Sure, being diagnosed with schizophrenia should affect your right to bear arms.
I wonder why defense lawyers often cite mental illness as if it is supposed to excuse what a person did in possession of a gun ?
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum who look for any loophole they can and a gullible or ignorant jury in order to get their client off the hook.
Do you maintain that a man diagnosed with schizophrenia or accused (but not convicted) of physical violence/domestic abuse should retain his gun(s) ?
Until someone has been found guilty in a criminal court of law(meaning proven beyond guilty beyond a doubt) that person's rights should not be stripped. Someone who is not only been diagnosed crazy but also diagnosed to be danger to the public should be locked up in the loony bin and until that happens that person's rights should not be stripped.
A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. You don't strip innocent people of their rights. Now if that suspect's weapon was allegedly used in a crime then the the police can get a warrant and seize that weapon,obtain fingerprints and other things for evidence and if the accused is found not guilty then all his property that was seized as evidence should be returned to him.What if someone shoots another man and is realeased on bond awaiting trial...does he get to keep his guns in the meantime ?
What if he beats his wife and hospitalizes her, but she refuses, to press charges, does he get to keep his guns ?
A person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. You don't strip innocent people of their rights.
Now if that suspect's weapon was allegedly used in a crime then the the police can get a warrant and seize that weapon,obtain fingerprints and other things for evidence and if the accused is found not guilty then all his property that was seized as evidence should be returned to him.
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum who look for any loophole they can and a gullible or ignorant jury in order to get their client off the hook.
Urban Dictionary: grammar fags
Those who troll internet message boards to serve no other purpose than to correct grammar, misspellings, or typos of others. This is usually done by those who have too much time on their hands, or are lacking self-confidence in the real world and are trying to make up for it by an inflated sense of self-importance online.
Urban Dictionary: Grammar Nazi
One who uses refined vocabulary, correct grammar, constantly finds themselves correcting grammar and spelling (in forums, chatrooms, tumblr, YouTube, etc.)
Amazing how anti-2nd amendment trash are bitching about a law they claim won't have any effect.One who uses refined vocabulary, correct grammar, constantly finds themselves correcting grammar and spelling (in forums, chatrooms, tumblr, YouTube, etc.) How many states have medical and recreational marijuana laws? It appears the feds prohibition against Marijuana has been nullified. So the states prohibition against red flag laws will be enforced.
Many defense lawyers are degenerate scum FORMER PROSECUTORS!!!!!! :shock:
Half the defense attorneys in Lawton America started in the DA's office.... :2wave:
Degenerate scum indeed!!!!!eace
Court room lawyers are sleaze bags...they have to be to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a jury. Like snake oil salesmen of old. But the Constitution says people have a right to a jury trial and so the discredited adversarial system goes on and not a more civilized inquisitorial system where lawyers merely present the evidence for a panel of professional judges to examine. If I were innocent, no way would I want a jury trial. But if I were guilty, I want a jury trial and see if I could hire a sleaze bag lawyer to confuse the minds of a random group of "children" (AKA jurors) and get me acquitted.
Well I see common ground for both extremes- both the right and left extremists agree they hate the basis for our legal system as defined in the Constitution...
Great day indeed, makes me proud to have served...eace
"Anti-Red Flag law"?
What's the idea? Make sure it's easy for criminals to get guns so that they can point to criminals having guns as a reason to get rid of restrictions on use and ownership?
So a guy puts a gun to his wife’s head and threatens her and the kids. Threatens me for trying to calm things down. Someone calls the cops and they can’t se their discretion and take the man’s toy away. Sounds like a plan. Or do I get the effect of the law wrong? Apologize if it’s not as dumb as it sounded to me.
No, because there are laws already on the books here that if you are arrested for domestic violence you have your firearms taken away temporarily until you are found to not have committed domestic violence. No red flag law needed there its already law.But if the cops took away his gun because he was clearly unfit to have it, is surely an impingement on him bearing arms ?
No, because there are laws already on the books here that if you are arrested for domestic violence you have your firearms taken away temporarily until you are found to not have committed domestic violence. No red flag law needed there its already law.
So you think that without a red-flag law, we just let men beat and threaten their families?
Uh, no. They can arrest the man, issue a warning. They have lots of tools. Red flag laws provide another. If I had such a person in my neighborhood and the police removed his weapon (in a constitutionally valid way) I would have no problem. In fact, I might feel a bit safer myself.
What 'tool' does red flag offer that cops don't already have?Uh, no. They can arrest the man, issue a warning. They have lots of tools. Red flag laws provide another. If I had such a person in my neighborhood and the police removed his weapon (in a constitutionally valid way) I would have no problem. In fact, I might feel a bit safer myself.
What 'tool' does red flag offer that cops don't already have?
What 'tool' does red flag offer that cops don't already have?
My assumption is that they cannot take a gun away w/o the law. I work on the assumption that temporarily/permanently removing the weapon is a useful alternative to arrest in some circumstances. Maybe I have those laws wrong, however.
My assumption is that they cannot take a gun away w/o the law.
That would be an incorrect assumption. https://www.preventdvgunviolence.or...f-firearms-at-scenes-of-domestic-violence.pdf
Also, red-flag laws do not regard the removal of other lethal weapons, only firearms.
Police: Park Ridge man accused of killing his mother with a sword previously had illegal guns confiscated - Chicago Tribune
That would be an incorrect assumption. https://www.preventdvgunviolence.or...f-firearms-at-scenes-of-domestic-violence.pdf
Also, red-flag laws do not regard the removal of other lethal weapons, only firearms.
Police: Park Ridge man accused of killing his mother with a sword previously had illegal guns confiscated - Chicago Tribune
I just told you what is wrong with these laws. Not sure what you don't understand.I still don’t understand the problem with the laws. Nothing works perfectly.
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?