Posted on 08/03/2008 8:43:28 AM PDT by Graybeard58
This would appear to be abuse just as there are other abuses of any law.
But my question still stands:
Suppose that you know of someone who you believe to be an imminent threat to themselves or others...what do you do and should there be a mechanism for intervention?
...before they set up the border checkpoints...at the state line...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In 1956 when going from Arizona into California remember ALL
vehicles stopped at border for inspection....think they were against AZ fruit or something like that....was 16 so not really paying a whole lot of attention as I already ‘knew everything”....
Even the most ardent 2A supporters (of which I claim to be) concede that in cases of mental incompetence or incapacity there is no presumption of unrestricted rights, but the discussion rarely gets past the fears of the VA massively misdiagnosing vets of PTSD to disarm them.
I can’t recall anyone saying that a schizophrenic who doesn’t always take his meds should be granted unrestricted 2A rights, and I don’t think I will.
What if your neighbor and poker buddy runs through a very bad streak in life....fired from work, wife runs off with a female circus midget and cleans out the savings, etc etc etc and starts talking crazy enough to honestly scare you. What can you do? Is this a time or place for government intervention?
Or does he have to start acting out his threats and have the local SWAT team called out before something happens and you can give your quote to the newspaper that you knew it was just a matter of time until he snapped?
We don’t talk about this much on FR but maybe we should.
I heard that Obama’s bodyguards plan to riot if Obama loses. They are armed, dangerous and have no brains.
Prior Restraint goes on steroids. How nice.
lol!
I don't understand why I've never seen mention of this onerous law in the 5 years I've been following F.R. closely.
the law took effect in October 1999
It's the absolute worst in the nation.
You answer your own question before you ask it...
Maybe an investigation, a warrant, and judicial review?
Our freedoms are FAR more important than the quest to minimize criminal acts before they occur. There are few more onerous, dangerous, wicked, and stupid ideas than Prior Restraint.
ACLU where are you?? This is a legit case here..
The ACLU was no doubt applauding the law when it was passed.
If laws like this can be passed in Connecticut, they can be passed in other places as well and the Connecticut law has stood for 9 years.
As mentioned in the article it takes a great deal of money to challenge a law through the court system. If ever there was a case for some organization with muscle to get involved, like the NRA, this is it.
That's not good.
The Department of Pre-Crime is hard at work again! Anybody yet appeal on 2nd Amendment grounds?
So according to Connecticut law, the logical end of the argument is to take guns from every disgruntled employee. That makes me just want to pack everything up and move right to Connecticut and work there the rest of my life. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, it could be imagined, that if those workers who where shot had there own guns on them at the time and the shooter knew the victims where armed, that the shooting would have never happened in the first place. I think I'm asking too much to ask a liberal to think logically though.
After paying my sales expenses and moving costs, I had $80,000 to put down on my house in Idaho. I sold stock in 2002 to pay off the mortgage. The $117K payoff saved me $180K in interest over the life of the loan. Neither the stock nor an interest bearing account on that principal would have paid as well. I decided a free and clear house was a necessary resource if job alternatives fail to produce the level of income I'm making now. Paying $2080 in annual income tax is affordable for nearly anyone. Especially for a 3900 sq ft house on 1/3 acre.
bump & a ping
Gun owners don't have the resources to wage a decades-long legal battle, so it's Unconstitutionality won't be established.
And the intentions are good, so the mere speculation that it might have saved lives trumps the Constitution anyway.
After Heller, these people should be imprisoned for willful violation of Civil Rights under Colour of Law.
Cheers!
You forgot one thing: The defendants don't have their guns anymore, so they can't do a damn thing about it if they really had to anyway.
The most important reason to own guns is to discourage a tyrannical government from taking possessions(that goes for overbearing taxation), life, and liberty from its rightful citizenry. It's not a matter of if, but when the current police state consummates its end to dispossess its citizenry of its right to bear arms, the citizenry will be at the complete mercy of the horrendous oligarchy. We already see the effects of this. For example, look how the US Congress rules the citizenry without any regard for our wishes. It's scary that an oligarchy with a 9% approval rating can still singlehandedly take away a nation's right to own property and do with that property what the individuals of that nation deem proper and necessary. We are the only country in the world that will not drill for our own oil that we all know we have. When worse comes to worse, the US Congress simply has no reason to fear the citizenry anymore.
The very fact they are illegal would constitute the taking of their guns, I would presume.
They have, but what anyone is willing to do about it is a different story.
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.