Fun and guns in Colorado

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Thank you @anatess2

So based on these points it seems like 2 and very clearly 3 are places where the defendant should be able to offer a defense.  While 2 might not be practical I see no reason 3 can't happen.  4 by itself seems very limiting if that is the only chance...  Also unlike 2 there does not appear to be a Has to Hold by date for number 4 which could leave the defendant waiting 182 days just to be heard.

I am not against emergency orders or injunctions but they need to have certain about of care and protection for everyone rights and this appears to lack them for the defendant unless he is a part of 3 and/or there is a quick Has to hold by date on 4 (and I do not like the one shot of 4)

3 is the hearing where the respondent can prepare a defense.  2 can be executed without the respondent's notice.  That is the problem.  The 7-day temporary suspension would be unconstitutional.

This Trey Gowdy argument on a similar application of the 2A (suspension of 2A for those on a watch list) is epic:

 

[Colirio]

18 hours ago, Scott said:

Yes.   If they are making threats against someone's life, they shouldn't have a right to own a gun.  My sisters ex has repeatedly threatened to gun down our family (but not me specifically-we live in a different state).   As far as he know, he hasn't been convicted of a felony, but he is prohibited from owning firearms due to mental health issues and other issues which I don't know about.  The problem with this is that he has other family members who have all kinds of access to firearms.  

Someone who is mentally ill and makes threats on others lives should not own a firearm, even if they haven't been convicted of a felony.  

 

Sounds like the family should have started the procedure towards due process as that threat was clearly a crime. 

 

And as you have answered in a somewhat idealistic manner, then shouldn't we say that anybody who will ever misuse a gun should not have access to one? For that matter, anybody who would ever need to have a gun used against them should not be able to roam free. Clearly, these idealistic responses are not enforceable. 

 

The real question then, as was earlier addressed in this thread, is how a determination should be made in order to remove a person's rights. Any method other than a conviction through due process of law is a slippery slope. 

 

14th Amendment:

..."nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 

If we are going to allow "medical professionals" to make the decisions as to who should have their rights removed, as was hinted by someone else in the thread, we should just go ahead and reopen the asylums. I am very uncomfortable with such an idea and you should be as well. 

 

In terms of emergency situations, Joseph Smith already gave the appropriate response:

D&C 134:11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

 

 

Just my $.02, and chances are good that you'd rather just give me back my change. 😀 

[JohnsonJones]

I find it ridiculous that a veteran who has PTSD is suddenly not allowed to own a gun.  Some of these are probably more knowledgeable and safer with a firearm than most of their civilian counterparts.

The entire mental health thing and guns needs to be reexamined for common sense rather than the blanket that they've put out.

On the otherhand, in many ways, guns have gotten out of control among gangs and other such groups in the US.  Unfortunately gun control laws NEVER find a way to deal with THOSE problems, instead normally trying to deal with legal gun owners who didn't pose a threat in the first place. 

What NEEDS to be done in gun control laws is to find a way to deal with the REAL problems that are occurring everyday (and making places such as Chicago with it's murder rates, or DC with it's murder rates...where they have restrictive gun laws...almost NONE of which deal with the REAL problems) and stop them from occurring while not being as restrictive upon those who are already law abiding citizens.

Even Felons, when not involved with violent crimes and showing no tendency to do so, there should be no reason to restrict their firearm access.  Instead, look at the groups that actually are causing high murder rates and forment a logical and reasonable plan on how to decrease those numbers.

[Guest Godless]

52 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find it ridiculous that a veteran who has PTSD is suddenly not allowed to own a gun.  Some of these are probably more knowledgeable and safer with a firearm than most of their civilian counterparts.

The entire mental health thing and guns needs to be reexamined for common sense rather than the blanket that they've put out.

I agree that blanket judgements should be avoided, and I would apply that to vets as well. My most recent tour of Iraq was in 2010. By that time, there were several soldiers in my unit who were ineligible for deployment because they were restricted from access to firearms. Most of them were already in some stage of the process of separating from the military on medical grounds. PTSD effects people differently. I get really jumpy and agitated by unexpected bangs, booms, and pops. Some people get irritable. Some people get violent.

[Traveler]

One problem that I think exists in our current society is a lack of education and understanding concerning firearms.  I am a believer in education and I believe that training (discipline) is an important part of useful education.  So here is a thought - why is gun use and safety not part of standard K-12 education?  We have learned that the education of young minds is a critical and necessary element of a free "educated" society.  We also know that young minds are better suited for learning and that things taught in youth are more likely to have a lifetime imprint.

@Godless introduced the concept that PTSD affects different individuals differently.  I agree but would add, from my experience in the military - individuals introduced to the use of firearms as an adult under combat conditions seem to suffer the worse symptoms of PTSD.  I am sure there are always exceptions but the point is "exceptions".  And I would add that the single most important element in preserving a free society - is the preparation and education of its youth for what they must do to prepare for and preserve their free society. 

 

The Traveler