TexasCHLforum.com

The key phrase here is emergency. It appears that we all agree that the bill as written is an overbroad gun grab. That doesn't mean that any similar bill couldn't have utility. It DOES imply that any similar bill will incorporate massive potential for abuse, and in my opinion that's where we should focus our efforts.

I believe that something like this will be passed, and our option is to try and push back the tide or make sure that the final law isn't carte blanche to take guns.

jason812 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:04 pm This is not good and is nothing but an emotional bill. The people that will want this to pass, you probably won't be able to reason with. It's hard to argue against emotions.

Seriously, a police officer can request this to a prosecuting attorney? This will never be abused if passed. Problem I see happening is police officers that refuse to act upon these laws, will be ran off the force.

The law as written is a way to take stabs at gun owners. A law that does the same good things without giving individuals with spurious motives the power to abuse the rights of others could be written. Simple opposition seems to me to be a less effective strategy than carefully worded counter offers.

We aren't arguing with "guns are the devil" Democrats; we're arguing with moderates who are tired of watching crazies kill innocents.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:55 pm

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:40 pm I think that there needs to be a method for doing this. The question is not need but assuring that it is not abused. Therefore, the protections built into the bill should be the battleground in my opinion.

Any process which is 'EX PARTE' is by definition unfair. Why no ex parte process for taking people's free speech or assembly rights?

That's something worth considering: if someone is such a danger, then they probably can't be allowed to roam the streets.

Of course, the FBI had forewarning of Cruz and did nothing. That inaction is what we're really trying to fix.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:20 pm

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:08 pm If somebody is too dangerous to be allowed to keep the guns they already own, they're too dangerous to be allowed access to knives, bats, cars, rope, etc.

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. Forget guns, how are we supposed to ensure they won't get their hands on something much more deadly, like a vehicle?

Maybe start by locking up anyone who has ever called for people to gather together as a mob to harass people they disagree with politically. Here's looking at you Maxine!

Those are all valid points. Involuntary psych holds are HARD to get on folks who didn't just try to kill themselves or aren't overtly psychotic. Psychiatrists don't like doing it because it's a pain. My fear is that the current paranoia will lead to a second, easier pathway to eliminating 2A rights, while leaving crazies free to harm people.

There is a process right now, and it's unlikely that anyone here is more familiar with it than I am. We need to leverage that process BECAUSE it's difficult to implement. We need to avoid a law that 1) fixates on guns or 2) gives the benefit if the doubt to spurious accusers. I strongly agree that tying other rights to this is vital as it 1) makes sense that a dangerous person is dangerous with ANY weapon 2) it makes any effort to single out firearms appear ludicrous.

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:05 pm

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:40 pm I think that there needs to be a method for doing this. The question is not need but assuring that it is not abused. Therefore, the protections built into the bill should be the battleground in my opinion.

How about due process including a trial at which you are permitted to be present (or at least know about)...?

That's what I mean. If this is tailored to be something like a 72 hour involuntary psych hold for SI/HI, then it can be sufficiently narrow to avoid trampling rights. Further, something like that WILL pass, and in my opinion should pass. What we don't want is carte blanche for activists to cook up charges and roam around taking away guns. What are the penalties for making a false accusation in one of these proceedings? Those need to be in the bill, stiff, and guaranteed.

I think that there needs to be a method for doing this. The question is not need but assuring that it is not abused. Therefore, the protections built into the bill should be the battleground in my opinion.