Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners

[zsu2357]

=ecofarm;1067410410]Some people lie about absolutely anything, male or female. That's no reason to ignore criminal convictions.

We got a new SB(BS actually)in OR. That will become known as the get even bill or the vengeance bill. The New Gun Laws Allow Police To Seize YOUR Weapons Without Due Process – InvestmentWatch

That said, I'm pretty against any restrictions on the realization of our natural right to self defense. I'd probably begrudgingly support the bill, presuming only criminal convictions are considered for limiting our natural right. And there must be provisions for restoration.

There are at your own cost or so they say.

 

[zsu2357]

No state in the union operates this way

OR. does. check out SB719a

 

[zsu2357]

I agree to a point. Even if it stops 1 bad guy from getting a firearm, that's good enough. At least I see it that way.

Oh BD. I hope that isn't meant like "if it just saves one childs life"

 

[jaeger19]

Its called harm reduction. No law can stop every crime. Why have murder laws if they don't stop murder? We have laws because it deters SOME people. Harm elimination is impossible.

the problem is that its not harm reduction. its an increase in harm.

The more resources that are spent on useless laws that really have no effect.. the fewer resources that can actually be used for interventions that actually have an effect.

The democrats do this with useless laws on guns..

Republicans have done this with useless laws on welfare fraud. For example requiring people on welfare to submit to drug tests. now.. I suppose you would argue as they do.. that "well it deters some people".. but what it really does is it had little to no effect on welfare fraud.. BUT it used up valuable resources that could have been spent on actually investigating real welfare fraud (particularly from Medicaid providers in this particular state). but while that department could not get the resources to investigate and prosecute flagrant Medicaid fraud.

Millions of dollars went to doing urine tests.. that was statistically useless in fighting welfare fraud.

 

[vegas giants]

OR. does. check out SB719a

My post says in EVERY state the state can deny you a constitutional right without a conviction....you disagree?

 

[zsu2357]

Cops can show up.at your house for a call and take your guns if they feel.they present any kind of a danger

Normally I don't agree with you but they can here now AND not feel in any danger at all, because it's just SUPRISE! here we are and where are your guns (not to mention knives). So and so says your suicide or are a menace.We are not taking you in we only want your guns.

 

[vegas giants]

the problem is that its not harm reduction. its an increase in harm.

The more resources that are spent on useless laws that really have no effect.. the fewer resources that can actually be used for interventions that actually have an effect.

The democrats do this with useless laws on guns..

Republicans have done this with useless laws on welfare fraud. For example requiring people on welfare to submit to drug tests. now.. I suppose you would argue as they do.. that "well it deters some people".. but what it really does is it had little to no effect on welfare fraud.. BUT it used up valuable resources that could have been spent on actually investigating real welfare fraud (particularly from Medicaid providers in this particular state). but while that department could not get the resources to investigate and prosecute flagrant Medicaid fraud.

Millions of dollars went to doing urine tests.. that was statistically useless in fighting welfare fraud.

Well you have a theory. It can't be proven one way of the other but countries that do it have less gun deaths all over the world. I don't think it is a coincidence

 

[vegas giants]

Normally I don't agree with you but they can here now AND not feel in any danger at all, because it's just SUPRISE! here we are and where are your guns. So and so says your suicide or are a menace.We are not taking you in we only want your guns.

In every state the police can remove guns at the scene if they feel they might pose a danger without a warrant or PC

 

[zsu2357]

My post says in EVERY state the state can deny you a constitutional right without a conviction....you disagree?

I don't pretend to know about every state other than to say it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[jaeger19]

Again this argument makes no sense to me. It is not useless. If it keeps even 1 stalker etc from legally getting a gun, then that is in my eyes not useless. Why should a convicted stalker or domestic abuser be allowed to legally buy a weapon? Well we should let them get a weapon legally because they are going to get one anyway? What kind of reasoning is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with laws on the books for murder etc. It is to deter or prohibit questionable convicts from legally getting firearms.

Now as for your retroactive concern, I absolutely agree. If the language of this law says it is going to be retroactive I also would not be for it.

Because rather than be about emotion.. laws should be about logic and rationality. Yes.. we use the "even if it keeps one stalker from legally getting a gun then its not useless". Well first off.. there is no evidence that it actually STOPS even one stalker intent on committing crime from getting a firearm. none..

Second.. the old.. "but if it stops just one".. argument is used a lot.. and largely is an illogical argument in the real world. Because it takes resources. There is arguments all the time for drug testing welfare recipients.. "well.. if it stops just one person from getting money to pay for drugs".. its helpful.
So for example.. agencies that work on Medicaid fraud get budgets cut and can't investigate and prosecute rampant Medicaid fraud for lack of funds.. but meanwhile hundreds of thousands if not millions are spent having all welfare recipients get a urinalysis. . which statistically has not been shown to be effective on reducing welfare fraud.

These programs are great at making people feel better.. but he reality is that in the big picture they are harmful by diverting resources away from effective interventions.

There are already laws that restrict violent felons from having a firearm. There are already laws on the books about murder, stalking and rape.

 

[zsu2357]

In every state the police can remove guns at the scene if they feel they might pose a danger without a warrant or PC

Only danger here is a relative with a grudge.

 

[jaeger19]

My post says in EVERY state the state can deny you a constitutional right without a conviction....you disagree?

Only for a very limited time until there is due process.

 

[vegas giants]

Only danger here is a relative with a grudge.

Cops shows up at a house for a noise complaint. They are having a party and everyone is drunk but they agree to keep it down. No crime. Cops notice a loaded gun on the table. They confiscate it

 

[jaeger19]

Well you have a theory. It can't be proven one way of the other but countries that do it have less gun deaths all over the world. I don't think it is a coincidence

Actually its not just a theory.. its been proven over and over again. And we have been over the whole.. "other countries do it and have less gun deaths"..

right.. its not coincidence.. people that don't own bicycles are more likely to get into bicycle accidents than people that never ride bicycles.

But that's not a valid argument for banning bicycles.. since people that ride bicycles don't have an increase risk of mortality over the general population. In fact they may be better off.

Just like the US has more gun crimes.. but despite having so many guns in the US.. are overall rate of violent crime is lower than the UK and on par with other countries of the world... and much less than other countries that have far far far fewer guns.

 

[jaeger19]

Cops shows up at a house for a noise complaint. They are having a party and everyone is drunk but they agree to keep it down. No crime. Cops notice a loaded gun on the table. They confiscate it

they would be involved in a lawsuit. and hopefully they would lose.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually its not just a theory.. its been proven over and over again. And we have been over the whole.. "other countries do it and have less gun deaths"..

right.. its not coincidence.. people that don't own bicycles are more likely to get into bicycle accidents than people that never ride bicycles.

But that's not a valid argument for banning bicycles.. since people that ride bicycles don't have an increase risk of mortality over the general population. In fact they may be better off.

Just like the US has more gun crimes.. but despite having so many guns in the US.. are overall rate of violent crime is lower than the UK and on par with other countries of the world... and much less than other countries that have far far far fewer guns.

Well what you are saying is factually incorrect. Gun control works

 

[TurtleDude]

You can read about this bill here - Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners

I don't have a problem with this one as long as it is only against convicted stalkers and abusers. The only problem I see is some women have and do lie about abuse and rape etc. So what do you do before any conviction?

What do you think?

I have never practiced domestic law and have had very little experience with it-mainly cases where a party to a divorce had a federal pension and as a result, I had to appear in the case on behalf of the federal pension system. that being said, I have had numerous attorneys tell me that one of the tactics women have used in contentious divorces-especially when the custody of children is at stake-was to use-after the Lautenberg amendment was enacted-claims of domestic abuse as a threat against the husbands. If someone was a cop, a guardsmen, a security guard or a soldier, such a threat could be very serious

I don't believe misdemeanors should be sufficient to permanently strip someone of their constitutional rights. I have serious misgivings about the federal government having any authority to ban anyone from owning a weapon as it is. I don't see anything in the constitution that allows such a power

 

[vegas giants]

they would be involved in a lawsuit. and hopefully they would lose.

If they left the gun and someone at the hose shot someone that n ight they would be sued and lose

 

[Chillfolks]

Cops shows up at a house for a noise complaint. They are having a party and everyone is drunk but they agree to keep it down. No crime. Cops notice a loaded gun on the table. They confiscate it

It is in the realm of possibility, just not sure how likely it is? I've answers the door a few times from playing my guitar too loud with a beer in my hand. Not once has the loaded shotgun in plain sight ever been confiscated.

Admitdly it's been 5 or so years from last complaint against me.

 

[vegas giants]

It is in the realm of possibility, just not sure how likely it is? I've answers the door a few times from playing my guitar too loud with a beer in my hand. Not once has the loaded shotgun in plain sight ever been confiscated.

Admitdly it's been 5 or so years from last complaint against me.

It happens every day

 

[Black Dog]

They would still be allowed to legally buy weapons. Firearms aren't the only lethal weapon used by men to kill women. Why would we block guns but not knives, hammers or baseball bats? Why would we permanently take away a protected right for a misdemeanor?

Because knifes, bats etc while being lethal can not even compare to a gun of just about any type including a .22 caliber.

As for taking away a right. A person who loses a right because of due process has already shown contempt for the law and society as whole. These persons have shown either a lack of self control or abhorrent behavior misdemeanor or felony.

The last one was retroactive.

Why just for DV? The number of men killed by a gun outnumber the number of women killed by a gun 5 to 1. Evidently men are much more susceptible to gun violence than women. Why not ban any convicted of any violent or alcohol misdemeanor from owning a gun to protect all those male victims?

I don't know what "DV" is? And what was "the last one?"

The men vs women is not an argument as the law already applies to men and women. Men obviously also get stalked etc as well.

 

[Black Dog]

Oh BD. I hope that isn't meant like "if it just saves one childs life"

It's not. But the "well if they can just get them illegally" defies any kind of logic. If this was the case we don't need any laws because someone will break it.

 

[Chillfolks]

It happens every day

I know you claim that, I'm just not convinced it happens as often as you say. I could be wrong it has happened I'm just sceptical

 

[vegas giants]

I know you claim that, I'm just not convinced it happens as often as you say. I could be wrong it has happened I'm just sceptical

Knock yourself out.

 

[Black Dog]

Because rather than be about emotion.. laws should be about logic and rationality. Yes.. we use the "even if it keeps one stalker from legally getting a gun then its not useless". Well first off.. there is no evidence that it actually STOPS even one stalker intent on committing crime from getting a firearm. none..

#1 this has nothing to do with emotion. That is just your opinion.
#2 This law is as rational as they come, as is my position.
#3 We know punishment is not a good deterrent, so now we need to prove is law is a deterrent to enact it? If that is the jurisprudence for all law we might as well dump it all, period. This law is to keep convicted violent offenders from legally buying a gun, period.

Second.. the old.. "but if it stops just one".. argument is used a lot.. and largely is an illogical argument in the real world. Because it takes resources. There is arguments all the time for drug testing welfare recipients.. "well.. if it stops just one person from getting money to pay for drugs".. its helpful.
So for example.. agencies that work on Medicaid fraud get budgets cut and can't investigate and prosecute rampant Medicaid fraud for lack of funds.. but meanwhile hundreds of thousands if not millions are spent having all welfare recipients get a urinalysis. . which statistically has not been shown to be effective on reducing welfare fraud.

Apples and oranges. We know for a fact background checks have stopped an average of 100,005 gun sales (to felons and those not able to buy) per year for the last 20 years. So your argument in this case just does not add up. In this case to the tune of 2.1 million in the last 20 years.

These programs are great at making people feel better.. but he reality is that in the big picture they are harmful by diverting resources away from effective interventions.

There are already laws that restrict violent felons from having a firearm. There are already laws on the books about murder, stalking and rape.

Laws governing murder, rape and stalking after the crime is committed is irrelevant. This law as others is not supposed to be just some kind of fantasy deterrent. It is simply to make it illegal for violent offenders who have been convicted under due process, lose the right to legally buy a firearm, period.