Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: SF1900 on December 30, 2015, 11:50:25 AM
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Gun-Law-Seize-Guns-Without/2015/12/30/id/707588/
Effective January 1 police in California will be able to confiscate an individual’s guns for 21 days if a judge determines that the owner of the guns poses a threat to society. This will be known as a Gun Violence Restraining Order, or a GVRO
A new California gun control law takes effect next week that will allow police, without prior warning to a gun owner, seize their weapons if a judge decides there's a potential for violence.
The law was prompted by a 2014 mass shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which officers beforehand visited shooter Elliot Rodger's home after his parents raised alarms about his mental health — yet concluded he wasn't a risk and didn't search the apartment where he'd stashed guns, ammo and knives.
Under the new legislation, families can obtain a "gun violence restraining order," the Washington Times reports.
"The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will," Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief
Michael Moore tells public radio affiliate SCPR."
"It's a short duration and it allows for due process. It's an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person's mental state."
California law already bans people from possessing guns if they've committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. Police may also seize guns if a licensed therapist notifies them an individual is a risk to their own safety or the safety of others, SCPR reports.
But Second Amendment advocates say the law could put lawful gun owners at risk.
"We don't need another law to solve this problem," Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, tells The Associated Press. "We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy."
-
From my cold, dead hands...
-
::)
-
From my cold, dead hands...
;D ;D
(https://i.imgflip.com/vglev.jpg)
-
States rights. Don't like it? Move. Fucking California is a liberals wet dream, why anyone who is a gun toting republican would live there is beyond me. This could be the first step though, as where do you draw the line with who's "dangerous"?
-
States rights. Don't like it? Move. Fucking California is a liberals wet dream, why anyone who is a gun toting republican would live there is beyond me. This could be the first step though, as where do you draw the line with who's "dangerous"?
Uhhh, I was pretty much about to write this exact screed.
+1, but the CA legislature should really be taught what the 2A means.
-
I smell lawsuits
-
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Strange how states rights only seem to apply when it comes to guns.
Looks like a 2nd and 4th amendment violation
-
Uhhh, I was pretty much about to write this exact screed.
+1, but the CA legislature should really be taught what the 2A means.
No, we should just take some dynamite along the San Andreas and disconnect them from our lovely country.
-
Baiting a violent situation, while pretending to act against violence.
::)
That's what's going on. They WANT violence, but the suckers are too dumb to realize it.
-
I smell lawsuits
"Under the new legislation, families can obtain a "gun violence restraining order," the Washington Times reports."
Are only family members allowed to report a potentially dangerous family member with a gun? What about neighbors? Friends? I wonder what the law says about this.
-
Sf1900 deathly afraid of guns in this thread. ;)
-
Sf1900 deathly afraid of guns in this thread. ;)
All I am doing is posting an article. Nowhere have I stated my reaction to the law. People are allowed make what they want of it.
-
All I am doing is posting an article. Nowhere have I stated my reaction to the law. People are allowed make what they want of it.
I've been observing your threads. You hate, fear and want guns banned.
-
Sf1900 deathly afraid of guns in this thread every antigun thread he posts under the guise of "just reporting the news" ;)
-
I've been observing your threads. You hate, fear and want guns banned.
Only the big, scary ones.
-
Sounds like a bit of paranoia on your part. :D :D
I had absolutely no say in this gun law being passed. I do not even live in California.
People who live in California should be trying to overturn the law, instead of bitching and moaning on social media. :D :D
-
Only the big, scary ones.
Are you saying if you ever ran into 2nd Amendment hero aj in real life, you would hope that the bulge in his pants is because he is happy to see you and not his Glock? :D
-
States rights. Don't like it? Move. Fucking California is a liberals wet dream, why anyone who is a gun toting republican would live there is beyond me. This could be the first step though, as where do you draw the line with who's "dangerous"?
States Rights cannot trump Federal Law. This seems to violate the Second Amendment.
-
States rights. Don't like it? Move. Fucking California is a liberals wet dream, why anyone who is a gun toting republican would live there is beyond me. This could be the first step though, as where do you draw the line with who's "dangerous"?
THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Repubs scream they don't respect obama or the fed govt... this is entirely a states matter. if the majority don't like it, they vote out the libs that delivered it.
-
Only the big, scary ones.
Well it's the small ones that are doing the most damage across america
-
Well it's the small ones that are doing the most damage across america
Touche!
-
States Rights cannot trump Federal Law. This seems to violate the Second Amendment.
Or, in this case, the Constitution of the United States of America
-
Isn't this what repubs like? States making the law, not Feds? They can move if it's a problem. I remember hearing repubs at last election saying "it should be a state matter", all the time. I'm a gun owner myself
-
Isn't this what repubs like? States making the law, not Feds? They can move if it's a problem. I remember hearing repubs at last election saying "it should be a state matter", all the time. I'm a gun owner myself
Who voted for this law?
-
Who voted for this law?
Did you vote for abortion (roe v wade) or legality of gay marriage (sc again)?
No... yet they are nationwide laws.
I can't see how this law does not violate the 2nd amendment though... if you have a right to presumption of innocence, surely you should enjoy the privileges (owning a gun, voting etc) that go along with that right. Can anyone say how it does not violate the 2nd amendment? You have a right to carry a gun; thinking you "might" do something is totalitarian if left unchecked.
-
More details about this law:
If a judge determines someone to be a risk and issues a GVRO, that order will:
Temporarily prohibit that person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition
Allow law enforcement to temporarily remove any firearms or ammunition already in that person’s possession
Include procedures to allow the person have his or her guns and ammunition returned
-
More details about this law:
If a judge determines someone to be a risk and issues a GVRO, that order will:
Temporarily prohibit that person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition
Allow law enforcement to temporarily remove any firearms or ammunition already in that person’s possession
Include procedures to allow the person have his or her guns and ammunition returned
Smacks to me of the law on encroaching property. You cannot do it without due legal process (ie a warrant). It is a fairly high standard, and if someone is an immediate risk it seems useless. "hey, this guy looks like he is gonna kill - ok wait for judge to sit at 10.30am tomorrow"...
-
Smacks to me of the law on encroaching property. You cannot do it without due legal process (ie a warrant). It is a fairly high standard, and if someone is an immediate risk it seems useless. "hey, this guy looks like he is gonna kill - ok wait for judge to sit at 10.30am tomorrow"...
That is why a judge has to decide if the person is a potential thread. If the judge decides that person X is a potential threat, then I assume that he/she will give a warrant to the police to enter the person's home and remove their guns. Whether or not the judge can determine if there is a threat is a whole other story. However, they will get around the warrant issue by having a judge sign off on it.
-
Just picked up my first AK today. God bless America
-
Did you vote for abortion (roe v wade) or legality of gay marriage (sc again)?
Do you suck dick in an alley?
-
Do you suck dick in an alley?
This is unbelievable. You are so fucking stupid you cannot see I was supporting the 2nd amendment here. Are you spoon fed and dictate posts to a carer through a series of grunts and moans you fucking retard?
If you want finality to the rhetorical questions I asked, you didn't vote for the 2nd amendment yet you defend it like you defend your right to be completely ignorant. I hate you. I fucking hate you. You are so stupid I would watch a video of you being run over by a car full of clowns on worldstar just to prove no brains got splattered.
-
This is unbelievable. You are so fucking stupid you cannot see I was supporting the 2nd amendment here. Are you spoon fed and dictate posts to a carer through a series of grunts and moans you fucking retard?
If you want finality to the rhetorical questions I asked, you didn't vote for the 2nd amendment yet you defend it like you defend your right to be completely ignorant. I hate you. I fucking hate you. You are so stupid I would watch a video of you being run over by a car full of clowns on worldstar just to prove no brains got splattered.
You're not even American, your opinion is worth less than the rubles sev got for selling your sisters ass on the cobblestone boulevard.
-
You're not even American, your opinion is worth less than the rubles sev got for selling your sisters ass on the cobblestone boulevard.
Why is his opinion worthless because hes not an American? What does that have to do with anything?
Many people from America travel overseas to educate students from different countries and vice versa.
You can learn from anyone, no matter where they are from.
-
Just picked up my first AK today. God bless America
What kind?
-
Why is his opinion worthless because hes not an American? What does that have to do with anything?
Many people from America travel overseas to educate students from different countries and vice versa.
You can learn from anyone, no matter where they are from.
Cock loving troll.
-
Cock loving troll.
In other words, you have no clever comeback. :D :D
-
In other words, you have no clever comeback. :D :D
For what? The useless and invalid opinion of some douchenozzles 1/2 way around the world on political issues in my country? ::)
Or a clever comeback for your cock loving troll ways?
-
For what? The useless and invalid opinion of some douchenozzles 1/2 way around the world on political issues in my country? ::)
That point might make some sense, except I opined that it must be in breach of the 2nd amendment.
I will go on a limb and say i know the political issues in your country more than you do. I mean on a national level. I know your constitution, i could name the 50 states and most capitals, and I sure as fucking hell understand the concepts and arguments about all of those issues better than you.
You are a disgrace to your country. Boast about something the USA has and I will point to an immigrant. Point to a native American and I will say "Ira Hayes" and mass slaughter. You are just uneducated scum.
-
conehead is in such a tizzy over his gun fun he can't figure out who yell at,
wantonly lashing out at people who agree with him
-
For what? The useless and invalid opinion of some douchenozzles 1/2 way around the world on political issues in my country? ::)
Or a clever comeback for your cock loving troll ways?
Doesn't mean he may not have something useful to say, no matter where he is from.
But, really, aren't all our opinions useless and invalid? The average citizen really has no political power to change anything, thus rendering their opinions useless and valid. This is even sadder, considering we are American, and our opinions means jack shit. :-\ :-\
ps - Lustral was advocating for the 2nd amendment. He stated, "Can anyone say how it does not violate the 2nd amendment? You have a right to carry a gun; thinking you "might" do something is totalitarian if left unchecked."
-
That point might make some sense, except I opined that it must be in breach of the 2nd amendment.
I will go on a limb and say i know the political issues in your country more than you do. I mean on a national level. I know your constitution, i could name the 50 states and most capitals, and I sure as fucking hell understand the concepts and arguments about all of those issues better than you.
You are a disgrace to your country. Boast about something the USA has and I will point to an immigrant. Point to a native American and I will say "Ira Hayes" and mass slaughter. You are just uneducated scum.
Pull your panties out of your vagina and pay attention to your own country's deterioration.
Doesn't mean he may not have something useful to say, no matter where he is from.
But, really, aren't all our opinions useless and invalid? The average citizen really has no political power to change anything, thus rendering their opinions useless and valid. This is even sadder, considering we are American, and our opinions means jack shit. :-\ :-\
ps - Lustral was advocating for the 2nd amendment. He stated, "Can anyone say how it does not violate the 2nd amendment? You have a right to carry a gun; thinking you "might" do something is totalitarian if left unchecked."
We can talk when you're done wiping his jizz off your face, it's disgusting.
-
What kind?
Went with a Century Arms RAS-47. 100% American made and had good reviews, so I said what the hell. Already have a S&W 15 sport and always wanted an AK.
-
Went with a Century Arms RAS-47. 100% American made and had good reviews, so I said what the hell. Already have a S&W 15 sport and always wanted an AK.
How's the riveting on that? Heard they were hit and miss on their quality.
-
Doesn't mean he may not have something useful to say, no matter where he is from.
But, really, aren't all our opinions useless and invalid? The average citizen really has no political power to change anything, thus rendering their opinions useless and valid. This is even sadder, considering we are American, and our opinions means jack shit. :-\ :-\
ps - Lustral was advocating for the 2nd amendment. He stated, "Can anyone say how it does not violate the 2nd amendment? You have a right to carry a gun; thinking you "might" do something is totalitarian if left unchecked."
By the way, I don't fully advocate the 2nd amendment (personally), but I have met and discussed the issue, as well as torture (the example used was thumb locks or something) with Justice Scalia (yes, he of the Supreme Court who believes the Constitution means what it says and is not open to interpretation/ not a living document). I was stating that I think that law violates the 2nd amendment.
It also seems intrusive and open to abuse. Someone (a family member or enemy) could suggest you are a danger and you lose your rights?!? That is fucked. Our Mental Health Act (2001 s21 iirc) allows for such ridiculous infringement of personal rights.
-
Pull your panties out of your vagina and pay attention to your own country's deterioration.
We can talk when you're done wiping his jizz off your face, it's disgusting.
Ireland's economy is growing at over 7% GDP, tourism from USA is up by about 20% or so (yes, your beloved nation) and we have the highest economic growth rate in OECD along with Norway. We are doing OK thanks.
How about you? You legalised gay marriage after us, but without a vote - a few people in a room decided it, not the populace. Nice to have a democracy isn't it.
-
Ireland's economy is growing at over 7% GDP, tourism from USA is up by about 20% or so (yes, your beloved nation) and we have the highest economic growth rate in OECD along with Norway. We are doing OK thanks.
How about you? You legalised gay marriage after us, but without a vote - a few people in a room decided it, not the populace. Nice to have a democracy isn't it.
Would love to come to Ireland, have a pint and make sweet love to your bumhole.
Without your consent of course. :-*
-
Would love to come to Ireland, have a pint and make sweet love to your bumhole.
Without your consent of course. :-*
I voted No in that referendum (marriage is a religious institution, just expand civil partnership and related laws on inheritance etc instead) but I accepted the 65% Yes vote. At least I had a say.
Back on point - my stance: this law apparently breaches 2nd amendment (imo), it also is open to abuse and, even if a judge decides, they are already tied up with enough shit - just delegate the initial judgment to some independent body or, better, scrap the law. You cannot trust one person to say "he should not have x" without proof and then deprive a person of x. It happens with kids, now with guns. I'd fucking fight this to the death (well, argue vehemently) because it means someone who you may not meet or argue before chooses your entitlement to a constitutional right. How fucked is that?
-
I voted No in that referendum (marriage is a religious institution, just expand civil partnership and related laws on inheritance etc instead) but I accepted the 65% Yes vote. At least I had a say.
Back on point - my stance: this law apparently breaches 2nd amendment (imo), it also is open to abuse and, even if a judge decides, they are already tied up with enough shit - just delegate the initial judgment to some independent body or, better, scrap the law. You cannot trust one person to say "he should not have x" without proof and then deprive a person of x. It happens with kids, now with guns. I'd fucking fight this to the death (well, argue vehemently) because it means someone who you may not meet or argue before chooses your entitlement to a constitutional right. How fucked is that?
Quite obvious it breeches the 2nd, first time this "law" is attempted the lawsuits will fly.
Was fun watching you flip out though. ;D
-
I voted No in that referendum (marriage is a religious institution, just expand civil partnership and related laws on inheritance etc instead) but I accepted the 65% Yes vote. At least I had a say.
Back on point - my stance: this law apparently breaches 2nd amendment (imo), it also is open to abuse and, even if a judge decides, they are already tied up with enough shit - just delegate the initial judgment to some independent body or, better, scrap the law. You cannot trust one person to say "he should not have x" without proof and then deprive a person of x. It happens with kids, now with guns. I'd fucking fight this to the death (well, argue vehemently) because it means someone who you may not meet or argue before chooses your entitlement to a constitutional right. How fucked is that?
Most Americans won't fight anything. They will just bitch on social media. :D :D
-
Quite obvious it breeches the 2nd, first time this "law" is attempted the lawsuits will fly.
Was fun watching you flip out though.;D
:D :D :D
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c4/91/44/c49144fff30402292c73288947968186.jpg)
Cock loving troll
-
Most Americans won't fight anything. They will just bitch on social media. :D :D
you can always count on americanos do to the right thing after they have tried everything else.
-
:D :D :D
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c4/91/44/c49144fff30402292c73288947968186.jpg)
Cock loving troll
Did you finally pull your head out of his lap long enough to see what was going on? :D
-
you can always count on americanos do to the right thing after they have tried everything else.
Tried everything else? You mean complain on social media, then go play on their iphones?
-
Did you finally pull your head out of his lap long enough to see what was going on? :D
Nope, still there.
-
Nope, still there.
He voted against that, better move along and find a more gay friendly poster. Is Goodrum still single?
-
Tried everything else? You mean complain on social media, then go play on their iphones?
pretty much
-
He voted against that, better move along and find a more gay friendly poster. Is Goodrum still single?
I don't know. He may be dating QV again.
-
Quite obvious it breeches the 2nd, first time this "law" is attempted the lawsuits will fly.
Was fun watching you flip out though. ;D
Im off to bed (fuck it is 3.32am here) but I finally think I got my point across.
I like the odd chance to blow off steam sorry I had to be so vitriolic.
-
Im off to bed (fuck it is 3.32am here) but I finally think I got my point across.
I like the odd chance to blow off steam sorry I had to be so vitriolic.
Funny name for a guy, "Steam"....huh, must be an Irish thing.
-
hey lustral do you like association football?
-
States Rights cannot trump Federal Law. This seems to violate the Second Amendment.
But then how is marijuana legal in some states (both medicinal and recreational) yet federally it is still considered a controlled substance?
-
Interesting law.
-
How's the riveting on that? Heard they were hit and miss on their quality.
Yeah, I watched a bunch of videos from a few channels on YouTube where they tested it and the reviews were pretty good, but now I see more hit or miss reviews on various message boards. I don't know enough about guns yet to judge the quality of it, but the gun nut behind the counter took it apart and said it was nice. I've been buying my guns off Bud's and so far so good.
-
Yeah, I watched a bunch of videos from a few channels on YouTube where they tested it and the reviews were pretty good, but now I see more hit or miss reviews on various message boards. I don't know enough about guns yet to judge the quality of it, but the gun nut behind the counter took it apart and said it was nice. I've been buying my guns off Bud's and so far so good.
It's a cheap AK. As long as they got the headspacing correct, and the bolt rails straight, you should be good to go. Do the sights line up with the rest of the gun, or are they canted?
-
Whole thing is aimed to cause violent incidents to happen. That's the real story.
-
Whole thing is aimed to cause violent incidents to happen. That's the real story.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/20/d3/80/20d3802dc9eacc277ba406758b4e004e.jpg)
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/20/d3/80/20d3802dc9eacc277ba406758b4e004e.jpg)
lmfao...people coming to take someone's shit, and the subject will be singing 'oh happy day'
Please.
-
It's the result of evil minds pulling in stupid minds to create a clusterfuck. That's what it is.
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Gun-Law-Seize-Guns-Without/2015/12/30/id/707588/
Effective January 1 police in California will be able to confiscate an individual’s guns for 21 days if a judge determines that the owner of the guns poses a threat to society. This will be known as a Gun Violence Restraining Order, or a GVRO
A new California gun control law takes effect next week that will allow police, without prior warning to a gun owner, seize their weapons if a judge decides there's a potential for violence.
The law was prompted by a 2014 mass shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara, in which officers beforehand visited shooter Elliot Rodger's home after his parents raised alarms about his mental health — yet concluded he wasn't a risk and didn't search the apartment where he'd stashed guns, ammo and knives.
Under the new legislation, families can obtain a "gun violence restraining order," the Washington Times reports.
"The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will," Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief
Michael Moore tells public radio affiliate SCPR."
"It's a short duration and it allows for due process. It's an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person's mental state."
California law already bans people from possessing guns if they've committed a violent crime or were involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. Police may also seize guns if a licensed therapist notifies them an individual is a risk to their own safety or the safety of others, SCPR reports.
But Second Amendment advocates say the law could put lawful gun owners at risk.
"We don't need another law to solve this problem," Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, tells The Associated Press. "We think this just misses the mark and may create a situation where law-abiding gun owners are put in jeopardy."
OK a couple of scenarios with this. I'm not exactly sure how this is going to work. So lets say I think my neighbor is crazy and I go to the proper authority to stake my assumption. Obviously I need some kind of proof to "prove" that they need to look into this guy. The police go to his house and talk to him. Normally they won't even go but lets assume that they do. Hey bud we heard from an anonymous source that your nuts. Nope officer I'm as sane as the day is long. OK sorry to bother you.
Now, in Cally this scenario will be different once this law comes into affect. Same thing as above but a little different. Sir we got an anonymous call the you are nuts, do you presently own a gun? (They prob already know this). Yes I do. OK so after a few questions that probably pisses this guy off let's say they end up leaving. Now this is where it really gets bad. It's going to be left up to the officers to interpret whether this guy is sane or not. Let's say they get pissed at his attitude and they go to a judge.
Hey judge we questioned this guy about him being sane and he owns a gun. He got real upset and agitated at us. BINGO!!!!!! OK here is a warrant to confiscate his gun. I will also issue a mandatory mental health exam. BINGO AGAIN!!!!! Now once this guy is forced to go he will not be able to ever own his gun again since the law already states he can't if he was ever involuntarily examined by health officials.
This "law" is going to make it easy to get a warrant for gun confiscation and a mandatory mental health exam. There are other issues too but doesn't matter since it's already bad enough.
-
OK a couple of scenarios with this. I'm not exactly sure how this is going to work. So lets say I think my neighbor is crazy and I go to the proper authority to stake my assumption. Obviously I need some kind of proof to "prove" that they need to look into this guy. The police go to his house and talk to him. Normally they won't even go but lets assume that they do. Hey bud we heard from an anonymous source that your nuts. Nope officer I'm as sane as the day is long. OK sorry to bother you.
Now, in Cally this scenario will be different once this law comes into affect. Same thing as above but a little different. Sir we got an anonymous call the you are nuts, do you presently own a gun? (They prob already know this). Yes I do. OK so after a few questions that probably pisses this guy off let's say they end up leaving. Now this is where it really gets bad. It's going to be left up to the officers to interpret whether this guy is sane or not. Let's say they get pissed at his attitude and they go to a judge.
Hey judge we questioned this guy about him being sane and he owns a gun. He got real upset and agitated at us. BINGO!!!!!! OK here is a warrant to confiscate his gun. I will also issue a mandatory mental health exam. BINGO AGAIN!!!!! Now once this guy is forced to go he will not be able to ever own his gun again since the law already states he can't if he was ever involuntarily examined by health officials.
This "law" is going to make it easy to get a warrant for gun confiscation and a mandatory mental health exam. There are other issues too but doesn't matter since it's already bad enough.
Under the new legislation, families can obtain a "gun violence restraining order," the Washington Times reports
I am not sure if it has to be a family member to call it in. Can any random person just say, "Person X" is crazy, please try and take away their guns?"
I don't know what the law says about others (Friends, neighbors) reporting the person.
-
Under the new legislation, families can obtain a "gun violence restraining order," the Washington Times reports
I am not sure if it has to be a family member to call it in. Can any random person just say, "Person X" is crazy, please try and take away their guns?"
I don't know what the law says about others (Friends, neighbors) reporting the person.
I seriously doubt it. What if the guy has no family? Does that mean he can't be crazy enough not to own a gun?
-
THIS THIS THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Repubs scream they don't respect obama or the fed govt... this is entirely a states matter. if the majority don't like it, they vote out the libs that delivered it.
No its not, I guess it hard for the constitutionally illiterate understand
-
But then how is marijuana legal in some states (both medicinal and recreational) yet federally it is still considered a controlled substance?
Back to the 10th Amendment, marijuana is not "constitutional right", but states stopped asserting their rights in about 1865
-
This thread, and new Cali law is a great reminder why gun registration should never be allowed.
-
I voted No in that referendum (marriage is a religious institution, just expand civil partnership and related laws on inheritance etc instead) but I accepted the 65% Yes vote. At least I had a say.
Back on point - my stance: this law apparently breaches 2nd amendment (imo), it also is open to abuse and, even if a judge decides, they are already tied up with enough shit - just delegate the initial judgment to some independent body or, better, scrap the law. You cannot trust one person to say "he should not have x" without proof and then deprive a person of x. It happens with kids, now with guns. I'd fucking fight this to the death (well, argue vehemently) because it means someone who you may not meet or argue before chooses your entitlement to a constitutional right. How fucked is that?
Lots.
-
I seriously doubt it. What if the guy has no family? Does that mean he can't be crazy enough not to own a gun?
Good point.
We shall see how this law pans out. :-\ :-\
-
But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?
-
But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?
I guess that is part of the issue. As long as you dont come up as having a criminal record or mental health record, you can buy a gun, even if you are crazy, for whatever reason.
-
I guess that is part of the issue. As long as you dont come up as having a criminal record or mental health record, you can buy a gun, even if you are crazy, for whatever reason.
Just look at 240! The guy is absolutely nuts. He once challenged a pro bodybuilder to a duel, supports black teens roaming through white neighborhoods, and at one time supported Wayne Demilia's new bodybuilding organization. Does anyone honestly believe he should be able to own a gun (or two)?
-
Just look at 240! The guy is absolutely nuts. He once challenged a pro bodybuilder to a duel, supports black teens roaming through white neighborhoods, and at one time supported Wayne Demilia's new bodybuilding organization. Does anyone honestly believe he should be able to own a gun (or two)?
Anyone who supported Wayne Demilias new bbing organization should not be able to even own a bibi gun!
-
Anyone who supported Wayne Demilias new bbing organization should not be able to even own a bibi gun!
X2. I wonder how many political contributions 240 has made to this man's campaign. Talk about buying influence!
(http://locable-assets-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/resource/file/212312/main_image_jack_20london.jpg?1451409107)
-
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Strange how states rights only seem to apply when it comes to guns.
Looks like a 2nd and 4th amendment violation
States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.
-
States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.
That's the point. The federal government was never intended to have full power.
-
But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?
Then they shouldn't have one I would think.
-
But what it someone is truly mentally unstable and REALLY REALLY should not own a gun?
Says who, exactly?
-
If anyone has the attention span, here is what is needed to commit someone to involuntary mental healthcare (ie mental imprisonment)...
Basically - anybody, just don't be a cop or committee member who decides such matters committing a family member. Just make sure you saw them in the last 2 days....
9.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) and (6) and section 12 , where it is proposed to have a person (other than a child) involuntarily admitted to an approved centre, an application for a recommendation that the person be so admitted may be made to a registered medical practitioner by any of the following:
(a) the spouse or a relative of the person,
(b) an authorised officer,
(c) a member of the Garda Síochána, or
(d) subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any other person.
(2) The following persons shall be disqualified for making an application in respect of a person—
(a) a person under the age of 18 years,
(b) an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Síochána who is a relative of the person or of the spouse of the person,
(c) a member of the governing body, or the staff, or the person in charge, of the approved centre concerned,
(d) any person with an interest in the payments (if any) to be made in respect of the taking care of the person concerned in the approved centre concerned,
(e) any registered medical practitioner who provides a regular medical service at the approved centre concerned,
(f) the spouse, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of any of the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs (b) to (e), whether of the whole blood, of the half blood or by affinity.
(3) An application shall be made in a form specified by the Commission.
(4) A person shall not make an application unless he or she has observed the person the subject of the application not more than 48 hours before the date of the making of the application.
(5) Where an application is made under subsection (1)(d), the application shall contain a statement of the reasons why it is so made, of the connection of the applicant with the person to whom the application relates, and of the circumstances in which the application is made.
(6) A person who, for the purposes of or in relation to an application, makes any statement which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) In paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the reference to a member of the governing body of the approved centre concerned does not include a reference to a member of a health board.
(8) In this section—
“authorised officer” means an officer of a health board who is of a prescribed rank or grade and who is authorised by the chief executive officer to exercise the powers conferred on authorised officers by this section;
“spouse”, in relation to a person, does not include a spouse of a person who is living separately and apart from the person or in respect of whom an application or order has been made under the Domestic Violence Act, 1996 .
-
If anyone has the attention span, here is what is needed to commit someone to involuntary mental healthcare (ie mental imprisonment)...
Basically - anybody, just don't be a cop or committee member who decides such matters committing a family member. Just make sure you saw them in the last 2 days....
Ireland, for anyone keeping the score.
-
Ireland, for anyone keeping the score.
I have represented people committed under this Act... it is a gross violation of liberty. Think how you would feel if, say, you'd a bad day, had a few drinks and cursed on way to home from work - anyone could say "that guy is crazy" and have you committed. What's more, if involuntarily committed it affects your ability to travel...
-
States have way too much power. Makes this country vastly different state by state.
SMH. Did you really just say that?
-
SMH. Did you really just say that?
AJ, what is wrong with the EU? As a follow on, what is wrong with the "European project" of integration among European countries?
-
AJ, what is wrong with the EU? As a follow on, what is wrong with the "European project" of integration among European countries?
You can't integrate countries of vastly different cultures and mores. Also, you can have an single currency without a single economic policy. Otherwise, Greece.
-
You can't integrate countries of vastly different cultures and mores. Also, you can have an single currency without a single economic policy. Otherwise, Greece.
Would tax policy not mean too much power then? Like state taxes? As for single currency, that would require further federalisation and assimilitating states (nations).
I think the EU is great as an economic market and for freedom of movement/capital/services... but also agree - countries differ - massively. That said, do you not see massive differences in the USA (say Wyoming v New York) yet they both have the same federal laws and neither can defy those, when one is half wilderness, the other mostly urban...
Off topic...
-
I have represented people committed under this Act... it is a gross violation of liberty. Think how you would feel if, say, you'd a bad day, had a few drinks and cursed on way to home from work - anyone could say "that guy is crazy" and have you committed. What's more, if involuntarily committed it affects your ability to travel...
Yes, trying to take the whims or notions of possible idiots and pass it off as g2g. Cheap shit. Fucked up. Wrong as it comes.
-
Would tax policy not mean too much power then? Like state taxes? As for single currency, that would require further federalisation and assimilitating states (nations).
I think the EU is great as an economic market and for freedom of movement/capital/services... but also agree - countries differ - massively. That said, do you not see massive differences in the USA (say Wyoming v New York) yet they both have the same federal laws and neither can defy those, when one is half wilderness, the other mostly urban...
Off topic...
Same basic culture. Same language.
-
I'd say the problem with the "joining" of countries is the fact that we know how power corrupts.
How do you do it without having a cabal of liars and thieves taking control of vast numbers of people? Isn't that exactly what's happening, now?
-
Same basic culture. Same language.
Same language, except about 15% plus have another language as first language (and many states have majority spanish speakers in cities)...
I'm just pointing out that overarching principles to govern differing states/nations is fine in principle. Once you intervene too much, you ruin that notion and destroy culture. Can you fly the Confederate flag now? Nope. Can you trade freely to other states/nations? Yes.
Whether this transgresses 2nd amendment is what is at issue; I think it does, but don't dismiss the necessity of overarching laws and the balance to be made with state/national sovereignty.