Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

Discussion of other state's CHL's & reciprocity

Moderators: Keith B, carlson1

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 6178
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#31

Post by Pawpaw » Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm

mojo84 wrote:
RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?
Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.
Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#32

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 5:02 pm

Pawpaw wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm
mojo84 wrote:
RogueUSMC wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
:iagree:

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.
With due process of course...
'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...
So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?
Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.
Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So, you are really upset with how search and arrest warrants are obtained and believe that process is unconstitutional? It appears this proposed law works very similar to them. Do you believe people should be tried and convicted prior to being arrested?

I'm not an attorney but it does not appear to me that only a jury trial is the only form of due process. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 12170
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#33

Post by C-dub » Fri May 25, 2018 5:19 pm

ELB wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:41 pm
Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
crazy2medic wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:44 pm
I believe they really have no desire to stop the mass shootings, their goal is to get gun confiscation! You cannot subjugate an armed populace!
There you go!
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member
Si vis pacem, para bellum


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#34

Post by ninjabread » Fri May 25, 2018 5:28 pm

:iagree:

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#35

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 5:38 pm

C-dub wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:19 pm
ELB wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:41 pm
Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.
crazy2medic wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 8:44 pm
I believe they really have no desire to stop the mass shootings, their goal is to get gun confiscation! You cannot subjugate an armed populace!
There you go!
What "seems" should happen is not what actually happens. Here is some info that sheds some light on how hard it is to get someone involuntarily committed due to mental illness. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/inv ... cepts.html

This is my exact point. Most of us are as ignorant about the laws regarding having someone involuntarily committed as many of the antigunners are about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Also, why are so many willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom but not their guns?

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#36

Post by Liberty » Fri May 25, 2018 5:47 pm

Those who have had a divorce from an angry vengeful spouse would understand why this confiscation might not be such a great idea.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#37

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 5:55 pm

Liberty wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:47 pm
Those who have had a divorce from an angry vengeful spouse would understand why this confiscation might not be such a great idea.
Those that have lost a family member due to not being able to force them to get the level of care they needed can see the benefits in having a statutory process for doing so.

False accusations go on already. Look at the recent police abuse accusations that were discredited by body camera video. That's no reason to not put a fair process in place to help someone protect someone that is not capable of helping themselves.


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#38

Post by ninjabread » Fri May 25, 2018 5:56 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:38 pm
Also, why are so many willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom but not their guns?
Where did anybody here suggest somebody should be able to keep their guns while they're locked up?
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#39

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 6:00 pm

ninjabread wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:56 pm
mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:38 pm
Also, why are so many willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom but not their guns?
Where did anybody here suggest somebody should be able to keep their guns while they're locked up?
What are you talking about? Reading the thread and following the conversation may be helpful.


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#40

Post by ninjabread » Fri May 25, 2018 6:10 pm

Yes it may be. I suggest you do that.

I see people here who look willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom and their guns, after a trial by a jury of their peers. I don't see anybody suggesting people should be locked up and allowed to keep their guns while locked up, which you claim "so many" do. However, I do see people willing to infringe constitutional rights like RKBA without a jury trial, because the accused is allegedly dangerous, but they want to let the allegedly dangerous people back into society with free access to knives, poisons, explosives, motor vehicles, etc.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.



Topic author
Odinvalknir
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:06 am

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#41

Post by Odinvalknir » Fri May 25, 2018 6:15 pm

Liberty wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:47 pm
Those who have had a divorce from an angry vengeful spouse would understand why this confiscation might not be such a great idea.
:iagree: along with the domestic abuse rule that takes away your rights. I could maybe see if you're a repeat offender of domestic abuse, but if you get into an argument and the neighbor calls the cops, someone is going to jail whether you lay a hand on each other or not. Usually this is the man who will go to jail over it, and then suddenly he's never allowed to own a gun ever again.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#42

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 6:17 pm

ninjabread wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:10 pm
Yes it may be. I suggest you do that.

I see people here who look willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom and their guns, after a trial by a jury of their peers. I don't see anybody suggesting people should be locked up and allowed to keep their guns while locked up, which you claim "so many" do. However, I do see people willing to infringe constitutional rights like RKBA without a jury trial, because the accused is allegedly dangerous, but they want to let the allegedly dangerous people back into society with free access to knives, poisons, explosives, motor vehicles, etc.
Look at ELB's posts and those that agree with him. He clearly stated if someone should have their guns removed they should be locked up. The problem is, as is explained in the link provided, it's very very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed in today's world.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#43

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 6:19 pm

Odinvalknir wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:15 pm
Liberty wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 5:47 pm
Those who have had a divorce from an angry vengeful spouse would understand why this confiscation might not be such a great idea.
:iagree: along with the domestic abuse rule that takes away your rights. I could maybe see if you're a repeat offender of domestic abuse, but if you get into an argument and the neighbor calls the cops, someone is going to jail whether you lay a hand on each other or not. Usually this is the man who will go to jail over it, and then suddenly he's never allowed to own a gun ever again.
This is absolutely incorrect. Please cite a case where someone was arrested for just arguing and there was no physical abuse.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4414
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#44

Post by ScottDLS » Fri May 25, 2018 6:53 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:17 pm
ninjabread wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:10 pm
Yes it may be. I suggest you do that.

I see people here who look willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom and their guns, after a trial by a jury of their peers. I don't see anybody suggesting people should be locked up and allowed to keep their guns while locked up, which you claim "so many" do. However, I do see people willing to infringe constitutional rights like RKBA without a jury trial, because the accused is allegedly dangerous, but they want to let the allegedly dangerous people back into society with free access to knives, poisons, explosives, motor vehicles, etc.
Look at ELB's posts and those that agree with him. He clearly stated if someone should have their guns removed they should be locked up. The problem is, as is explained in the link provided, it's very very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed in today's world.
That is good. It should be very difficult. I believe in Texas, long term involuntary commitment requires a finding by a jury. My father sat on such a jury. Since it was clear (at least to that jury) that the guy was in fact "batpoocrazy", they granted the commitment petitioned by the State. SCOTUS has already ruled that in order to have a domestic restraining order causing someone to forfeit their gun rights federally, the person must be accorded due process including a hearing before a judge, the right to have testimony favorable to him brought and the right to be represented by a lawyer, and to challenge witnesses against him. Because taking someones gun rights with a restraining order is temporary and does not involve incarceration, a jury trial isn't necessarily required. But the standard for some of these new restraints on liberty being proposed is significantly weaker.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 8619
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Colorado taking first steps towards complete confiscation

#45

Post by mojo84 » Fri May 25, 2018 7:02 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:53 pm
mojo84 wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:17 pm
ninjabread wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 6:10 pm
Yes it may be. I suggest you do that.

I see people here who look willing to remove someone's liberty and freedom and their guns, after a trial by a jury of their peers. I don't see anybody suggesting people should be locked up and allowed to keep their guns while locked up, which you claim "so many" do. However, I do see people willing to infringe constitutional rights like RKBA without a jury trial, because the accused is allegedly dangerous, but they want to let the allegedly dangerous people back into society with free access to knives, poisons, explosives, motor vehicles, etc.
Look at ELB's posts and those that agree with him. He clearly stated if someone should have their guns removed they should be locked up. The problem is, as is explained in the link provided, it's very very difficult to get someone involuntarily committed in today's world.
That is good. It should be very difficult. I believe in Texas, long term involuntary commitment requires a finding by a jury. My father sat on such a jury. Since it was clear (at least to that jury) that the guy was in fact "batpoocrazy", they granted the commitment petitioned by the State. SCOTUS has already ruled that in order to have a domestic restraining order causing someone to forfeit their gun rights federally, the person must be accorded due process including a hearing before a judge, the right to have testimony favorable to him brought and the right to be represented by a lawyer, and to challenge witnesses against him. Because taking someones gun rights with a restraining order is temporary and does not involve incarceration, a jury trial isn't necessarily required. But the standard for some of these new restraints on liberty being proposed is significantly weaker.
You are conflating long-term/permanent with temporary. This law is discussing temporary until it can be adjudicated. How long does it take to get a case to trial? What do you suggest in the interim?

I agree it should be difficult to get one's rights removed. I do not know if this particular proposed law is well written or not. However, I do know from experience, our mental health system and getting someone the level of help they need can be extremely difficult and can take years.

Post Reply

Return to “Other States”