Gun Legislation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is dumb....of course ownership for felons is banned...you lose your Constitutional rights when you do something wrong....that's how it works....I'm not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are mentally impaired....where is the line?...some would suggest that based on your posts here you may be mentally ill...you've suggested others must be suffering some mental illness because of their political views..

this is a wrong headed as your leap from "the ban" at the Univ. of Va. to certain rights not being absolute

the examples you cite are after the fact.....you are then talking about proactively limiting the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population because you think a few of them "might" do something

it’s not dumb.

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.

so you’re opposed to such actions unless they are “after the fact”? Maybe it’s just by dumbness again, but isn’t it far superior to address these things before the fact? isn’t that the goal we should
be striving for?

restraining orders can be given before the fact, when there’s a reasonable threat. Meaning, a person who hasn’t actually done anything illegal yet, is sufficiently likely to do something wrong in the future, that we seriously limit his liberties and his freedoms - we tell him where he can and cannot go.

I’ll ask again, why are red flag laws so different from this principle? seems very similar to me. Are you opposed to granting restraining orders until after an assault has been committed against the person applying for the order? would
you tell her she had to wait until after the fact
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

prohibiting guns from those who have restraining orders against them, are not necessarily after the fact. restraining orders can be given on a prospective basis if there's a reasonable future threat.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

it is a legal judgment against them for something they did...it's "after the fact"...if someone has a restraining order against them because they threatened or injured someone they should not be playing with guns


stop trying to twist things to make your argument

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.

if you say you’re ok with keeping guns away from
the seriously mentally ill ( which means not only denying them guns, but possibly others in the same house), maybe were not that far off.

i’m not even saying let’s do it, but we can have the conversation about the benefits and costs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you can get a restraining order, at least in CT, against someone who hasn’t done anything yet ( certainly nothing illegal) but who is deemed to be likely to do something in the future. mental
illness can be a big reason.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good greif