Posted on 12/24/2004 11:19:51 PM PST by neverdem
How the hell can they take someone's weapons with as little as an unproven restraining order?
I am so glad I will never live in Masschusetts...
Yeah, aren't they just chirping happily about how "convenient" it all is.
You just wait until they - or their grandchildren - have to submit fingerprints to buy drain cleaner, to make sure that they're not on a Government watch list for potential suicides, based on their on-line medical records. They won't be so chirpy and upbeat.
(Hopefully I'm old enough that won't live long enough to see it.)
My God that's out of control. Terrifying to the extreme.
'On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them'
This is an abuse of his second amendment rights. Restraining orders are not a convicted offense. It's akin to stripping someone of a right because someone else thinks they ought to lose it.
To summarize this article.
"The new intrusive and unconstitutional system we've developed is quicker than the totally retarded and illogical system we've used in the past."
This is like someone telling me that rather than taking a sledgehammer to their brain they took a screwdriver. And since it hurt so much less for them then we all ought to be stabbed in the head by a screwdriver.
Sheesh, someone needs to go tell the Massachusettes AG to go demand 5 dollars from Bernie Getz
It's only legal because the gov't says so. If we don't get our way in these next four years in the courts then we have failed.
More like unintended concenquences.
Put another way, let's say a Police Chief, Mayor, Governor, etc., wanted to finally, absolutely, rid themselves of all those pesky 2nd Ammendment advocates. They take a writ to friendly Left-wing judge, request a "restraining order" claiming some threat against the government official by each and every gun owner. Then these gun owners have two options, i.e. turn in their guns voluntarily, or have them confiscated, and possibly, be prosecuted for illegal gun ownership (i.e. due to the restraining order).
Extreme thinking, a bit, perhaps, but if you follow the logic of the laws of Massacusetts, California, and other states, this logical progression of events can be possible. Possible, of course, because those gun owners have no defined rights to bear arms in those states, i.e. they are "priviledges" plain and simple. The state and local laws are written and enforced with that clear assumption in mind. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, and what you feel about it, you will lose either your guns or your liberty or both, whenever a government official gets around to your number.
The option of citizens in these states is to become an outlaw (again, losing their right to bear arms due to a gun-related felony, i.e. owning guns with a restaining order or other transparent legal device applied against them), meekly give up their rights under the U.S. Constitution, or raise $millions and spend years in court to fight the leftists, who have the power and purse of the state behind them.
Hopeless situation. I know. I live in California, have a registered "assault" weapon, and am undoubtly in violation of one of some 20,000 CA gun laws in one way or another.
SFS
Wasn't that the basis of Emerson case in Texas, but the US Supreme Court sent back to the Texas District court for clarification of some sort?
Mike, that's a Federal law -- the Lautenberg Amendment -- if you have an accusation of domestic abuse, you lose gun rights. Forever.
It's hilarious that they use Woburn, Mass., as an example. At least two Woburn PD officers have beaten their wives or ex-wives, and then the other cops have leaned on the wife to withdraw her complaint. This probably happens everywhere, but I know about it in that one city.
The reason they do this is that even a police officer loses his right to carry or even touch a firearm, and therefore his job. So, the boys tune up the women, it happens, you wouldn't want them to lose their pensions....? They're there to enforce the laws, not obey them.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Wow. Convenient way for the cops to get their throwdowns.
I will definitely steer clear of Massachusetts.
Some Army Policy on soldiers with this disability (their MOS gets an "L9" code, which I guess means rubber gun squad).
In 2001, the GOA Fought the Ban. The NRA does not appear to have opposed it. The Lautenberg Amendment was attached to legislation that NRA lobbyists wanted, so they let it slide.
I've never raised a hand to a woman, nor even been falsely accused (I am told that lawyers solicit these accusations from their clients as a routine divorce tactic, so the "false charge" is by no means rare), so I don't have a dog in this fight, except that I'm appalled by the way this law plays out in the field.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.