TexasCHLforum.com

clarionite wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:30 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:54 pm...

If you've got enough evidence to violate one constitutional right (2nd) then why don't you have enough to violate the others (4th - 8th)?

Din ding ding! My points exactly. By isolating the 2nd above other constitutionally protected rights, anti-gunners are making the 2nd less of a right than the others. Judges will be quick to approve and slow to disallow red flag requests, while being the exact opposite on involuntary commitment...

Show me a mass shooter where (1) red flag laws would have worked and (2) they should not have been found guilty of other felonies or involuntarily committed.

There aren't any- either its a nobody (like Paddock) where basically nothing would have worked because he was under the radar, or its somebody who has been losing it for some time (like Cruz) that should have been locked up for some time (and possibly even committed) and wasn't because the authorities didn't follow through or wanted to keep their crime numbers low...

mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:10 pm As far as having someone involuntarily committed, the process that is already on the books is not all that different than what is proposed in the bill. www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio ... ntID=30801

It is drastically different... There is a licensed MD's opinion required within 24 hours (The certificate). There are strict requirements on the timeline for a trial. By the time you get to trial, you have to have TWO MD's verify whether the patient is a danger our not. You have checks-and-balances through multiple witnesses and a judge that takes this very seriously.

By focusing on the firearm, you have now enabled judges to make a sole, permanent decision based on their opinion of the facts. There is no requirement for one, much less two, MD's to submit their opinions. There are not any listed guidelines on appeal, duration or changes of circumstances. There is just the judge's opinion of the facts. If they believe that no one should have guns anyway, it is a very low threshold for them to bar someone of their second amendment ownership for life.

Also, I do not see a single insult in my posts above. I stand by the fact that I believe someone who is OK with this without drastic changes has already succumbed to the siren of "big government" so to speak. There are already systems in place that are rightfully difficult for removing someone of their rights. That system is difficult for a reason. Nikolas Cruz should have been "Chapter 5'd" by local police under Florida's law after about the 30th call to that residence, preferably sooner. If you are dealing with someone with mental health issues such that they may commit a mass murder, they need to be involuntarily committed. Setting a lower bar for some rights is unacceptable.

Thank you for the clarification on conservatorship. I had seen it used differently in the past but clearly this law is using the phrase as you pointed out. The bill does not have the definition or point to another code with the definition, so I was misunderstanding what it was referencing.

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:46 pm This is happening in Maryland, and the police shot a man when they were sent to confiscate his guns.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryl ... story.html
We do not need that here. There is no due process.

To me, the most revealing thing is that they though it appropriate to go knocking at 5am.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:32 pm It's important to note not just anyone can file for the extreme protective order. It is limited to certain people that can file the application.

(a) An application for a protective order under this chapter may be
filed by:
(1) a member of the respondent's family or household;
(2) a parent, guardian, or conservator of a person who
is under 18 years of age and a member of the respondent's family or
household; or
(3) a prosecuting attorney acting:
(A) on behalf of a person described by
Subdivision (1) or (2); or
(B) at the request of a peace officer.

So "Family" includes extended family?
"Conservator" includes teachers, daycare workers, Church volunteers...?
Literally any police officer?

I'm sorry but my estranged ex (if I had one) shouldn't be able to get a fly-by-night judge to sign a backroom order with no immediate means of appeal and a risk for permanent ban.

(d) At the close of the hearing, if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an immediate and
present danger of causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or
death to any person, including the respondent, as a result of the
respondent's serious mental illness and access to firearms, the
court shall issue a protective order that includes a statement of
the required finding.

Sorry but I'm not EVER going to be one who if ok with taking away fundamental rights without the accused having committed an act for which they can be punished. If someone is dangerously violent, we have a process for booking them into a care facility that deals with such.

But now this person will be out on the street with access to all kinds of dangerous things (including cars, acid, bomb making supplies, gasoline, arson supplies, knives, clubs, literally just about anything else that could be used to kill another person) and somehow that is supposed to keep our society "safe"... Because they don't have guns.

The revolting level of boot-licking required to be ok with this is sad.

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)...?

The worst part of the bill:

Art. 7C.04. TEMPORARY EX PARTE ORDER. (a) If the court
finds from the information contained in an application for a
protective order under this chapter that there is reasonable cause
to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present
danger of causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death to
any person, including the respondent, as a result of the
respondent's serious mental illness and access to firearms, the
court, without further notice to the respondent and without a
hearing, may issue a temporary ex parte order prohibiting the
respondent from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a
firearm.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB131
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... 00131I.htm

This needs to be stopped before it spreads to Texas.