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.

 

Is Due Process all that important

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

not sure if you are aware of this, but there is a group called the NRA, and they usually get all goofy when someone does something negative regarding guns. So while restraining orders can be scammed, the ideas of taking guns away from people will be met with a lot of backlash. Even if it's meant to be a good things. I'd like to see less dead kids, but until a bit more of the equation is discussed, I'll ignore the myopic gun rhetoric as just that.

The OP is highlighting the abuse this law could have.




posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well the government screws over the Constitution all the time. At least this has some merit to it. In theory. I'll wait to see the outcome.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96




The Bill in the op is a THREAT to civil liberty inside the home.


Whose home? The "ex" that shot his ex, her husband, their roommate and himself did so in her home, not his, and after she asked for a weapons restraining twice and was denied.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
The OP is highlighting the abuse this law could have.


I look at this the same as crying "rape" when one wasn't committed. Charge and prosecute those that attempt to use the system for personal intent.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




not sure if you are aware of this, but there is a group called the NRA


That's what I said in my first post. Then I found out that Due Process is not actually suspended, 12 other states have enacted this same law and the NRA seems to be more focused on not banning "Bump Stocks" than worrying about a few crazies getting their guns confiscated for threatening behavior. Especially so since there have been so many mass shooting by crazy people lately. Even Pres Trump wants guns out of crazy people's hands. Trump is even okay with suspending Due Process, which these laws do not do.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill on Tuesday allowing for temporary gun confiscation without any due process in Massachusetts.


The first guarantor of due process



Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Basically what someone thinks is unreasonable by every definition there is.

Second.



Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Third.



Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Guilt has to be PROVEN in courts of law.

Fourth.


Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Wex Resources


www.law.cornell.edu...

Everyone get's their day in court. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Fifth.



Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Having private property taken from someone that's guilt was never proven (based on hearsay) is a cruel and unusal punishment).



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

That governor is wrong ,and everyone that thinks it's a good idea is WRONG.

edit on 4-7-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm pretty sure when the Constitution was drafted they didn't take into account today's arms. And the amout of people that are bat# crazy. Times change and changes are made to the document. That's why you have amendments in the first place. Strict adherence to it isn't viable.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Not true.

The biggest example of this is speech and the modern tools used to practice it.

Pencil,paper, and iron ink pens.

21st century?

Smart phones,tablets,computers,internets, and TVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV.

Of your if your saying we should treat the first like the second.

I do think gun phobes need a taste of their own medicine.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: JinMI
Until then, you can't take citizens items.


Car keys are taken off of drunk people daily. Why? Because they are dangerous.


Whether or not someone is too drunk to drive is at least measurable. How does one measure whether or not some other person is a danger to themselves or others to the point where firearm confiscation is warranted? Someone could simply lie and say I believe that so and so is dangerous, were as a drunk person can medically proof they aren't actually drunk.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Communication is communication. Advances in "speaking" doean't affect lives to the extent that guns do. Two different arguments.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

The Bill of RIGHTS is the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Says people get due process, and those rights were inalienable.

Which means no matter what the freggin psychosis of the mob.

A line in the sand was drawn.

WE GET IT.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

The Bill of RIGHTS is the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Says people get due process, and those rights were inalienable.

Which means no matter what the freggin psychosis of the mob.

A line in the sand was drawn.

WE GET IT.


Don't forget that the Bill of Rights also covers those that are in potential danger. The VAST majority.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

I'm pretty sure when the Constitution was drafted they didn't take into account today's arms. And the amout of people that are bat# crazy. Times change and changes are made to the document. That's why you have amendments in the first place. Strict adherence to it isn't viable.


This speculative line of thinking is wrought with presumption that fails to follow reason, but is merely used as a tool to pry apart the freedoms of others that some find distastful. Firearms are still firearms, the point of the amendment was not about guns but about one being about to defend oneself largely from government overreach. The types of arms or their degree of effectiveness was not at issue with many of those who wrote the amendment.

edit on 4-7-2018 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

The Bill of RIGHTS is the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Says people get due process, and those rights were inalienable.

Which means no matter what the freggin psychosis of the mob.

A line in the sand was drawn.

WE GET IT.


Don't forget that the Bill of Rights also covers those that are in potential danger. The VAST majority.


The Rights expressed in the U.S, Constitution are restrictions upon government action. Its not a security blanket to protect every person from other people.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

That piece of paper says.

Like the 5th.

No person shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

Says IF someone commits a crime. They are taken to a court of law where a jury of their peers deliberates. Then pass's judgment.

The bill in the op doesn't do that.

Guilt was determined, and the accused has to prove their innocence after theft of their property.

Backasswards from what our judicial system is supposed to be based on.

The presumption of innocence. Where guilt has to be proven with FACTS.


edit on 4-7-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Try explaining due process to someone who lost everything to highway interdiction. Or anyone who tried to board an airplane with a fairly large amount of cash. You might make it on the plane but your cash won't. It will be arrested on suspicion of illegal drug activity and since it can't defend itself, it is automatically confiscated and that is the last you will ever see of it.

Due process...yeah...



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: timequake



How does one measure whether or not some other person is a danger to themselves or others to the point where firearm confiscation is warranted?


How do you know if someone really experienced credible fear. after the fact, after they've shot and killed someone? How do you know if someone pleading with a court for protection by the removal of deadly weapons is actually experiencing a credible threat or lying?
edit on 4-7-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: timequake



How does one measure whether or not some other person is a danger to themselves or others to the point where firearm confiscation is warranted?


How do you know if someone really experienced credible fear. after the fact, after they've shot and killed someone? How do you know if someone pleading with a court for protection by the removal of deadly weapons is actually experience a credible truth or lying?


"Swatting" people just got a lot easier.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

That piece of paper says.

Like the 5th.

No person shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

Says IF someone commits a crime. They are taken to a court of law where a jury of their peers deliberates. Then pass's judgment.

The bill in the op doesn't do that.

Guilt was determined, and the accused has to prove their innocence after theft of their property.

Backasswards from what our judicial system is supposed to be based on.

The presumption of innocence. Where guilt has to be proven with FACTS.



An important detail--one that I believe should be better addressed-- is that this is not a criminal matter but a civil one. The courts seem to think due process applies differently in civil matters than it does criminal despite the fact that both contain elements of punishments and abuses.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I actually did this 30 years ago. A friends nephew got smoked with a pool cue by some folks from an adjacent town. We piled in the car to find them. Another uncle, he was bat# crazy, brought a shotgun. I told him my car wasn't going anywhere with his gun. He opted for a pickax.







 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join