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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: timequake

It's neither.

A crime has to be committed.

What they are playing at is Minority Report precrime.




posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 11:04 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 experiencing a credible truth or lying?


I addressed your statement about keys being taken from a drunk person--one instance was measurable and one wasn't. That was what I addressed. You're attempting to respond with a non-sequitur.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people should be treated as criminal based upon mere suspicion. I have personally seen this abused so often the everyone in the courtroom just assumes its par-for-the-course BS from a pissed of ex. Occasionally it might be credible, but more often than not, it isn't.
edit on 4-7-2018 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: timequake

It's neither.

A crime has to be committed.

What they are playing at is Minority Report precrime.


Its legally considered a civil matter--basically any court action that doesn't involve a criminal act. Unfortunately, one is afforded less protection in civil matters even if it also involves removal of property or even physical detention.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I really do not see a problem with this bill, as long as the confiscation is temporary and they give the guns back after the person is fixed. I like the part about family being able to hold the guns, I see that happening more than the cops doing it. The family may not want to hold them though if the effected person is nutty as hell, he/she might break in and shoot the family. So having the cops hold them till the person gets his/her head on straight is a good idea.

I sure hope they do not use this bill to take away normal people's ability to own a gun though, precedence is used against us way too much.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake


I'm not addressing a dangerous drunk driver issue. When I said"
"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? "

I was addressing a gun owner killing someone, claiming "stand your ground" based on a perceived credible threat, and someone going to a court and asking the judge to remove weapons because they perceive a credible threat. In one instance, someone is dead, in the other, someone stands accused. Perceived credible fear is still a "defense".
edit on 4-7-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Ummm...cool...so theoretically...just anyone...can steal anyone else's guns...and make a court approved claim...it was for their own good...

HaHaHa...HaHa...







YouSir



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Massachusetts Governor Signs Gun Seizure Bill


Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill on Tuesday allowing for temporary gun confiscation without any due process in Massachusetts.
Bill H4670 enables the police, a family or household member, including roommates, relatives or significant others, to remove firearms, firearm identification cards and ammunition from any individual deemed to be a danger to oneself or others.
Surrendered goods can be confiscated for up to one year, with the ability to renew the order, but an individual can try to appeal the ruling. Baker defended the so-called ‘red flag law’ over twitter calling it a “model for the nation.”


dailycaller.com...


So "Due Process" has to be followed if it's illegals sneaking over the border, but no due process for people others may deem a risk to themselves and others.


I can see the applications and how it might prevent shootings, I can also see how this can be grossly abused.

DO we have "Due Process" in this country? Or is it arbittrary?


Oh the conundrm!







Sounds rather like how restraining orders are handled. Initially on the simple request, lengthening with evidence.

One has to act in the face of 'immanent' danger.

I agree that this may cause, in many cases, more conflict and danger but it offers legal coverage to those acting to ensure the safety of others in much the same way that "stand your ground' laws do. Not quite the same, only close but the idea is similar.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I have been giving this some thought. I do not see this ending well.

How many times have we seen in the news that police were called because someone was thought to be a danger to themselves or others? What happened? Police showed up - killed the guy - problem solved.

"But we called you for help."

"We helped - he can't hurt anyone now. You're welcome."



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
As a liberal I find this law to be unconstitutional. Due process is extremely important and should never be taken away. Yes, gun violence is a serious topic but suspending due process is not the answer.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake




I addressed your statement about keys being taken from a drunk person--one instance was measurable and one wasn't.


Please check who you're posting to. I didn't bring up drunk drivers and keys, you did. I brought up the comparison of these new laws and "Stand your Ground" laws. Deal with it! This situation is the same process for retraining orders, which often come with a judge's orders to also surrender weapons, based on credible fear.



You're attempting to respond with a non-sequitur.


The stand your ground comparison isn't a non-sequitur comparison. You just want to deflect and refuse to address the similarities.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you agree with this bill or not? Curious.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


When I believed the thread title, I was against it. But, now that I understand that Due Process is NOT suspended, and that it's no different than a restraining order, which often requires weapons to be surrendered too, but specifically targets credible fear where the threat of weapons are to be considered, I'm as okay with it as I am with "Stand Your Ground" laws.



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



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

This is an absurdity. Do they have any idea how many frivolous criminal complaints/legal processes are initiated by jealous/angry/bitter "partners"



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Anyone want to argue that the Second is actually the civilian limitations to the steps of due process where as the government has extra impositions of warrants, trial by peers, etc? That is to say, vigilante justice is part of what the Second is about and is a right retained by the people to remain secure from an oppressive government overreach of power be it on a Local, State or Government level?



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Due process is only important when it comes to the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


When I believed the thread title, I was against it. But, now that I understand that Due Process is NOT suspended, and that it's no different than a restraining order, which often requires weapons to be surrendered too, but specifically targets credible fear where the threat of weapons are to be considered, I'm as okay with it as I am with "Stand Your Ground" laws.



You may be surprised to find I too am ok with it. Although the 1 year timeframe is excessive. I believe it should be ~1 week like in the case of a commitment. And then a Judge would have to at that point determine whether the person's rights were being violated or to continue to withhold the guns.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI


This law doesn't required officer's involvement. A neighbor or family member, co-worker. Pretty much the same as someone taking a drunk's car keys.


Pretty sure this was you talking about car keys....



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: timequake




I addressed your statement about keys being taken from a drunk person--one instance was measurable and one wasn't.


Please check who you're posting to. I didn't bring up drunk drivers and keys, you did. I brought up the comparison of these new laws and "Stand your Ground" laws. Deal with it! This situation is the same process for retraining orders, which often come with a judge's orders to also surrender weapons, based on credible fear.



You're attempting to respond with a non-sequitur.


The stand your ground comparison isn't a non-sequitur comparison. You just want to deflect and refuse to address the similarities.


Actually you failed to answer mine, but instead made this statement...



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake


Pretty sure this was not!



YOU 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?


ME 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?




That would be me segueing back to my point about "stand your ground".


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



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake





I addressed your statement about keys being taken from a drunk person--one instance was measurable and one wasn't. That was what I addressed. You're attempting to respond with a non-sequitur.

What you appear to be suggesting is that people should be treated as criminal based upon mere suspicion. I have personally seen this abused so often the everyone in the courtroom just assumes its par-for-the-course BS from a pissed of ex. Occasionally it might be credible, but more often than not, it isn't.


I don't see a single question mark in that post.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join