Joe Steel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,054
- Reaction score
- 560
- Location
- St. Louis, Missouri, USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
California To Allow Government To Seize People?s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New Law «
i don't know anything about this source.
It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.
The trouble with that mentality is that it doesn't work but I like the analogy. Restraining orders are just a bunch of crap, just as gun control legislation is a bunch of crap. If someone is a threat to someone else one person can get a restraining order against the other but how many countless numbers of people have been killed by the very person who they got a restraining order against? It happens all the time.
Violation of a restraining order can mean community service, fines, and/or jail time. The penalties depend greatly on the terms of the violation and the state enforcing the violation, but in most states, a violation of a restraining order is charged as a misdemeanor. However even as a misdemeanor, the penalties can still reach up to $5000 in fines, and up to a year in jail in some states. Finally, if there was an additional crime committed during the violation of the restraining order, the penalties can become even more severe.
Read more: Violation of a Restraining Order
It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.
Justice works the other way around. The GOVT has to prove its case, not citizens. Citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
Colorado's statute inverts the standard procedures, providing that after the court issues an ex parte order, the defendant must "appear before the court at a specific time and date and . . . show cause, if any, why said temporary civil protection order should not be made permanent."[4] Hawaii similarly requires the defendant to prove his own innocence.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order
I'm sure it does but not every time. Sometimes a violator can be stopped before he kills.
If someone is intent on harming or killing someone else a restraining order is a worthless piece of paper, just as taking their guns away would be a worthless act. If someone is just severely harassing someone else a restraining order is more apt to be effective. As for punishments for violating a restraining order go, I refer to my previous sentence. If someone is real threat to someone else we live in a society where we let one person kill the other and then we charge them with murder. Doesn't help the dead person much. I'm fighting for the life of someone who shouldn't be dead in the first place.
It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.
It's a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Anyone, not just family and law enforcement, should be able to get the restraining order and it should be permanent unless the gun possessor can show he isn't a danger to anyone.
A restraining order is one more tool to use. It may not work every time but it can help.
Bottom line to me is that no amount of gun control is going to stop the bad people from getting guns. The only effective gun control would be severely restricting the buying of all guns AND going door to door and confiscating all of the guns already out there. ...
Your guilty until proven innocence sense of justice is terrifying. ...
Are you kidding me? Your solution is to declare someone guilty, for life, until they can prove their innocence? Here is how due process works; make an arrest and bring a criminal charge, have a trial and if found guilty of that criminal charge then impose a sentence. You want to start with the life sentence with no criminal charge and then leave it up to the "guilty" to prove (by some unknown mechanism) that they were not guilty.
Yes, and I've posted proposed legislation, The Gun General Recovery and Ban (GRAB,) a number of times. It's not perfect but it's a start.
Restraining orders are a part of due process.
Nope, temporary restraining orders, with judicial review, are part of due process.
That may be the way justice works but it's not the way restraining orders work. For instance:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?