New Gun Bill? Your Neighbor Controls Your Rights

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
I think whoever made the video is overreacting.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying I support this at all.

That being said, isn't this kind of law already? I mean if law enforcement or a doctor have evidence that you are a threat to yourself or others they can have you committed for a mental evaluation. If you possessed firearms law enforcement would then take them into safekeeping until you are released.

If you have an injunction served against you due to violence, a judge can order one of the conditions be that you cannot posses a firearm.

In my state it is actually difficult to obtain an injunction against someone, family or not. You have to have several officially documented threatening/violent incidents before a judge will even hear your case.

Even then I have seen a good percentage denied.

What does this law change? How does it differ from what is on the books now?

Again, I don't support anything NotSoFeinstein touches.

Well how often are these temporary things not so temporary. In fact I had a friend here in FL even get introuble and of course the officers took his legally owned gun. Well they never charged him with a crime involving it but took it as evidence anyhow. Well after court when he was null proce or whatever he and his lawyer went to go get it back. Well he was told not without a court order...now why would he need an order to get it back if it never became evidence used in trial nor a charge against him. Now thats just one instance under what you say is a system thats hard to take firearms from people. The notsofeinstein wants to make it even easier. Thats how this changes whats on the books.

Gun rights isn't really a thing I stress over but for the sake of the discussion here I will throw some fodder into the fire for you gun people

What I mean to say is that foreclosure is an accepted part of the neighborhood in the new age financial system. Basically, it's not uncommon to say that BANKS are your neighbors, not to mention they are people too now since that supreme court ruling. People can get scared and so banks can disarm you.

I don't know the significance of any of this, but it's some food for thought for this corner of ATS.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
In my state it is actually difficult to obtain an injunction against someone, family or not. You have to have several officially documented threatening/violent incidents before a judge will even hear your case.
Even then I have seen a good percentage denied.
What does this law change? How does it differ from what is on the books now?

I think you kind of answered your own question, it would remove some of the requirements to have weapons confiscated (namely history). Most of the people who commit violence against others/themselves have little or no history of recorded violence or mental evaluations. I mean...how many people do you know have had a thorough mental evaluation?

We can focus on mass shootings for a quick example; The Isla Vista guy had people asking the police to look into him. All the police seem to have done is show up at his house and ask him a few questions, not really grounds for an injuction. At least, based on what you've said. Then they dropped it.

In the theater shootings in Colorado, the guy had been talking to a school psychiatrist, she didn't seem to say anything and if she did it obviously wasn't enough to stop him from getting weapons.

The guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords; he didn't seek help at all. There wasn't any evidence that would've stopped him.

Those are just the mass shootings. Again, 2/3 of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. If we can stop just a few of these with a bill like this, it would be tremendous in reducing the pain caused by the actions of the shooters.

As to telling your representative to outright oppose the bill introduced, why not ask them to add amendments to the bill to address your concerns? You all seem so concerned about the government coming to 'take yer guns' that you're not even considering taking the guns out of the bad guys hands. You're not working for smarter legislation, you're working for no legislation.

You're still falling under the premise that it's the fault of the gun. Let me remind you mass murders rarely if ever use a gun. But somehow this goes unreported in the media. Why is that? Because the issue isn't about saving lives. It's about ending the 2nd amendment piece by piece, step by step, and having your neighbors do it for them. I know it's been said a million times but it's about control, control of the population. There are many things that kill more people every year besides guns, if just once I saw the news media report this and question the attempted removal of guns from society by the government I would be in shock and always watch that news station for the truth.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC
Denver if you can speak without excessive vocal pauses,and retain information. Just being your everyday pro who does his job is all you can do.

a reply to: RickyD

Let me help you with several others as well. In Kalifornia if you have seen a psychologist or a physiatrist the state is notified, and they have a special swat team to come pick up your guns. Source

So if you and the wife are having problems, see a shrink, they send swat and pick up your guns. People have lost their minds in Kalifornia, glad I got out when I did.

Gun rights isn't really a thing I stress over but for the sake of the discussion

Everyone should.

In the last 6 years, and the preceeding 8 years before that going back to the 70s with the FISA.

Americans have seen a systematic dismantling of the bill of rights in the US constitution.

We no longer have the 'right' to free speech. Today we have 'free speech' zones.

We no longer have the 'right' to bear arms. Today we are only allowed what the feds say we can own, and we have to ask them for permisson, and must have lived a PERFECT life.

Some people think it stops at just the second amendment. It DOESN'T.

ALL gun control LAWS VIOLATE almost the entirety of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Among those amendments is the 9th.

Pay attention here:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.archives.gov...

IF the 'Feinsteins' and our neighbors actually read that GD piece of paper.

99% of the bullsnip that goes on in this country wouldn't.

You know the funny thing on this? How many people wouldn't be mad enough to NEED such a nanny-state order until they are actually SERVED with one?

Now, if I got handed a nanny-order to "temporarily" take possession of my guns, I imagine my reaction might THEN concern a few people. I don't 'do' total stupidity real well.

so with this kinda stuff going on nowadays one could be forgiven for thinking ORWELL was in fact not writing science fiction but was envisioning our future...somewhat correctly

originally posted by: conspiracyguru
So the Goal of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is to Disarm, Take your guns, and Surrender to the United Nations. Now in case you think this is just political rhetoric, let me show you something:....this statement was passed into Law.

And here's the proof:

1.Public Law 87-297 signed into Law by JFK in 1961: www.libertygunrights.com...
2.The Ultimate Goal of the U.S. as defined by Law Title 22 USC 2551 of the United States Code: vlex.com...
3. Disarm is defined as Elimination of all national armed forces and weapons, including taking citizens guns: Title 22 USC 2552 vlex.com...
4. Policy Formulation as defined by Title 22 USC 573: codes.lp.findlaw.com...

Now theres an important note about link #4 above...it says in essence that A. The policy and progress af Disarming shall be reviewed and Amended from time to time (Which it has been) B. The United states is not obligated to Disarm unless by international treaty signed by the President, and C. Citizens guns may not be taken away (yet) if they own them for lawful purposes. However, the definition of lawful gun ownership is being tightened all the time, Section C may be removed at any time according to section A, and section C may be subjected to a disarmarment treaty signed by the President.

See Full Thread Here

originally posted by: links234
Seeing as 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are self inflicted, something like the proposed law could save some lives.

Why would anyone be opposed to that?

I'm not opposed to 'something like' this law, but it doesn't need to be quite as easy as this bill would seem to make it. The person being accused has rights, too, and any proposal of this type needs to include safeguards to ensure that it cannot be abused and serves only its intended, limited purpose.

That being said, I don't think even Feinstein expects the bill to pass, at least in its current form. Most likely, its just political grandstanding and a chance to make it appear as though she's 'doing something' about it.

a reply to: jude11
The slime are using our tax dollars against us to further their agenda. Something like this could cause a lot of "consternation" among other things.

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: jude11
The slime are using our tax dollars against us to further their agenda. Something like this could cause a lot of "consternation" among other things.

This was exactly the point I made in another thread, the DOJ hired protesters in the Travon Martin trial in Florida. They use our money just as you say, against us. We have to vote out this line of thinking.

It's probably political grand-standing... it would be simpler to pass laws that would close some of the inconsistancies with the present background check system, along with measures that would allow state-by-state laws to be more effective, along with better funding for enforcement of present laws.

really I think the big issue with a lot of supposedly "ineffective" european gun laws is that many european countries don't believe in justified homocide (or castle doctrine, etc.)... to me its permissible depending on the circumstances.

Said Bill has ONE Co-Sponsor not very impressive. As previously mentioned it appears more like political posturing then a serious threat. I also question the suicide numbers. I know it isn't kosher to cut & past an entire article, however I seem to be having a hell of a time adding a hyperlink so hopeful the Mods will cut me some slack.
theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

The third paragraph casts doubt on the 2/3s of gun deaths as suicide.
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

I can see Feinstein and her ilk sitting around, discussing, coming up with the crap against gun owners that they do. I think it should be ordered by a judge that the 2nd amendment be tattooed on her forehead so that she can see it everyday and remember that it is not up for discussion. Trash like her needs to be shown the border crossing.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I feel like you didn't read the entire post...or you just chose to focus on the mass shootings part.

I'm much more concerned about the suicides than I am with anything else gun related. We all can agree that mental health is the real issue, but what do we do between the time someone sees a doctor and the time someone realizes they may be a threat to themselves?

a reply to: links234

LIfe is full of risk, and tends to lack a nerf coating.

I fully support taking any reasonable measures to protect each other. But to begin legall proceedings on "what if" scenarios tends to depart from "reasonable".

originally posted by: RickyD
From my cold dead hands....
2nd...literally!

Riiiiiiiight.

You will do as you are told.

Americans rarely stand up for their rights anymore.

When they start collecting everyone's guns, no one will do anything.

You gonna shoot a cop or a marine to keep your toys?

Hell no.

They can keep pushing and pushing and pushing. I hope they keep pushing until all the sheep wake up and realize that until we ALL stand up and tell them to go get f%#&ed, they'll keep doing it.

I will NEVER surrender my firearm.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I feel like you didn't read the entire post...or you just chose to focus on the mass shootings part.

I'm much more concerned about the suicides than I am with anything else gun related. We all can agree that mental health is the real issue, but what do we do between the time someone sees a doctor and the time someone realizes they may be a threat to themselves?

Gun related suicides according to theCDC are half of all suicides, or 19,392, or 6.3 per 100,000. Why aren't you concerned with the other half? As I have said many many times it isn't about death it's about the control of guns, and population. If it was about death there are plenty of other places to start. Do you know the phrase "low hanging fruit first"? Let me know how you're going to sort out those 6.3 per 100,000 people as well, theres a job.