TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: ↑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.

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.