Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer
.....How is what she is proposing (if she actually is proposing such a thing) bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?

Who determines if a person i mentally unstable?
What are the criteria where a person's Constitutionally protected rights are stripped from them without due process?
Is that criteria fixed or will it change over time?
Is there legal redress of this decision by the target of the confiscation?

That is what is wrong with this legislation IMO. It is the same as the "who could be against a felon having their 2nd Amendment right stripped"? Well, when the definition of a felony is changed and widened over time, that means that more people become targets without any due process.

How can you claim something is wrong with the legislation when you haven't even seen/read it? Perhaps you're privy to some secret prognosticative ability?

Can you answer those questions I posed? Because, as explained above by others, this is NOT adhering to due process. Having a right stripped and then having to "prove" you are innocent is how 3rd world and dictatorships work. Or, is that what you wish our country to become?

After all, "it's for the children", right???

Dude, did you seriously just respond to me without reading my previous response to you? Again, without actually seeing/reading what she's proposing, I have no idea what the intent of this so called legislation is to be vis-a-vis your aforementioned questions...

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

Asset seizure before due process is what she's explaining. Not exactly due process in that regard despite what she claims.

Interesting that's how you read it. I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined. In that scenario, the person could very well be one who would eventually be deemed a danger and under current laws have their firearms confiscated, but in the time it takes for the court proceedings to commence commits a violent act with the firearm before a verdict is rendered.

You are aware that court cases of this type typically take YEARS to play out? SO, let's strip someone's right because they "might" do something, and not return that right for a few years.

Thank you Mr. Dictator.....or should I raise my hand in salute to you?

a reply to: DBCowboy
Dont forget platform plank 78 part C Article 5:

Care about average Middle American Voters and their needs.

They care, they really do!

Not that Republicans do but at least they give lip service to it.

a reply to: Wayfarer

So you're okay with a person losing their rights before proven guilty.


Shocked face.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.

Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined.

That's exactly the way I read it too. The issue, is that you're putting assumed guilt and seizure ahead of due process. That is wrong and not constitutionally sound.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

Asset seizure before due process is what she's explaining. Not exactly due process in that regard despite what she claims.

Interesting that's how you read it. I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined. In that scenario, the person could very well be one who would eventually be deemed a danger and under current laws have their firearms confiscated, but in the time it takes for the court proceedings to commence commits a violent act with the firearm before a verdict is rendered.

You are aware that court cases of this type typically take YEARS to play out? SO, let's strip someone's right because they "might" do something, and not return that right for a few years.

Thank you Mr. Dictator.....or should I raise my hand in salute to you?

I'm sure there is a variety of 'average' timelines for various types of disputes. Suffice to say (again), I believe it likely her intent here is to reduce the instances of jilted/angry plaintiffs using their firearms to settle the disputes before the courts have ruled their judgements.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Wayfarer

So you're okay with a person losing their rights before proven guilty.


Shocked face.

I'm not sure its technically losing a right if the action can be reverted..... Again, you and everyone else is getting all huffy over a soundbite and without actually any firm data to base an argument on.

If a man beats his wife severely and the domestic violence charges take weeks/months/years to play out, I can't say i'd cry much over the fact that he may have his firearms temporarily removed from his possession until the courts can prove whether or not he did in fact commit a crime.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.

Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.

So, thought crime?

Nice. Remind me to frame you if this passes. All it would take is a baseless accusation from me and few few friends after they beat me up for "evidence" of your abuse. But, then, false accusations NEVER happen do they ? Everyone is honest and forthright, with no ill will toward another (in your own mind perhaps).

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined.

That's exactly the way I read it too. The issue, is that you're putting assumed guilt and seizure ahead of due process. That is wrong and not constitutionally sound.

I think you assessment is very likely correct (especially given the slight conservative leanings of the Supreme Court). Judges (like the supreme court) will likely be the arbiters of this though. Again, there's a lot of emotional ire raised over practically no information whatsoever...

I'll be keen to see the legislation when its proposed officially.

a reply to: xuenchen

Debbie DingellBerry should lead by example.

She should have any security detail around her person and her office, give up their weapons first.

She should have a four year trial run just to see how it works out.

umm... from the article linked it sounds more like it's providing a way to take the guns out of the hands of those who would be a danger to themselves and others with one in their hands... and they are given a chance to legally get them back in a short time.
this law kind of reminds me of a great uncle of mine.... true story here... he was kind of a hermit, we didn't really visit him much and by that time, he was well up in age. but when he was younger, when my mom and her siblings were young, well... he was way off the tracks. ya see, he believed there was ghosts in his house and well he would occasionally try to shoot his ghosts. so, well, we really didn't go visit him too often, we didn't want to be misidentified as a ghost.
I'm sorry, but wasn't everyone just bringing up the constant chorus of "mental health" relating to the parkland school shooting? so, here is a law that seems to be aimed at addressing the problem of guns in the hands of those with mental health problems, and it's "oh, they're coming to take our guns away!!!"
anyone who can sit here and claim that my great uncle's constitutional right to own his guns needs to be protected is wackier than he was!!

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.

Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.

So, thought crime?

Nice. Remind me to frame you if this passes. All it would take is a baseless accusation from me and few few friends after they beat me up for "evidence" of your abuse. But, then, false accusations NEVER happen do they ? Everyone is honest and forthright, with no ill will toward another (in your own mind perhaps).

C'mon man, obtuse silly threats aren't necessary (you're neither going to worry me nor frighten me with toothless hypotheticals). I've got no weapons to confiscate, so in my specific case I'm not sure what your scenario would change. Second, of course false accusations occur, and that is what she's referencing (I believe) when she mentions 'within the confines of due process'. I think the assumption she (and many have) is that ultimately truth will out (and someone who is in fact innocent would have their firearms returned to them).

How come none of you are getting huffy over Fred Upton. You know, REPUBLICAN representative for MI's 6th district, who supposedly is co-sponsoring the bill.....

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined.

That's exactly the way I read it too. The issue, is that you're putting assumed guilt and seizure ahead of due process. That is wrong and not constitutionally sound.

I think you assessment is very likely correct (especially given the slight conservative leanings of the Supreme Court). Judges (like the supreme court) will likely be the arbiters of this though. Again, there's a lot of emotional ire raised over practically no information whatsoever...

I'll be keen to see the legislation when its proposed officially.

I see what you're getting at but I would like to point out the flaw in the reasoning and ask you this question.

Say, the gun was removed for a suspected/reported domestic abuse and the gun was removed. Does this remove the intent of the accused to cause harm to themselves or others?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
How come none of you are getting huffy over Fred Upton. You know, REPUBLICAN representative for MI's 6th district, who supposedly is co-sponsoring the bill.....

For one, not many here like Upton even though he's not my district. Second, he hasn't gone on record to what part(s) he may also be championing.

I'd like to rake him over the coals as well.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

I (in my imagination only since nothing other than speculation is available at this moment) surmise that based on her statements something like a scenario where an individual is accused of committing domestic violence but hasn't been convicted yet may have their guns confiscated until the proceedings are completed and a summary judgment is determined.

That's exactly the way I read it too. The issue, is that you're putting assumed guilt and seizure ahead of due process. That is wrong and not constitutionally sound.

I think you assessment is very likely correct (especially given the slight conservative leanings of the Supreme Court). Judges (like the supreme court) will likely be the arbiters of this though. Again, there's a lot of emotional ire raised over practically no information whatsoever...

I'll be keen to see the legislation when its proposed officially.

I see what you're getting at but I would like to point out the flaw in the reasoning and ask you this question.

Say, the gun was removed for a suspected/reported domestic abuse and the gun was removed. Does this remove the intent of the accused to cause harm to themselves or others?

On the surface, no, the intent is there, but the ease of which violence can be committed I think could be argued to be greater via firearm than a variety of other methods. I can see the angle you are aiming at, specifically if guns can be confiscated, why aren't they going after knives/cars/potential explosives/etc.

I can't really answer those questions without seeing the bill (which hasn't been shown yet), and determining the reasoning behind it (as hopefully elucidated in said bill).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

She can claim it's within due process, but that doesn't make it an accurate statement. This:

If her bill passes, individuals who have their guns confiscated will have 14 days to appear before a judge to “make a case” to get their gun back.

Is NOT due process. Due process mandates that the state must be the one who "makes the case" before a judge or jury PRIOR to seizure. We live in a country which is formed on "innocent until proven guilty" and what Dingell is proposing is exactly the opposite: "you're presumed guilty and have to prove you're not," which is essentially an impossible thing to prove in a scenario where the state's threshold for evidence is as flimsy as "that person may be a danger to others."

As I mentioned earlier, I suspect this proposal is meant to act preemptively in situations where there is a high likelihood of violence (domestic disputes, etc). I can understand your argument, just as I can understand what I believe to be her intent (to remove the firearms until the domestic disputes are resolved in the courts). I think at best your primary tactic/avenue of approach should be the 'slippery slope' argument.

So, thought crime?

Nice. Remind me to frame you if this passes. All it would take is a baseless accusation from me and few few friends after they beat me up for "evidence" of your abuse. But, then, false accusations NEVER happen do they ? Everyone is honest and forthright, with no ill will toward another (in your own mind perhaps).

C'mon man, obtuse silly threats aren't necessary (you're neither going to worry me nor frighten me with toothless hypotheticals). I've got no weapons to confiscate, so in my specific case I'm not sure what your scenario would change. Second, of course false accusations occur, and that is what she's referencing (I believe) when she mentions 'within the confines of due process'. I think the assumption she (and many have) is that ultimately truth will out (and someone who is in fact innocent would have their firearms returned to them).

You live in a fantasy land. Hypothetical? No. That happened to my brother-in-law. It took 20 years and thousands of dollars for him to be cleared of the accusations. And during that time, if his firearm was removed from his possession, he would have been defenseless against those *holes that tried to get him put in jail.

Not a good plan in practice.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Wayfarer
How come none of you are getting huffy over Fred Upton. You know, REPUBLICAN representative for MI's 6th district, who supposedly is co-sponsoring the bill.....

For one, not many here like Upton even though he's not my district. Second, he hasn't gone on record to what part(s) he may also be championing.

I'd like to rake him over the coals as well.

Then I appreciate your honesty and even handedness in doling out displeasure equitably.

a reply to: Wayfarer

It isn't a slippery slope, though. It's bluntly unconstitutional. You can make the argument that there are situation in which adherence to the Constitution isn't the most prudent/fair/just course of action, but on the other hand it exists to prevent this type of crap from happening. Rights aren't selective nor can they Constitutionally be restricted without due process. There is a mechanism by which this problem can be quickly and legally resolved: if the person in question is viewed as a danger, then bring them before a judge and petition the court to imprison them until their full trial and conviction or exxoneration. If the evidence supports removal of Constitutional Rights, then one can only assume it is sturdy enough to support imprisonment during a trial... of course that doesn't fit within the underlying intent here, which is obviously removal of inconvenient rights with as little supporting rationale and evidence as possible and in as quick a time as possible.