the order removed, and the guns you get back will be missing accessories they may have had that "fell off" during the evidence process..
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 26, 2016, 08:50:28 AM
You would support that? Would others on here support this idea?
NICS denies over 90,000 individuals a year for attempting to illegally buy a gun. Police need to take that list and start knocking on doors. I guarantee they will find people who are prohibited from ownership in possession of guns.
Once that list is gone through every year and every felon/domestic abuser that attempts to buy a gun is arrested and their home striped of illegal guns then we can talk about adding more laws.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 26, 2016, 08:54:04 AM
Yeah, I would require them to have a valid drivers license and be trained to drive before they were able to legally drive a Mercedes van.
This is bad legistlation period! What would you suggest, WAcoyote, to keep Mercedes vans out of the hands of people intent on running people down with it?
I'm open to suggestions. I wasn't pitching any ideas. I just always here people talking about a mental health problem being at the root of the issue, but no one wants to address mental health to try to keep shootings from occuring
Post by: Fungunnin on October 26, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Yes ... I support them enforcing the laws already on the books. If you are a felon and you attempt to buy a gun then yes you should get a visit from a police officer.You would support that? Would others on here support this idea?
NICS denies over 90,000 individuals a year for attempting to illegally buy a gun. Police need to take that list and start knocking on doors. I guarantee they will find people who are prohibited from ownership in possession of guns.
Once that list is gone through every year and every felon/domestic abuser that attempts to buy a gun is arrested and their home striped of illegal guns then we can talk about adding more laws.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
Yeah, I would require them to have a valid drivers license and be trained to drive before they were able to legally drive a Mercedes van.
This is bad legistlation period! What would you suggest, WAcoyote, to keep Mercedes vans out of the hands of people intent on running people down with it?
Would a valid license and training have prevented this?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 26, 2016, 09:02:35 AM
I think you have to professionally diagnose the mental illness first. You're stripping rights from someone based on an overprotective parent or a vengeful ex, etc.Yeah, I would require them to have a valid drivers license and be trained to drive before they were able to legally drive a Mercedes van.
This is bad legistlation period! What would you suggest, WAcoyote, to keep Mercedes vans out of the hands of people intent on running people down with it?
I'm open to suggestions. I wasn't pitching any ideas. I just always here people talking about a mental health problem being at the root of the issue, but no one wants to address mental health to try to keep shootings from occuring
But what does this lead to eventually--all mentally ill (defined by the gov) will be disarmed (only if they want to), but not contained.
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
What would you guys support then?
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
I would support a change in the medical malpractice law that currently prevents doctors from disclosing personal information about their patients due to threat of litigation. If a person is mentally unable to possess a firearm then the diagnosing physician should be required by law to not only report that individual to the appropriate court, but also be required to follow thru and determine when and if that person is ever able to again possess a firearm.
The biggest problem that we as a nation face with gun control legislation is the fact that there is faction in our society that truly believe any attempt to regulate the ownership of firearms is ultimately a ploy which will lead to the total elimination of civilian firearms ownership. Until that changes there will be very little any lawmaker, president or anyone else can actually do to regulate the ownership of firearms that isn't universally distrusted and resisted.
The problem is it leaves individuals rights open to corruption, and at this point there is no way I'm trusting the government with it!
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 09:04:48 AM
I think you have to professionally diagnose the mental illness first. You're stripping rights from someone based on an overprotective parent or a vengeful ex, etc.Yeah, I would require them to have a valid drivers license and be trained to drive before they were able to legally drive a Mercedes van.
This is bad legistlation period! What would you suggest, WAcoyote, to keep Mercedes vans out of the hands of people intent on running people down with it?
I'm open to suggestions. I wasn't pitching any ideas. I just always here people talking about a mental health problem being at the root of the issue, but no one wants to address mental health to try to keep shootings from occuring
But what does this lead to eventually--all mentally ill (defined by the gov) will be disarmed (only if they want to), but not contained.
Bingo!
Post by: Mudman on October 26, 2016, 09:16:46 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 26, 2016, 09:23:15 AM
What would you do after we took all the guns away and these people continued to hurt people by other methods? Knives, chemicals, bombs, cars! Etc, etc. Crazy is still crazy and only the foolish think gun control would solve crazy.Yeah, they could still buy machine tools or 3D printers. If they want to do something, they'll do it.
Post by: lamrith on October 26, 2016, 09:24:27 AM
I just always here people talking about a mental health problem being at the root of the issue, but no one wants to address mental health to try to keep shootings from occurringI take issue with that. The Pro-gun crowd is always talking about enforcing current laws fully, as well as the fact that most of these big events are done by mentally ill people. It is the Anti gun legislators that keep pushing for more and more laws, but never once acknowledge the existing laws are not being fully enforced, or that there is a mental illness issue at all. Murder is already illegal, making the tool used illegal does not change that fact.
Heck yes we also need to be investigating those denials as well. There will be mistake identity on occasion with denials, but I am willing to bet the great majority will be prohibited people trying to sneak one thru.
That faction that does not trust government is growing by the day with the way our Govt is losing the trust of it's citizens thru one scandal and issue after another. Govt tends to make a mess of everything whether for good intentions or not. They have shown over time they cannot be trusted.
Post by: Mudman on October 26, 2016, 09:32:49 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 26, 2016, 09:45:50 AM
You would support that? Would others on here support this idea?
NICS denies over 90,000 individuals a year for attempting to illegally buy a gun. Police need to take that list and start knocking on doors. I guarantee they will find people who are prohibited from ownership in possession of guns.
Once that list is gone through every year and every felon/domestic abuser that attempts to buy a gun is arrested and their home striped of illegal guns then we can talk about adding more laws.
Absolutely. If someone was denied by mistake, there's a good chance they're already in the system trying to clear their name and that would be obvious. Pierce Co. two years ago had something like 1700 illegal transfer requests and ignored all but a couple. If the bounces are checked and found to be felons or others precluded from purchasing, I have no problem having the cops serve warrants which support existing laws. I have a real problem with new laws being passed while the violations of existing ones are ignored, whether it's gun control, immigration law, political FEC regulations, national security breeches, whatever. The bigger issue right now is not that we don't have enough laws. It's that the laws we have only apply to the masses, not our "masters".
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 09:49:15 AM
Stock up and bury em for a rainy day. Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens. This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war. Comply with law but wait. It wouldn't last. Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow. Enforcement of this alone could trigger it. :twocents:
So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison. Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns. No revolution, no ground swell of remorse. The people of the nation made the choice.
Red herring
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 26, 2016, 09:49:35 AM
What would you guys support then?
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
My wife asked me this because she voted for 1491. I told her I don't have an answer and that's still not a reason to vote for anything just because "we have to do something". We don't have to do something until we figure out a good way to reduce these types of crimes without reducing rights.
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 09:52:36 AM
What would you guys support then?
Every time someone shoots the hell out of a crowd everybody (me included) says it wasn't the guns fault, it was the fault of the crazy person. So, what should we do to keep guns away from people that should not have them?
My wife asked me this because she voted for 1491. I told her I don't have an answer and that's still not a reason to vote for anything just because "we have to do something". We don't have to do something until we figure out a good way to reduce these types of crimes without reducing rights.
Throwing mud on the walls.
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 10:04:27 AM
Stock up and bury em for a rainy day. Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens. This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war. Comply with law but wait. It wouldn't last. Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow. Enforcement of this alone could trigger it. :twocents:
So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison. Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns. No revolution, no ground swell of remorse. The people of the nation made the choice.
Red herring
Don't get defensive, this scenario is used in constitutional law classes to teach the limits of law and the effect it has on people. It is constructed to force us to confront the basic premise that we only support the constitution because we like the freedoms it gives us. Once those freedoms are taken away the integrity of the entire document has less meaning to us. Its just something to think about.
Defensive? :chuckle:
I don't sit around thinking about Bigfoot either.
Post by: Special T on October 26, 2016, 10:17:40 AM
I think your hypothetical number is unlikely... I would have left the country long before it got to 97%.Stock up and bury em for a rainy day. Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens. This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war. Comply with law but wait. It wouldn't last. Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow. Enforcement of this alone could trigger it. :twocents:
So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison. Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns. No revolution, no ground swell of remorse. The people of the nation made the choice.
Red herring
Don't get defensive, this scenario is used in constitutional law classes to teach the limits of law and the effect it has on people. It is constructed to force us to confront the basic premise that we only support the constitution because we like the freedoms it gives us. Once those freedoms are taken away the integrity of the entire document has less meaning to us. Its just something to think about.
I'm more inclined to make my stand with the conventionofstates.com to force the hand of our crappy political representatives. There currently are things that have nearly that kind of support but won't be passed by our so called representatives... term limits, single subject votes, balanced budget, and others.
Post by: Alchase on October 26, 2016, 10:24:25 AM
Only 3% still believe in the 2nd amendment to the current bill of rights?
That means we have already lost the war. I would bet a civil war would come before the scenario you describe could happen.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 26, 2016, 10:28:16 AM
Post by: Mudman on October 26, 2016, 10:29:16 AM
No, wrong. I would turn em over to mother earth in a place I knew. No law broken. What guns? (Do you assume all guns are registered by this time?) IF they were needed in the future the option would be there. Scenario is only for that exact time in history, how could it change in later years. You see to get caught up in fake games is to be closed minded. A wise man doesn't burn important bridges or give away his options. No law broke, just wisdom as I wait....Stock up and bury em for a rainy day. Japan didn't invade and one reason was armed citizens. This is a HUGE military advantage in time of war. Comply with law but wait. It wouldn't last. Revolution would follow with the Gov. overreach that would follow. Enforcement of this alone could trigger it. :twocents:
So your choice is "3" Defy the law and risk life in prison. Remember in this scenario 97% of the population supports outlawing guns. No revolution, no ground swell of remorse. The people of the nation made the choice.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 26, 2016, 10:54:29 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 26, 2016, 10:58:47 AM
Food for thought guys nothing more. Any time we do this in a class room you typically get the same responses as we see here. The point though is that no one wants to admit that they wouldn't support the constitution. You can construct the scenario any way you want, would it change your answer if instead of guns it was religion, or free speech, unlawful search or any of the other basic human rights as we've come to know them?
The food for thought should be taught that "we do indeed have a constitution" and we should fight to protect it, not dream up BS scenarios where we don't. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 26, 2016, 11:36:49 AM
In not sure how the first 10 Admendments are the bill of rights that they can be waved. Imo if we are at the point where this can take place we likely aren't living in a very free country anyway...
Post by: jennabug on October 26, 2016, 12:47:47 PM
Post by: Westside88 on October 26, 2016, 02:16:55 PM
I know I have a pretty diverse group of friends and when it come to second amendment/ gun rights and gun control issues people can be very passionate about their positions. That being said I want to share some information about an Initiative on the ballot this year. I will be voting NO on Initiative I-1491. Interestingly this Initiative is opposed by both the NRA( National Rifle Association and the ACLU ( American Civil Liberties Union) when you have groups on both the Right and the Left agreeing that this would be bad Law, that's a good reason not to support this Initiative. Not to mention that I did choose to read it thoroughly and make my own choice. In my opinion it's another example of why such important issues should be debated and discussed in the legislative process, rather than presented in the initiative process where well intentioned citizens often make a decision based on clever or misleading position statements. I urge everyone to read and understand any and all initiatives before casting your ballots