Elkins45
Member
Something has happened: a credible threat of mass violence + the means to carry it out.
A credible threat of mass violence isn’t just cause?
Have firearm confiscations increased?
- Thread starter KNO3
- Start date
- Status
A credible threat of mass violence isn’t just cause?
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
So what about fertilizer or an automobile?
What about drunk drivers? When caught do we seize their car or merely take away their license? More folks are killed by "blunt objects" than ARs. Should we confiscate everyone's blunt object?
You can't see where this will lead? Have a fight with your teenage daughter (or a neighbor) and them she turns you in. They want us to be disarmed, ashamed to own guns and paranoid so we do not take them anywhere
What about drunk drivers? When caught do we seize their car or merely take away their license? More folks are killed by "blunt objects" than ARs. Should we confiscate everyone's blunt object?
You can't see where this will lead? Have a fight with your teenage daughter (or a neighbor) and them she turns you in. They want us to be disarmed, ashamed to own guns and paranoid so we do not take them anywhere
Elkins45
Member
What about drunk drivers? When caught do we seize their car or merely take away their license? If they are staggering out of the bar with their car keys in hand it is against the law in most states NOT to take their car keys away. More folks are killed by "blunt objects" than ARs. Should we confiscate everyone's blunt object? You should if they just posted on the internet "I'm going to bludgeon six people at the Eastgate Mall tomorrow morning with this shovel."
You can't see where this will lead? I can see where a poorly written law will lead, but you are making all sorts of assumptions that probably will never make it out of committee or into law except in states where they already have AWB and mag bans anyway. Have a fight with your teenage daughter (or a neighbor) and them she turns you in. A good law has penalties for false reporting. If you daughter does that just because she's a spoiled brat then she goes to jail. They want us to be disarmed, ashamed to own guns and paranoid so we do not take them anywhere That may be true, but a red flag law doesn't accomplish that goal.
Your points aren't refuting the ones I have made at all. See my responses in blue above.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
But tye do NOT confiscate their car and make them wait an unknown length of time to get them back
Elkins45
Member
1. If they get caught driving it they get put in jail. What happens to the car at that point is somewhat irrelevant.
2. In the case of RFLs it’s not an unknown amount of time. The law specifies the duration.
As I have said, the details of the law and of the specific circumstances matter a lot. But you make it sound as if police should never be allowed to act until after a crime has taken place. Take away the guns and consider this question: if the police have evidence to suspect you are plotting a terrorist attack do they have the right to take away your freedom for an unknown amount of time by arresting you?
Guns are fading away as a right, and on that march they will reduce who has them and increase how readily they can be taken or someone can be denied ownership.
Government is self serving. It is easier to manage a population that poses little threat to those that follow orders. Governments will always be biased towards accomplishing that, it is a logical desire. A force multiplier that allows rule over millions with only thousands. Most Rights in the Bill of Rights reduce efficiency, and why they had to be stated to begin with. For governments always want the most control for the least resources. They only trust localized law enforcement slightly more than the general masses and seek a tiered system of arms, where a smaller number following their orders can always prevail. Once they get too efficient though they then want to do more and more, and are self serving, so things like how readily and for what they can seize your assets or how much of a voice you have change, and change faster when you pose no danger to them. When law enforcement is challenging they focus on the important things, when it gets too easy the scope and pettiness of what is focused on increases.
We are bypassing the Constitution while pretending to adhere to it. The criminal justice system has been doing it awhile. Have you ever seen the probation or parole systems that essentially allow most Rights of people living in the community to be ignored for years? I never understood how a crime punishable by only a short time in jail can result in much longer second class citizenship.
Well what if you just get most of the population on parole or probation for life by making pettier and pettier offenses give years of rights revocation, until larger and larger percentages of the population can have their rights ignored most of the time or until they are things that ensare most people?
Gun rights are going down that route first it seems.
Anyone standing up or resisting can typically be charged with felonies and denied for life already. The GCA of 68, you know around the time of civil disobedience and the civil rights movement, made sure that pretty much anyone that makes a stand cannot have firearms for life (which only matters if it was not so serious that they are then out in society again.)
Then they added what is the single most common police call in the nation to the list of prohibiting offenses. Domestic disturbances, you know a wife and husband fighting, with any contact. Well that pretty much means you can't date a fiery woman anymore if you want your guns, because when they throw a tantrum and start breaking your stuff or attacking you and the neighbor calls the police...You don't have to be a wife beater of the after school special. They knew that when they passed the law. Basic assault is the most common misdemeanor in the nation, and the people most likely to argue in life are those in long term relationships.
Then various states added additional misdemeanors.
Now we are going below that.
Shall not be infringed? Sure made a mockery of that.
The thing with guns though is once they fall it does not stop there and practical self defense and most other weapons are targeted and outlawed faster than the guns were as they have less unified opposition to attack.
And now a large percent of our law enforcement have a background in military service where a primary goal was disarming the population and finding weapon caches, while building up government forces so a small number of government forces with arms could crush a much larger number of citizens when they needed to impose unpopular laws.
Government is self serving. It is easier to manage a population that poses little threat to those that follow orders. Governments will always be biased towards accomplishing that, it is a logical desire. A force multiplier that allows rule over millions with only thousands. Most Rights in the Bill of Rights reduce efficiency, and why they had to be stated to begin with. For governments always want the most control for the least resources. They only trust localized law enforcement slightly more than the general masses and seek a tiered system of arms, where a smaller number following their orders can always prevail. Once they get too efficient though they then want to do more and more, and are self serving, so things like how readily and for what they can seize your assets or how much of a voice you have change, and change faster when you pose no danger to them. When law enforcement is challenging they focus on the important things, when it gets too easy the scope and pettiness of what is focused on increases.
We are bypassing the Constitution while pretending to adhere to it. The criminal justice system has been doing it awhile. Have you ever seen the probation or parole systems that essentially allow most Rights of people living in the community to be ignored for years? I never understood how a crime punishable by only a short time in jail can result in much longer second class citizenship.
Well what if you just get most of the population on parole or probation for life by making pettier and pettier offenses give years of rights revocation, until larger and larger percentages of the population can have their rights ignored most of the time or until they are things that ensare most people?
Gun rights are going down that route first it seems.
Anyone standing up or resisting can typically be charged with felonies and denied for life already. The GCA of 68, you know around the time of civil disobedience and the civil rights movement, made sure that pretty much anyone that makes a stand cannot have firearms for life (which only matters if it was not so serious that they are then out in society again.)
Then they added what is the single most common police call in the nation to the list of prohibiting offenses. Domestic disturbances, you know a wife and husband fighting, with any contact. Well that pretty much means you can't date a fiery woman anymore if you want your guns, because when they throw a tantrum and start breaking your stuff or attacking you and the neighbor calls the police...You don't have to be a wife beater of the after school special. They knew that when they passed the law. Basic assault is the most common misdemeanor in the nation, and the people most likely to argue in life are those in long term relationships.
Then various states added additional misdemeanors.
Now we are going below that.
Shall not be infringed? Sure made a mockery of that.
The thing with guns though is once they fall it does not stop there and practical self defense and most other weapons are targeted and outlawed faster than the guns were as they have less unified opposition to attack.
And now a large percent of our law enforcement have a background in military service where a primary goal was disarming the population and finding weapon caches, while building up government forces so a small number of government forces with arms could crush a much larger number of citizens when they needed to impose unpopular laws.
Last edited:
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,250
What do you feel would be a "credible threat" that would warrant someone's firearms being taken away?
alsaqr
Member
The Ohio teen's "crime" was suggesting "armed resistance is a viable method of political change." The Founding Fathers said the same thing, and also faced the threat of arrest for treason. I'm willing to bet most people on gun forums have said the same thing, either privately, on line, or in emails to friends. The statement is not a threat, it's a statement of historical fact. How the hell else did we win WWII except by armed resistance to Hitler and Tojo?
Elkins45
Member
Posting something on social media like "If you know what's good for you then you'll stay away from school on Tuesday, because people are going to die" is one example that comes to mind.
Assuming you stated it accurately this would be an example of the law being abused. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the viability of resistance to an oppressive government. RFLs aren't supposed to be applicable to speech people find distasteful, only actual concerns for immediate physical safety. That's why any such laws need to have a strong provision to punish false reporting and even to punish overzealous action by LEOs.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
IF they have hard evidence, not some innuendo or rumor stated to them by someone who possibly has it in for you. I can see this really happening with ugly divorces
JN01
Member
Many of them do not have such provisions. Even if they do, will prosecutors follow through on them? The main problem is poorly written laws that allow guns to be seized without any proof that a threat has occurred. Unsupported accusations should not be enough to deprive anyone of their rights. Requiring the accused to prove they are not dangerous turns the presumption of innocence on its head. Plus you are adding the burden of paying for an attorney, the cost of which may exceed the value of the property you are trying to get back.
If there is sufficient evidence presented that a person is a danger to himself or others, then it should be enough for an arrest or involuntary psych evaluation.
Elkins45
Member
Yep. It already is part of some divorce cases where the wives are told to get a domestic violence protection order regardless of whether they have ever been violent. Lifetime loss of gun rights if convicted. It almost happened to a guy I know. That’s why there needs to be a severe penalty for misuse if such a law is implemented.
I generally agree, which is why the language of any such laws is so important.
alsaqr
Member
No one i know has advocated the overthrow of the duly elected US government.
Wrong!!!
The little creep's online handle was ArmyofChrist. He threatened to murder folks from Planned Parenthood, advocated the murder of cops and was an admirer of Tim McVeigh's work at OK City.
FlSwampRat
Member
That made me scratch my head as much as this one:
An Ohio teenager accused of suggesting "armed resistance is a viable method of political change".
I mean, isn't that the way our country started? That says to me it is a "viable" means of change. It might not be right and just and all that, but it did work here and there in human history.
Neither I, nor any folks I know of aren't out to, nor suggest or support overthrowing the government. I think elections make more sense.
I just enjoy reposting like this. I cannot do a ''2 Likes.''
Keeps the point as being made, how shall I say, fresh
And to that I would advocate for any & all new anti-2A bills have a, well...wait for it...
SUNSET CLAUSE
For the WHEN they fail, not the IF...
Pudge
Member
It's more like someone posting on social media that they're going to get hammered Friday at Flaming Moe's, and when he pulls into the parking lot, his car is confiscated. Should the police really need to wait for the crime to take place?
Threats of violence cannot be taken lightly, but when you are removing someone's civil rights, there needs to be a very clear due process procedure for restoring them, and criminal charges if not restored.
Not quite--the major issue is whether or not the threat is credible, immediate, and specific. Intent to actually carry out the threat is necessary for the state to prove, not just general ability. The Supreme Court ducked in a recent Maryland case from delineating just what was a true threat. Here is a discussion of that case, https://verdict.justia.com/2014/12/10/supreme-court-considers-true-threats-first-amendment aka Elonis v. US.
Current Scotus precedent is Brandenburg v. Ohio, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 and VA v. Black, "intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”
In Elonis, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute punishing interstate threats required that intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when reversing Elonis's conviction and did not reach the constitutional issue of what words constitute a true threat under the 1st Amendment. https://infogalactic.com/info/Elonis_v._United_States
The clear and present danger test as well as the bad tendencies tests were both de-emphasized under the Brandenburg case and the clear and present danger test itself was repudiated by the guy (Justice Holmes) who wrote it in subsequent Supreme Court cases.
Brandenburg narrowed the scope of where speech could be criminalized so that it has to be an immediate incitement to unlawful action with some way to determine through objective facts that the person actually intends to further their illegal activity.
Punishment of bomb threats and shootings if they involved communications to specific targets and specifics in the threat that would cause a reasonable person to believe an imminent threat exists can be punished. General threats on an internet posts to forums to generic federal law enforcement agents as a class probably is not going to be enough to get a conviction in the Ohio case noted below unless there is more than the newspaper is saying. However, this is useful to delineate how gun confiscations work to the detriment of third parties and how grey areas of the law could cause seizures of your firearms by the actions of another party in the household.
The first statement in the article appears to be from this: "A subpoena for information on the account was issued after the FBI saw ArmyofChrist, in a thread on the 1993 siege of a Waco, Texas compound, write a comment which read, "In conclusion, shoot every federal agent on sight."
A second that is part of the indictment is , "The FBI said they discovered further messages from Olsen's account advocating breaking the law, including posts telling readers to stock up on guns and to go out of their way to break laws. In a post, the defendant is alleged to have posted, "Hell, even the Oklahoma City bombing shows that armed resistance is a viable method of political change," Apparently the posts were on ifunny social media site and spurred an additional more specific threat by one of his followers, https://www.wfmj.com/story/40943980...-suspect-was-online-follower-of-boardman-teen A second charge on using the internet to make a threat was made that does not after research does not specify what that threat was or whether it applies to the first charge in the indictment but applies to the method of communicating the threat.
The defendant argues that his statements are hyperbole and joking in nature.
Under Brandenburg, what has been presented in the story so far with additional evidence is probably not enough to get a conviction sustained through the appellate process and thus I suspect that Mr. Olsen is to be taught a lesson by punishment through process. https://patch.com/ohio/cleveland/ohio-man-threatened-kill-federal-agents-indictment-says
That being said, I have not found the actual indictment yet online but he apparently had a number of hateful posts that attacked a number of different targets online but none of them posted online so far seem to have specific targeting information unlike the specifics of one of his 4k followers on the platform, https://portermedium.com/2019/08/oh...esh-arrested-with-10000-rounds-of-ammunition/
What is going to be an issue in the case would be the context in which the statements were made as apparently the website has memes, gifs, etc in different areas that are supposed to be funny apparently where there are threads of comments by folks. The state will also have to prove additional concrete actions to further a conspiracy for violent action, and that the young man had access or a plan to access the firearms that were locked up.
Here is a bit more on the story,
https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-new...d-accused-of-threats-good-kid-with-no-record/
The firearms were in a vault and secured apparently and apparently belonged to the father who is a competitive shooter despite confusing news coverage on the point. So far the father is not being charged. The teen involved in the threatmaking has pled not guilty to the charges.
In my area, there was a similar case brought forward regarding an alleged threat to a local school which ended up not being pursued by the prosecution quietly after a showy arrest and the guy sitting in jail waiting for the grand jury to investigate for a couple of months. One sees a lot of threats to the president being handled in a similar way where the ending of the cases are quietly disposed of via referrals to mental health, plea bargaining to lesser offenses, and charges are often dropped.
The chans and freewheeling gamer culture online can result in something like the Aristocrats insider joke for comedians where each person tries to top the other in outrageous and offensive speech. This might also be the issue involving this youth or maybe the guy was planning something horrendous to get social media attention which seems to be a thing among some recent attacks.
How to separate the true threats from false bravado by anonymous advocates of mass mayhem is a real conundrum in our nation given the protections of free speech on one hand and the need to protect society on the other.
My default position is that authorities must investigate credible threats but make darn sure that all the due process rights adhere to the accused and that unjustified charges are dropped rather than trying to make political hay from them or worse ending up in vindictive prosecutions of innocent people such as the Duke LaCrosse case.
Last edited:
robhof
Member
THE CLEAR DUE PROCESS, is what's lacking, and I would be armed if someone broke down my door at 4AM to take away my guns based on an ex wife or pissed neighbor....a board with a civilian 3rd party, a medical/psychologist, and a judge must be convened similar to a grand jury, before violating someone's God given RIGHTS. Many yrs ago Miami Fl./Dade county got sued for millions for an elderly couple being swatted, wasn't the 1st time but this resulted in the murder of an 87 yr old with rich kids that sued resulting in loss of funding for SWAT for 3 yrs and civilian oversight. I'm not a lover of lawyers, but in these cases contingency lawyers are the best thing for equalizing the justice system...
alsaqr
Member
Not so.
Neighbors can't initiate any of the 19 existing "red flag gun laws". These laws are primarily designed to rein in stalkers and wife/girlfriend beaters.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-red-flag-laws-and-which-states-have-implemented-them/
The existing state of Oklahoma law provides for confiscation of firearms. No "red flag gun" law needed here.
https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ok/state-gun-laws/guns-and-protective-orders#node-34854
Pudge
Member
Pick a reasonable time frame, say 72 hours. After 72 hours, either involuntary committal, criminal charges, or return the firearms and fine the initiator of the complaint, say, $500.
I'd like to see the judge who signs the warrant be held responsible for securing the resolution within the time frame, opening him/her to liability for violating civil rights and or theft if the issue is unresolved.9
I'd like to see the judge who signs the warrant be held responsible for securing the resolution within the time frame, opening him/her to liability for violating civil rights and or theft if the issue is unresolved.9
robhof
Member
Amen to that, loooong overdue for JUDGES to be held responsible for their actions!!
FlSwampRat
Member
I'd like to see any false claimants, like for SWATTING someone or RFL claims, have to pay for the rollout of LEO's. I'll bet that costs a good bit more than $500.
Pay for every cost from the person who took the reporting phone call's time, the rollout, the investigation, everything. Bet that would cut down on false reporting.
lemaymiami
Member
I'm long out of police work so take this for what it's worth - In post #34 the writer spoke about a young man who made a statement about armed resistance being legitimate... etc. If that information came to me and I was asked to act on it - I would - but not one action against the guy until an investigation had revealed additional info that indicated he was doing more than just exercising his right to free speech... First a records check to find out about any previous criminal history - and whether any of it involved injury to persons - or threats to do so... Further, I'd have my department's records checked for any police complaints involving him and just what kind of calls involving him and his residence we had in the past... If nothing was found - that would be the end of it, period.
On the other hand if this is a guy who's been known to assault or threaten in the past - and has any history of mental problems or on-going domestic disputes, etc. then and only then would any consideration be given to acting pre-emptively.... Usually in a real situation where any reasonable individual expresses concerns about future violent actions -they'll bring forth evidence of some kind to support their concerns. I'm well aware that in divorce situations for instance there's a strong incentive on one side to make false claims that might effect future court decisions regarding child or property custody issues. In fact I've actually interviewed one spouse who came to our department to make child abuse complaints about her husband (pretty easy to figure out that they were probably bogus since she freely admitted after making the complaint that her husband "molested their babies while bathing them" -was only coming forward at the urging of her attorney....). The police report that my officer generated after he interviewed her reflected the fact that the complaint was being generated due to an on-going divorce action (something the lady neglected to mention in her first account to me about "child molestation"...).
This controversy will not go away any time soon.. in a world where an occasional twisted individual acts out - injuring or killing total strangers. Our laws are 99% reactive - they only come into effect after some wrong-doing has occurred. Figuring out a means of acting before a tragedy occurs is not going to be easy - particularly when it comes into conflict with our right to own and use firearms by honest citizens.
On the other hand if this is a guy who's been known to assault or threaten in the past - and has any history of mental problems or on-going domestic disputes, etc. then and only then would any consideration be given to acting pre-emptively.... Usually in a real situation where any reasonable individual expresses concerns about future violent actions -they'll bring forth evidence of some kind to support their concerns. I'm well aware that in divorce situations for instance there's a strong incentive on one side to make false claims that might effect future court decisions regarding child or property custody issues. In fact I've actually interviewed one spouse who came to our department to make child abuse complaints about her husband (pretty easy to figure out that they were probably bogus since she freely admitted after making the complaint that her husband "molested their babies while bathing them" -was only coming forward at the urging of her attorney....). The police report that my officer generated after he interviewed her reflected the fact that the complaint was being generated due to an on-going divorce action (something the lady neglected to mention in her first account to me about "child molestation"...).
This controversy will not go away any time soon.. in a world where an occasional twisted individual acts out - injuring or killing total strangers. Our laws are 99% reactive - they only come into effect after some wrong-doing has occurred. Figuring out a means of acting before a tragedy occurs is not going to be easy - particularly when it comes into conflict with our right to own and use firearms by honest citizens.
- Status
