come and take it
Posted on 06/07/2014 3:05:44 PM PDT by servo1969
We all saw this one coming. Two weeks after Elliot Roger stabbed three people and shot three more, a trio of legislators from California (including Dianne Feinstein) have proposed a new federal law called “The Pause for Safety Act” which would allow anyone at any time to seek a “firearms restraining order” against an individual to prevent them from purchasing any new firearms and also confiscate any firearms they may already own. From Barbara Boxer’s website, here are the details we have at the moment:
The new legislation – The Pause for Safety Act – will include the following provisions:• One, it would help ensure that families and others can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.
• Two, it would help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant that would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Three, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate.
The scariest part of this proposed legislation is the idea that anyone can ask for one of these restraining orders. So, for example, if a gun control activist got ahold of a sign-in sheet from a local gun range, they could start spamming the judicial system with these “gun violence prevention warrants,” claiming that they believe these individuals to be about to commit a crime, and send a squad of police officers to their doorstep to confiscate their firearms. For their own good, of course.
Now, what was that line about no one wanting to take your guns?
But look at them; their hugging.
How sweet and gentle.
(HOW DEAD)
Hey Curly!
WE need to kick California out of the Union.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
AMEN
Very striking examples of how broken our system is for dealing with the mentally ill. If only we had a truly effective government that could develop ways to humanely treat people like without taking the civil rights of the rest of us.
It is not the federal government’s job to take care of mentally ill people. It’s a state, county or city responsibility, if any level of gov is to be involved at all. It’s a medical problem. The government, especially fedgov, is not supposed to be managing health or medical issues at all. People are so accustomed to a wildly out of control unconstitutional fedgov that many have forgotten what few duties and responsibilities the Constitution actually mandates for the fedgov.
Hardly any, actually.
You should post articles with constitutional information.
Please.
No they’re not. They’re doing whatever the hell they want and the gutless Republicans are doing nothing to stop them.
BOOKMARK
Yes, I agree with that, that it is a state responsibility. I was making the statement generically. I wonder which states have good approaches and avoid the repeated scenario of parents seeking help for their medically insane kid and not getting help.
2nd Amendment bump for later.....
There you go again, thinking that you can vote your way out of this.
Maybe we can’t but that is the system we have and it has worked for well over 200 years.
What is your solution?
If the areas a woman goes don't overlap the places an estranged man would have a particular right to go, a judge could issue a restraining order which didn't trample the man's rights but protected the woman quite well, if it simply said: "You are hereby informed that you are to refrain from visiting the following places at the times indicated, unless you seek and receive from this court or certain specified officials specific authorization to the contrary. In the event that you are in such a place and XXX kills you there, the killing will be presumed to have been in self-defense. Even if you are invited to one of the indicated places by XXX, you should refuse to go unless you have followed procedures described below to authorize such visit."
Such an order would restrict the estranged man's rights much less than, protect the woman much better than, an order which would seek to disarm the man in question.
It was Dianne Feinstein herself who said, a number of years ago, that if she could get 51 votes in the Senate, then Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in. I’m paraphrasing a little, but only a little.
PING!
Perfect.
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.