It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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???
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.
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."
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.
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?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Wayfarer
So you're okay with a person losing their rights before proven guilty.
Shocked face.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.....
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?
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).
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.