First: If ya wanna take my stuff…get a warrant. 4th Amendment = “Supreme Law of the Land”
Second: What prevents the officers from getting a warrant to seize property? Instead of concentrating on the tool, why not improve the warrant process?
Third: The two cases the Senator cites – how would this new law have prevented them?
Fourth: If the citizen, who is not even CHARGED with a crime, cannot be trusted with a gun, how can they be trusted to be “loose on the street”? How can the “abuser” be trusted with string, knives, trucks, pressure cookers, pipes, and fertilizer?
Fifth: If the gun belongs to the abused, how can the abused protect themself during this “temporary” seizure?
Sixth: What evidence do they have that “five days” is the magic number to “keep people safe”? Why not 10? 30?
Seventh: Since this bill “mandates” officers to seize the gun, is that saying the legislators don’t trust officers’ discretion?
Eighth: How much does the INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY “abuser” have to pay to get their property back? Is the return process automatic? Do they have to prove their innocence? What if the police damaged / lost their property?
Ninth: Since NY confiscated 100+ guns with their “Red Flag” law, does that mean they prevented 100+ “gun violence” incidents?
Tenth: “Hallelujah! Holy sh!#! Where’s the Tylenol?!”
Your fourth point is the cornerstone against these ignorant policies. "If" there is a perceived threat to someone, the threat should be arrested , to protect the innocent. The inanimate gun is not the threat, the person is.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with the perpetually infantile that want their gov't daddy to govern them harder.
I'm sure you have seen and heard those people on both mainstream broadcast and social media who loudly advocate for Government to take over their lives "to keep me safe" and absolve them of any responsibility to exercise awareness, discipline or thought to lead a useful, productive life. Unfortunately, they vote.
They want the rest of us to buy in to their vision that life will be wonderful if only we become subservient to their rule by the State. State authorized violence is acceptable to achieve that goal.
100%. In my opinion, the consequences of that subservience are even worse than people think, since the long term effects aren't often considered.
They want to enforce the state monopoly on violence not only to keep it, but to weed out all the most rebellious and independent, free people who are able and willing to use violence themselves - morally - in protection of their own rights, person, and property.
Chinese-American professor of genetics Bruce Lahn argues the reason people in China have more conformist tendencies is that for the past 2k years, the Chinese government has regularly eliminated its most rebellious and independent citizens. If you can make the people submit, it will make the people submissive. They lose the will to fight.
That's part of why tyrants in all of history want to be the only ones allowed to have weapons and be allowed to use them, even going back to ancient Rome; a part of history the Founding Fathers were very interested in. Never submit!
Many use the "I have family here" or "my job is here" excuse. You also have a great deal of TV ad informed voters who can be manipulated easily. I left California 5 years ago and never looked back.
Slowly but surely the critical principle of innocent until proven guilty is being chipped away. Domestic disputes are inherently messy and adding in gun seizures is going to make an already tense situation worse.
Here’s an idea. Draft a bill that removes the offender from the home from which the domestic violence occurred. The focus on guns leaves a woman - in most cases - vulnerable to further physical abuse by a PERSON.
In Texas we already have that law; IIRC, peace officers were compelled to arrest the offender in a domestic violence case if clear cut and substantial evidence was present. Many domestic violence offenders went to jail; abused women and their children were offered services provided by Victim's Services.
Fun fact: police won't hire people with an IQ that's too high. There was a case many years ago where someone wasn't even interviewed because he scored too high on the IQ test they gave him, and they didn't want smart cops.
He sued on basis of discrimination, and it was rejected and ruled by the courts that intelligence is acceptable to discriminate on. Can it get much dumber than that?! Too smart to be a cop!
Who do they think they're fooling with these language games they play?! They are so infuriating: "This is not gun control, this is gun safety; and this is domestic safety." In other words, it's gun control!
It is a serious lack of display in the confidence and popularity of their own views and policies that rather than try to convince anyone else of them, they try poorly and foolishly to trick everyone into thinking it's something other than what it is, since you know, they said so, what more evidence do you need?
What a disgraceful attempt at trying to cloak their violation of people's rights and sovereignty, not to mention the Constitution. If Sen. Harckham is so into trying to play cheap tricks on his constituents, he ought to have become a stage magician rather than a senator.
This law sounds like a red flag law dressed up in new clothes.
I rather doubt that you'll find your seized firearms in the same condition when you get them back. I get the feeling that the police will either lose them or you'll get them back in a damaged condition.
Remember when the firearms in New Orleans were illegally seized after the hurricane? The firearms were damaged, rusted, and in a sorry condition when they were finally found.
First: If ya wanna take my stuff…get a warrant. 4th Amendment = “Supreme Law of the Land”
Second: What prevents the officers from getting a warrant to seize property? Instead of concentrating on the tool, why not improve the warrant process?
Third: The two cases the Senator cites – how would this new law have prevented them?
Fourth: If the citizen, who is not even CHARGED with a crime, cannot be trusted with a gun, how can they be trusted to be “loose on the street”? How can the “abuser” be trusted with string, knives, trucks, pressure cookers, pipes, and fertilizer?
Fifth: If the gun belongs to the abused, how can the abused protect themself during this “temporary” seizure?
Sixth: What evidence do they have that “five days” is the magic number to “keep people safe”? Why not 10? 30?
Seventh: Since this bill “mandates” officers to seize the gun, is that saying the legislators don’t trust officers’ discretion?
Eighth: How much does the INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY “abuser” have to pay to get their property back? Is the return process automatic? Do they have to prove their innocence? What if the police damaged / lost their property?
Ninth: Since NY confiscated 100+ guns with their “Red Flag” law, does that mean they prevented 100+ “gun violence” incidents?
Tenth: “Hallelujah! Holy sh!#! Where’s the Tylenol?!”
Your fourth point is the cornerstone against these ignorant policies. "If" there is a perceived threat to someone, the threat should be arrested , to protect the innocent. The inanimate gun is not the threat, the person is.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with the perpetually infantile that want their gov't daddy to govern them harder.
1) Why do people vote for these tyrants? OR
2) Why do they stay there?
I'm sure you have seen and heard those people on both mainstream broadcast and social media who loudly advocate for Government to take over their lives "to keep me safe" and absolve them of any responsibility to exercise awareness, discipline or thought to lead a useful, productive life. Unfortunately, they vote.
They want the rest of us to buy in to their vision that life will be wonderful if only we become subservient to their rule by the State. State authorized violence is acceptable to achieve that goal.
I do know that, yes.
But--
I haven't owned a television since 2009, and I deleted social media accounts (I do get on YouTube) five years ago.
I left OR for AZ (may move again if it gets crazier) for AZ. I'm in a conservative part, but Maricopa County is a mess IMO.
100%. In my opinion, the consequences of that subservience are even worse than people think, since the long term effects aren't often considered.
They want to enforce the state monopoly on violence not only to keep it, but to weed out all the most rebellious and independent, free people who are able and willing to use violence themselves - morally - in protection of their own rights, person, and property.
Chinese-American professor of genetics Bruce Lahn argues the reason people in China have more conformist tendencies is that for the past 2k years, the Chinese government has regularly eliminated its most rebellious and independent citizens. If you can make the people submit, it will make the people submissive. They lose the will to fight.
That's part of why tyrants in all of history want to be the only ones allowed to have weapons and be allowed to use them, even going back to ancient Rome; a part of history the Founding Fathers were very interested in. Never submit!
Many use the "I have family here" or "my job is here" excuse. You also have a great deal of TV ad informed voters who can be manipulated easily. I left California 5 years ago and never looked back.
Slowly but surely the critical principle of innocent until proven guilty is being chipped away. Domestic disputes are inherently messy and adding in gun seizures is going to make an already tense situation worse.
Arthur, I agree with your point.
I prefer "innocent UNLESS proven guilty" because "until" implies that it is assured / imminent.
Here’s an idea. Draft a bill that removes the offender from the home from which the domestic violence occurred. The focus on guns leaves a woman - in most cases - vulnerable to further physical abuse by a PERSON.
In Texas we already have that law; IIRC, peace officers were compelled to arrest the offender in a domestic violence case if clear cut and substantial evidence was present. Many domestic violence offenders went to jail; abused women and their children were offered services provided by Victim's Services.
I should be amused by the premise that we NYS “citizens” have civil rights to begin with. But I don’t find that it’s amusing at all.
As for me? I’m not letting the tyrants drive me out. It would be a much nicer place without them.
What could go wrong? We all know how highly-trained, above average intelligence cops are.
Fun fact: police won't hire people with an IQ that's too high. There was a case many years ago where someone wasn't even interviewed because he scored too high on the IQ test they gave him, and they didn't want smart cops.
He sued on basis of discrimination, and it was rejected and ruled by the courts that intelligence is acceptable to discriminate on. Can it get much dumber than that?! Too smart to be a cop!
Further reading:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-05-31-mn-64223-story.html
I can see that.
Who do they think they're fooling with these language games they play?! They are so infuriating: "This is not gun control, this is gun safety; and this is domestic safety." In other words, it's gun control!
It is a serious lack of display in the confidence and popularity of their own views and policies that rather than try to convince anyone else of them, they try poorly and foolishly to trick everyone into thinking it's something other than what it is, since you know, they said so, what more evidence do you need?
What a disgraceful attempt at trying to cloak their violation of people's rights and sovereignty, not to mention the Constitution. If Sen. Harckham is so into trying to play cheap tricks on his constituents, he ought to have become a stage magician rather than a senator.
This law sounds like a red flag law dressed up in new clothes.
I rather doubt that you'll find your seized firearms in the same condition when you get them back. I get the feeling that the police will either lose them or you'll get them back in a damaged condition.
Remember when the firearms in New Orleans were illegally seized after the hurricane? The firearms were damaged, rusted, and in a sorry condition when they were finally found.
Come getcha some! Leftist pussies!