Announcement

**flywise** · 03-13-2018, 08:29 PM

I have been in the homes of really mentally ill people who had guns sitting on the night stand with in arms reach.
There is a huge difference in someone saying your crazy and there being a history proving your crazy.
I don't have a problem with people with a history ( PD, EMS, Dr's, etc.) Having their guns taken away. I don't agree with weapons being confiscated on the word of one person.

**Artos** · 03-13-2018, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by fulmer34 View Post

So what's our course of action here? Y'all are busy debating what-ifs and theories. How do we get this stopped? NRA ain't likely to help, you think our senators and congressmen will block it? I know one senator will vote against one for, and my congressman is as spineless as Cornyn. So what can we do before we have to run come and take it up the flag pole?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Until I see a bill / EO / etc & something formal from the NRA regarding this whole confiscation issue, I'm simply not going to let it get traction to rile me up...we already kicked around Trump's egregious comment about by-passing due process with nothing to show from the press?? This article doesn't have any real teeth, so back to the hurry & wait game. In fact, it's the first piece of news to even circle back as a reminder.

I can't currently sign on the NRA would support confiscation in any form without something solid on the front end for due process. It's interesting there is nothing from the major media in any form...both sides would be eating this up you would think.

**flywise** · 03-13-2018, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Artos View Post

Until I see a bill / EO / etc & something formal from the NRA regarding this whole confiscation issue, I'm simply not going to let it get traction to rile me up...we already kicked around Trump's egregious comment about by-passing due process with nothing to show from the press?? This article doesn't have any real teeth, so back to the hurry & wait game. In fact, it's the first piece of news to even circle back as a reminder.

I can't currently sign on the NRA would support confiscation in any form without something solid on the front end for due process. It's interesting there is nothing from the major media in any form...both sides would be eating this up you would think.

Agreed

**sir shovelhands** · 03-13-2018, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by flywise View Post

I have been in the homes of really mentally ill people who had guns sitting on the night stand with in arms reach.
There is a huge difference in someone saying your crazy and there being a history proving your crazy.
I don't have a problem with people with a history ( PD, EMS, Dr's, etc.) Having their guns taken away. I don't agree with weapons being confiscated on the word of one person.

If ever such a law passes, there needs to be a hefty prison and monetary punishment for falsely reporting someone as having a mental illness or the abuse would be atrocious.

**flywise** · 03-13-2018, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by sir shovelhands View Post

If ever such a law passes, there needs to be a hefty prison and monetary punishment for falsely reporting someone as having a mental illness or the abuse would be atrocious.

Sounds good

**100%TtId** · 03-13-2018, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by flywise View Post

Sounds good

It may sound good, but it will never be enforced. How many prosecutions were made for falsified 4473's? Answer: .04%

The report shows that, between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate.

Prosecutions for Lying on Gun Background Checks Fall to New Low

http://freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/

An audit of the federal firearms background check system released on Wednesday found prosecutions for those who illegally try to buy a gun from a firearms dealer had fallen to new lows.

**Shane** · 03-13-2018, 09:14 PM

There are good arguments on both sides. So what would a reasonable "due process" look like if we did have an acceptable process to document mental illness in a sufficient manner that would prohibit a person who shouldn't have firearms from having them? I guess I'm assuming that most people would agree that there are some truly unstable mentally ill people out there that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If so, then what would a good "due process" look like?

Or would it be better to have no process in place for this at all in order to make sure that such a process wouldn't be abused, understanding the trade-off would mean that we wouldn't have a process in place to prevent potentially violent crazy people from having guns?

Hard questions.

**Clay C** · 03-13-2018, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by ttechdallas View Post

It hasn't been answered because the Florida shooting is just one example. Did you actually read what was proposed that the NRA supported? Do you really think our local law government and and law enforcement officers are going to systematically seek court orders, present to a judge, and try to take people's guns away one by one? Not going to happen.

Someone you upset, someone who just doesn’t like you or some crazy person reports you for something or another, then it’s their word against yours. There are several examples of this happening in California already. As systemnt pointed out, Texas is not California, but this is bigger than just Texas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ttechdallas** · 03-13-2018, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Clay C View Post

Someone you upset, someone who just doesn’t like you or some crazy person reports you for something or another, then it’s their word against yours. There are several examples of this happening in California already. As systemnt pointed out, Texas is not California, but this is bigger than just Texas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand the concern. However, obtaining a court order is not a trivial process, nor is one pursued or issued on the basis of a simple complaint. Someone is going to have to make a sworn accusation - documented in writing and which would go before a judge, most likely with them having to speak/answer questions as well. Any fool petty enough to make a false or overstated claim is not going to fare very well in front of judges in our already backed up courts.

**sir shovelhands** · 03-13-2018, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Shane View Post

There are good arguments on both sides. So what would a reasonable "due process" look like if we did have an acceptable process to document mental illness in a sufficient manner that would prohibit a person who shouldn't have firearms from having them? I guess I'm assuming that most people would agree that there are some truly unstable mentally ill people out there that shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If so, then what would a good "due process" look like?

Or would it be better to have no process in place for this at all in order to make sure that such a process wouldn't be abused, understanding the trade-off would mean that we wouldn't have a process in place to prevent potentially violent crazy people from having guns?

Hard questions.

A very difficult question to answer.

Let's say due process could be followed for the revocation of gun rights based upon a documented and corroborated history of violence and mental issues.

Seung-Hui Cho, Jiverly Wong, Nidal Hassan, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, and most recently Nikolas Cruz all had documented histories of mental illness. Might such a law have stopped them? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would've run people over or blown them up instead.

Now consider some of these individual's only history of mental illness is the psychiatrist they were seeing. Are they now going to be required to report on people? Well then people will stop going to therapy and we've got a separate problem on our hands.

Now consider these mental health conditions: depression, Anxiety, OCD, ADHD, Autism. Is some jerk politician going to consider these as bad enough to take your guns away? Probably.

And then, you've got cases where people have no history of mental illness. how do you deal with them? More draconian laws to make us safer at the expense of freedom or do nothing and what happens happens?

Regardless, even if such a law turned out perfectly, the harder question would be how one would even go about getting such a right back or appealing it?

There's just so many variables and problems with it.

I think if they do put something out, it would need a sunset and renewal clause, based upon the efficacy (how would you even measure that, number of mass shootings per year?).

**Ironman** · 03-13-2018, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by ttechdallas View Post

I understand the concern. However, obtaining a court order is not a trivial process, nor is one pursued or issued on the basis of a simple complaint. Someone is going to have to make a sworn accusation - documented in writing and which would go before a judge, most likely with them having to speak/answer questions as well. Any fool petty enough to make a false or overstated claim is not going to fare very well in front of judges in our already backed up courts.

Really? California disagrees with you. As I stated earlier, we don't need such laws. We already have laws in place. How many of these mass shooters already had "red flags" before they acted? All of them? Most all of them? What law do you really think will change someone for committing such an act? Maybe we should just make murder illegal. Problem solved, right?

**flywise** · 03-13-2018, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by 100%TtId View Post

It may sound good, but it will never be enforced. How many prosecutions were made for falsified 4473's? Answer: .04%

The report shows that, between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/prosecu...-fall-new-low/

I would think that after the Florida shooting, which one could make a very good case they ( FBI) botched several opportunities to possibly prevent that act. That alone with some new leadership you just might see more of those prosecution's your referring too.

**PondPopper** · 03-14-2018, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by SOLID EAGLE View Post

Just think Waco X 1000.

More like X millions..

Facebook is nothing more than a social experiment by the government.. They now have a highly detailed profile on anyone who uses FB.. It has helped them get DETAILED info on folks that they had no way of getting before.. It will be used in the future as a tool by our government in situations just like this...

They are using it to get into the minds of Americans.. They now know everything about you... Your religion and religious beliefs, how You vote, your stance on gun control, or not, your favorite sports teams, what, where and when you eat, who your friends with, who your friends are friends with, where you work, your political stance on EVERYTHING... Heck I even see people posting pics of their open gun safes and arsenals on FB all the time.. Heck I see that on here too... It boggles my mind.. This type of crap will be used in situations like these to determine who the government sees as what or who they deem as "a threat"... A "radical"..

You want to call BS.. Talk crazy on social media.. You will end up on "the no fly list" quick... Do you know anyone who has been put on a "no fly list" for reasons unknown to them??? I do.

Where is the first place they look when a person commits a crime?? You see it on the news all the time.. SOCIAL MEDIA accounts... Every single time. Think about it...

**Playa** · 03-14-2018, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by ttechdallas View Post

I understand the concern. However, obtaining a court order is not a trivial process, nor is one pursued or issued on the basis of a simple complaint. Someone is going to have to make a sworn accusation - documented in writing and which would go before a judge, most likely with them having to speak/answer questions as well. Any fool petty enough to make a false or overstated claim is not going to fare very well in front of judges in our already backed up courts.

Uhh yes it is. In my divorce process I had a court order against my wife to leave our domicile. That meeting included me, my attorney and the judge. No witnesses, no testimony, just me expressing that I felt she was a danger to my child. If the court can essentially make some homeless in a 30 min meeting like that, they won’t flinch to disarm someone.

Thankfully my wife and I reconciled. She got the help she needed and God changed my heart. But that was an eye opening experience into the court systems as a whole