Gun Grabbing bill is signed by Colorado governor,sheriffs vow not to enforce it

[daveman]

...Man, you sure hate it when someone points out you're a pussy...

You tell 'em, Princess.

...The law makes no provision for a mental health evaluation by a professional right away...

It doesn't need to. Safety first, administrative follow-up second.

...This law WILL be abused by irrational gun-haters to disarm legal gun owners...

Thank you, Miss NRA Bumper-Sticker Echo Chamber.

...Your acknowledgement of this reality is neither required nor expected. So hush, fascist.

Enjoy the ride, darlin', 'cause a New Reality is now upon you in Colorado.

It's funny you call it a New Reality.

Marxism has been around for a looooong time. Only morons think it's something new.

Bad fascist. No totalitarianism for you!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...Nope. Just well-acquainted with leftist totalitarianism. And you don't get to do that in America. We don't want your fascism. Tyrants all throughout history have disarmed their subjects. The military will not side with you. They will turn against you. That means you'll have to un-ass the couch and (try) to disarm people yourself. View attachment 256082

I was right... you ARE ten years old... or, more likely a ten-year-old mind trapped in a fifty-year-old body.

Nobody is talking about taking weapons away from anyone who is mentally stable, Tinkerbelle.

Only people of questionable mental health, demonstrating a risk to others, based upon testimony, and vetted by a law judge.

And that only representing (a) common sense and (b) a temporary impounding, not a permanent seizure.

Now...

Take your brain-dead NRA bumper-sticker echo-chamber ten-year-old mind, and go dry-hump somebody else's leg for a while, Princess.

You're not only a simpleton, but you're a boring, dull, unimaginative simpleton...

Man, you sure hate it when someone points out you're a pussy.

The law makes no provision for a mental health evaluation by a professional right away. This law WILL be abused by irrational gun-haters to disarm legal gun owners.

Your acknowledgement of this reality is neither required nor expected. So hush, fascist.

There is a catch here. If you do file and get the guns take and that person does pass a mental exam, your house and better be in hock already. Your life just got real complicated real fast when the civil law suit hits. And in most states, filing that will get you in serious trouble with the law and the judge on top of it. Yes, it can be abused but the abuse can be really screwed to the pooch afterwards. And anyone it happens to should never turn down the mental health exam. It will exonerate or condemn them. If it exonerates them, they get their guns back, the judge then orders some not so nice things for the one that filed the original papers. The system will work if you give it a chance. But, for the love of God, don't barricade yourself in your home and go for an armed standoff with the cops. Nothing ever comes out of that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you find a judge with an agenda, you could get life for just crossing the street. You really don't have a point here. Yes, hire Guliani where he can get your Life in Prison for a Parking Ticket.

You just ignore the point I am making because you are a pansy prog dick sucking quisling.

The point you are making is, no matter how bad it can be your twisted imagination will scream at the top of your lungs just how bad it can actually be even though it actually won't be. Damn, Sam, that scare tactic only works on small children and you strumpets. We be adults.

You said there would be a mental health evaluation by a professional before any guns were seized.

That is simply not correct.

Own your mistake.

If the defense lawyer is any good, there will be. Part of his job (first year law student learns this) is to ensure that the defendants due process is preserved. I can't see any other way for this to go down. Even a Public Defender knows this right out of Law School. You can zig and squirm all you want to but that's just the way it has to be. It says it right in the 14th amendment. I guess you still want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution of the United States you pay attention to. I happen to pay attention to all of it as I should. You are far from a patriot doing it any other way.

Considering you're okay with absence of due process and taking away people's 2nd Amendment rights, you have no business questioning anyone else's patriotism.

Yours, however, is highly questionable. You ought to hook up with Kondor3 and have a little fascist party.

Considering I have been pushing for due process hard, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely nothing to say that anyone needs to hear, child. Have a nice day.

 

[Kondor3]

...There is a catch here. If you do file and get the guns take and that person does pass a mental exam, your house and better be in hock already. Your life just got real complicated real fast when the civil law suit hits. And in most states, filing that will get you in serious trouble with the law and the judge on top of it. Yes, it can be abused but the abuse can be really screwed to the pooch afterwards. And anyone it happens to should never turn down the mental health exam. It will exonerate or condemn them. If it exonerates them, they get their guns back, the judge then orders some not so nice things for the one that filed the original papers. The system will work if you give it a chance. But, for the love of God, don't barricade yourself in your home and go for an armed standoff with the cops. Nothing ever comes out of that.

An interesting speculation, but I wonder if you're right...

I can't remember the last time that a jurisdiction sanctioned a witness just because a prosecution ended badly for the State.

All one need do is to attest to Good Faith to get off that particular hook, yes?

The State is not going to eat those coming forward.

Guaranteed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...There is a catch here. If you do file and get the guns take and that person does pass a mental exam, your house and better be in hock already. Your life just got real complicated real fast when the civil law suit hits. And in most states, filing that will get you in serious trouble with the law and the judge on top of it. Yes, it can be abused but the abuse can be really screwed to the pooch afterwards. And anyone it happens to should never turn down the mental health exam. It will exonerate or condemn them. If it exonerates them, they get their guns back, the judge then orders some not so nice things for the one that filed the original papers. The system will work if you give it a chance. But, for the love of God, don't barricade yourself in your home and go for an armed standoff with the cops. Nothing ever comes out of that.

An interesting speculation, but I wonder if you're right...

I can't remember the last time that a jurisdiction sanctioned a witness just because a prosecution ended badly for the State.

All one need do is to attest to Good Faith to get off that particular hook, yes?

The State is not going to eat those coming forward.

Guaranteed.

The one filing the writ will have to prove that you are a danger first. That means that they will have to provide proof. If they provide proof that is acceptable to the Judge then the Judge can make that ruling. If that "Proof" is fabricated then you just made one hell of an enemy of that judge. And you just broke the law. You fabricated evidence and committed perjury. I still find the law lacking a bit on Due Process at this point though and Colorado needs to attend to that before it gets my full support. I do think it's necessary but only after due process is addressed.

 

[Blues Man]

You didn't get my point as usual

Brain alluded to thing being done in the name of "safety" that clearly violate a person's rights.

Like the CO Red Flag bill.

Then I suggest you take Federal Judge Young's advice and don't move to Colorado. Of course, her advice applied to Boston but it can apply to anywhere else as well. You have options, use them. Chances are, we don't want you either.

Everything you said about the Red Flag law was WRONG

There is no mental health evaluation by a professional. You only get a court appointed lawyer after an EPRO is issued and your guns are confiscated and all it takes is the opinion of a family member or law enforcement officer.

This law will be challenged and it will not stand

I just got off the phone with a high dollar Lawyer friend of mine. He charges at least 500 bucks an hour even when his underlings do the legwork. His court time is many times that. He said he would jump at the chance to take the case. And he said he would win doing it Pro Bono. The business that it would bring in would be fantastic. As I suspected, there is a problem with the Due Process. And being the first one to represent it in court would be a gold mine in the Press if handled properly. He doesn't take cases he will lose. From the looks of things, this will end up in federal court and be overturned before Jan 1, 2020. But all Colorado has to do is to put in the Due Process into it and it will fly. The State MUST put in the mandatory Mental Health review before they take the weapons. And then, the warrant can be issued and acted upon. Like the 10 shot mag versus the 15 shot mag, Colorado has until Jan 1, 2020 to make that change. Otherwise, the law stands as written.

none of that mean s jack
Because the order can be issued the very same day the petition is filed so you wouldn't have time to find a lawyer.
you are wrong about every aspect of this law and i posted the proof

All you have are stupid and unbelievable anecdotes

There you go again. You can't win any other way so you get abusive. You lose. You have nothing to say I care to listen. Have a nice day, child.

Says the MORON who keeps insisting that you get a lawyer and a mental heath evaluation before the State of CO can confiscate your guns

 

[daveman]

...Nope. Just well-acquainted with leftist totalitarianism. And you don't get to do that in America. We don't want your fascism. Tyrants all throughout history have disarmed their subjects. The military will not side with you. They will turn against you. That means you'll have to un-ass the couch and (try) to disarm people yourself. View attachment 256082

I was right... you ARE ten years old... or, more likely a ten-year-old mind trapped in a fifty-year-old body.

Nobody is talking about taking weapons away from anyone who is mentally stable, Tinkerbelle.

Only people of questionable mental health, demonstrating a risk to others, based upon testimony, and vetted by a law judge.

And that only representing (a) common sense and (b) a temporary impounding, not a permanent seizure.

Now...

Take your brain-dead NRA bumper-sticker echo-chamber ten-year-old mind, and go dry-hump somebody else's leg for a while, Princess.

You're not only a simpleton, but you're a boring, dull, unimaginative simpleton...

Man, you sure hate it when someone points out you're a pussy.

The law makes no provision for a mental health evaluation by a professional right away. This law WILL be abused by irrational gun-haters to disarm legal gun owners.

Your acknowledgement of this reality is neither required nor expected. So hush, fascist.

There is a catch here. If you do file and get the guns take and that person does pass a mental exam, your house and better be in hock already. Your life just got real complicated real fast when the civil law suit hits. And in most states, filing that will get you in serious trouble with the law and the judge on top of it. Yes, it can be abused but the abuse can be really screwed to the pooch afterwards. And anyone it happens to should never turn down the mental health exam. It will exonerate or condemn them. If it exonerates them, they get their guns back, the judge then orders some not so nice things for the one that filed the original papers. The system will work if you give it a chance. But, for the love of God, don't barricade yourself in your home and go for an armed standoff with the cops. Nothing ever comes out of that.

I see lots of IFs and SHOULDs.

The way the law is written, it's an infringement without due process. Period. End of story.

 

[daveman]

You just ignore the point I am making because you are a pansy prog dick sucking quisling.

The point you are making is, no matter how bad it can be your twisted imagination will scream at the top of your lungs just how bad it can actually be even though it actually won't be. Damn, Sam, that scare tactic only works on small children and you strumpets. We be adults.

You said there would be a mental health evaluation by a professional before any guns were seized.

That is simply not correct.

Own your mistake.

If the defense lawyer is any good, there will be. Part of his job (first year law student learns this) is to ensure that the defendants due process is preserved. I can't see any other way for this to go down. Even a Public Defender knows this right out of Law School. You can zig and squirm all you want to but that's just the way it has to be. It says it right in the 14th amendment. I guess you still want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution of the United States you pay attention to. I happen to pay attention to all of it as I should. You are far from a patriot doing it any other way.

Considering you're okay with absence of due process and taking away people's 2nd Amendment rights, you have no business questioning anyone else's patriotism.

Yours, however, is highly questionable. You ought to hook up with Kondor3 and have a little fascist party.

Considering I have been pushing for due process hard, you have demonstrated that you have absolutely nothing to say that anyone needs to hear, child. Have a nice day.

You haven't been pushing for due process; you're supporting this and other laws that violate due process.

You don't like it being pointed out?

Support the Constitution, then.

 

[Dragonlady]

Colorado is facing a full scale voter revolt.
Jared Polis, Colorado Democrats face recall effort over leftist agenda

Maybe the state will vote them all out.

The sheriffs need to go to the capital and remove the governor by force.

So you’re advocating an armed revolt against the democratically elected government.

 

[Preacher]

As

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

Nope. Just like sanctuary illegal invader cities/counties these sheriffs are actually becoming sanctuary cities/counties for a constitutional right.

...This law is a side step around due process. And why should a person have to incur the expense of a mental health examination in order to prove anything? If the court wants to order a mental health evaluation then the court should foot the bill to prove that the state has the authority to suspend a citizen's rights. THAT is due process

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good idea.

View attachment 256056

Unfortunately for your delusions Hitler EXPANDED gun laws for GERMANS. Google is your friend.

Google is pretty cool, isn't it?

When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[5]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.
​

Ooooh, look. Hitler disarmed "unreliable" persons. You know, just like the American left wants to do.

As I said he relaxed gun laws for Germans. Of course you don't allow enemies of the state to own guns.

 

[daveman]

As

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

Nope. Just like sanctuary illegal invader cities/counties these sheriffs are actually becoming sanctuary cities/counties for a constitutional right.

...This law is a side step around due process. And why should a person have to incur the expense of a mental health examination in order to prove anything? If the court wants to order a mental health evaluation then the court should foot the bill to prove that the state has the authority to suspend a citizen's rights. THAT is due process

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good idea.

View attachment 256056

Unfortunately for your delusions Hitler EXPANDED gun laws for GERMANS. Google is your friend.

Google is pretty cool, isn't it?

When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[5]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.
​

Ooooh, look. Hitler disarmed "unreliable" persons. You know, just like the American left wants to do.

As I said he relaxed gun laws for Germans. Of course you don't allow enemies of the state to own guns.

Jews were enemies of Germany?

After you make yourself look like a total fucking Nazi with your answer, let's try another one:

Are conservatives enemies of America?

 

[Preacher]

As

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

Nope. Just like sanctuary illegal invader cities/counties these sheriffs are actually becoming sanctuary cities/counties for a constitutional right.

Safety first, Constitutionality second... a practical necessity... it's the way the world works.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

At the start of WWII, Roosevelt incarcerated scores of thousands of Japanese-Americans in the interests of public safety.

The President decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

In Colorado, the State temporarily impounds firearms of suspected mental illness victims in the interests of public safety.

The State Legislature decided that the threat outweighed the Constitutional Right being set aside temporarily.​

When constitutionality and safety are dramatically juxtaposed, safety almost always wins.

Peoples' lives are more important than allowing a mentally unbalanced individual to continue to possess firearms.

Will it be abused from time to time and will the law 'get it wrong' from time to time? Yep.

But for every one it gets wrong, it will get a hundred right, and a lot of folks will live, who might not have otherwise.

And that is the single most important thing, not the feelings of knuckle-dragging NRA bumper-sticker echo-chambers.

This legislation merely accelerates due process on an emergency basis, vetted by a law-judge, based upon testimony.

------------

I agree, however, that the State should foot the bill for subsequent mental health examinations to affirm or dismiss the impound.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good idea.

View attachment 256056

Unfortunately for your delusions Hitler EXPANDED gun laws for GERMANS. Google is your friend.

Google is pretty cool, isn't it?

When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[5]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.
​

Ooooh, look. Hitler disarmed "unreliable" persons. You know, just like the American left wants to do.

As I said he relaxed gun laws for Germans. Of course you don't allow enemies of the state to own guns.

Jews were enemies of Germany?

After you make yourself look like a total fucking Nazi with your answer, let's try another one:

Are conservatives enemies of America?

Yes and No CONservatives are just idiots. What the hell are they conserving? More and more things they are trying to conserve are disappearing so what exactly is left to conserve? Jews are STILL the enemy,Conservatives can be saved for the most part.

 

[daveman]

As

Sad, Sheriff’s refusing to do their jobs. They don’t make laws, they enforce them.

Nope. Just like sanctuary illegal invader cities/counties these sheriffs are actually becoming sanctuary cities/counties for a constitutional right.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good idea.

View attachment 256056

Unfortunately for your delusions Hitler EXPANDED gun laws for GERMANS. Google is your friend.

Google is pretty cool, isn't it?

When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing firearm ownership for Nazi party members and the military.[5]:672 The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws systematically disarmed "unreliable" persons , especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for so-called "ordinary" German citizens.
​

Ooooh, look. Hitler disarmed "unreliable" persons. You know, just like the American left wants to do.

As I said he relaxed gun laws for Germans. Of course you don't allow enemies of the state to own guns.

Jews were enemies of Germany?

After you make yourself look like a total fucking Nazi with your answer, let's try another one:

Are conservatives enemies of America?

Yes and No CONservatives are just idiots. What the hell are they conserving? More and more things they are trying to conserve are disappearing so what exactly is left to conserve? Jews are STILL the enemy,Conservatives can be saved for the most part.

Yup, I called it. You made yourself look like a total fucking Nazi.

You're dismissed, boy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with the bill. A judge has to approve the gun confiscation and only after a family member, police officer, or friend/roommate files a petition that claims the person is a threat to themselves or others; and if the person proves to be harmless, he/she gets their gun back. This seems like a common-sense measure to me.

 

[Blues Man]

Controversial Colorado gun bill becomes law, 11 sheriffs willing to choose jail over enforcement - CNN

Good for those Sheriff's! Its unconstitutional.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with the bill. A judge has to approve the gun confiscation and only after a family member, police officer, or friend/roommate files a petition that claims the person is a threat to themselves or others; and if the person proves to be harmless, he/she gets their gun back. This seems like a common-sense measure to me.

So you don't see a problem with denying a person his protected rights without due process?

The person filing the petition doesn't need any proof but his opinion, cops and judges are not psychiatrists.

If you're going to claim a person is a danger to himself you need proof in the form of a mental health evaluation by a professional not the opinion of some Joe Schmoe

 

[mikegriffith1]

So you don't see a problem with denying a person his protected rights without due process?

The person filing the petition doesn't need any proof but his opinion, cops and judges are not psychiatrists.

If you're going to claim a person is a danger to himself you need proof in the form of a mental health evaluation by a professional not the opinion of some Joe Schmoe

One, no one is being denied due process. If the resulting investigation proves that the person is harmless, they get their gun back and the matter is closed. They are not arrested or held: they just have to hand over their gun until the investigation has been concluded.

Two, judges are not going to just willy-nilly automatically order confiscation in response to all such petitions. They are going to question the persons who filed them. They are going to consider the credibility of each petition. In the case of petitions filed by police officers, I would certainly hope that judges would take those very seriously, and well they should.

Three, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize when someone is disturbed and might pose a threat to themselves or others. Look at all the warning signs of the shooter in the Parkland shooting. The guy was obviously disturbed, and if this law had been in effect in FL at the time, the tragedy might have been averted.

Four, when we have school kids getting shot up at a disturbing rate by disturbed persons, I am very willing to err on the side of caution, to be safe rather than sorry.

 

[Blues Man]

So you don't see a problem with denying a person his protected rights without due process?

The person filing the petition doesn't need any proof but his opinion, cops and judges are not psychiatrists.

If you're going to claim a person is a danger to himself you need proof in the form of a mental health evaluation by a professional not the opinion of some Joe Schmoe

One, no one is being denied due process. If the resulting investigation proves that the person is harmless, they get their gun back and the matter is closed. They are not arrested or held: they just have to hand over their gun until the investigation has been concluded.

Two, judges are not going to just willy-nilly automatically order confiscation in response to all such petitions. They are going to question the persons who filed them. They are going to consider the credibility of each petition. In the case of petitions filed by police officers, I would certainly hope that judges would take those very seriously, and well they should.

Three, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize when someone is disturbed and might pose a threat to themselves or others. Look at all the warning signs of the shooter in the Parkland shooting. The guy was obviously disturbed, and if this law had been in effect in FL at the time, the tragedy might have been averted.

Four, when we have school kids getting shot up at a disturbing rate by disturbed persons, I am very willing to err on the side of caution, to be safe rather than sorry.

Yes they are

Read the description of the law

An EPRO can be enacted with nothing but the statement of a person who claims another is a "danger to himself"
There is no representation given to the person being accused before the initial order is enacted. There is no investigation as the order for an EPRO must be approved or denied in 24 hours or less. So where is there time for an investigation or an evaluation by a mental health professional?

There is no evaluation by a mental health professional required only the opinion of any person who says he knows the accused or of a cop.

The burden of proof is placed on the accused to prove he is not mentally compromised

 

[mikegriffith1]

So you don't see a problem with denying a person his protected rights without due process?

The person filing the petition doesn't need any proof but his opinion, cops and judges are not psychiatrists.

If you're going to claim a person is a danger to himself you need proof in the form of a mental health evaluation by a professional not the opinion of some Joe Schmoe

One, no one is being denied due process. If the resulting investigation proves that the person is harmless, they get their gun back and the matter is closed. They are not arrested or held: they just have to hand over their gun until the investigation has been concluded.

Two, judges are not going to just willy-nilly automatically order confiscation in response to all such petitions. They are going to question the persons who filed them. They are going to consider the credibility of each petition. In the case of petitions filed by police officers, I would certainly hope that judges would take those very seriously, and well they should.

Three, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize when someone is disturbed and might pose a threat to themselves or others. Look at all the warning signs of the shooter in the Parkland shooting. The guy was obviously disturbed, and if this law had been in effect in FL at the time, the tragedy might have been averted.

Four, when we have school kids getting shot up at a disturbing rate by disturbed persons, I am very willing to err on the side of caution, to be safe rather than sorry.

Yes they are

Read the description of the law

An EPRO can be enacted with nothing but the statement of a person who claims another is a "danger to himself"
There is no representation given to the person being accused before the initial order is enacted. There is no investigation as the order for an EPRO must be approved or denied in 24 hours or less. So where is there time for an investigation or an evaluation by a mental health professional?

There is no evaluation by a mental health professional required only the opinion of any person who says he knows the accused or of a cop.

The burden of proof is placed on the accused to prove he is not mentally compromised

I did not say that the investigation occurs before the judge signs the confiscation order. But there *is* an investigation after the order is issued--that's the point. The person is not jailed or detained; they simply must hand over their gun. Yes, of course the burden of proof is on the person to prove he's not a threat, and he will have that chance during the investigation.

You seem to be assuming that every judge is going to suddenly turn into a gun grabber and that all investigations will be rigged against the suspect. I don't believe that will be the case. I think that judges will be careful about issuing confiscation orders, and I think that accused persons will have a fair chance to exonerate themselves during the investigation.

I also think that the overwhelming majority of people who file these petitions will file them in good faith and not merely to persecute someone they don't like.

 

[Blues Man]

So you don't see a problem with denying a person his protected rights without due process?

The person filing the petition doesn't need any proof but his opinion, cops and judges are not psychiatrists.

If you're going to claim a person is a danger to himself you need proof in the form of a mental health evaluation by a professional not the opinion of some Joe Schmoe

One, no one is being denied due process. If the resulting investigation proves that the person is harmless, they get their gun back and the matter is closed. They are not arrested or held: they just have to hand over their gun until the investigation has been concluded.

Two, judges are not going to just willy-nilly automatically order confiscation in response to all such petitions. They are going to question the persons who filed them. They are going to consider the credibility of each petition. In the case of petitions filed by police officers, I would certainly hope that judges would take those very seriously, and well they should.

Three, you don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize when someone is disturbed and might pose a threat to themselves or others. Look at all the warning signs of the shooter in the Parkland shooting. The guy was obviously disturbed, and if this law had been in effect in FL at the time, the tragedy might have been averted.

Four, when we have school kids getting shot up at a disturbing rate by disturbed persons, I am very willing to err on the side of caution, to be safe rather than sorry.

Yes they are

Read the description of the law

An EPRO can be enacted with nothing but the statement of a person who claims another is a "danger to himself"
There is no representation given to the person being accused before the initial order is enacted. There is no investigation as the order for an EPRO must be approved or denied in 24 hours or less. So where is there time for an investigation or an evaluation by a mental health professional?

There is no evaluation by a mental health professional required only the opinion of any person who says he knows the accused or of a cop.

The burden of proof is placed on the accused to prove he is not mentally compromised

I did not say that the investigation occurs before the judge signs the confiscation order. But there *is* an investigation after the order is issued--that's the point. The person is not jailed or detained; they simply must hand over their gun. Yes, of course the burden of proof is on the person to prove he's not a threat, and he will have that chance during the investigation.

You seem to be assuming that every judge is going to suddenly turn into a gun grabber and that all investigations will be rigged against the suspect. I don't believe that will be the case. I think that judges will be careful about issuing confiscation orders, and I think that accused persons will have a fair chance to exonerate themselves during the investigation.

I also think that the overwhelming majority of people who file these petitions will file them in good faith and not merely to persecute someone they don't like.

Not good enough.

If you are going to deny anyone their rights then you have to prove via due process of the law BEFORE you deny that person his rights not after.

And I'm not assuming anything. You seem to trust the people too much. No one's rights should be taken away based on nothing but the opinion of another person.