TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

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.

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)...?

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.

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.

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!

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:18 pmWhat 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.

Public execution carried out by their victim or the victim's delegate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.