Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by serve_and_protect, Nov 9, 2019.
Is the police department liable for obvious damage to guns?
With regard to the word "intruders", I am assuming that if he wanted a certain person to be in his home, he would give that person permission to enter, and would not shoot a person he invited into his own home.
Thus, anyone he shot would be in his home without permission: in other words, an intruder. Maybe he justs wants to be left alone and doesn't want visitors.
If he has dementia and is threatening his family members when they try to visit him, the solution is to leave him alone, not red flag him and have his guns seized by the police.
I am really sorry you have a parent with dementia; I can't imagine how tough that is.
I feel that the best way to respect people with dementia is to respect their Constitutional rights, and not take their rights away by giving the government the power to seize their guns.
How would you feel if you have dementia some day, and a family member decides that you need to be red flagged, and the police show up to take away your guns?
People who have dementia are still entitled to their constitutional rights, including 2A.
Again, who cares what a bunch of corrupt Deep State judges think?
The judges work for the government.
Of course they are going to issue rulings the expand their employer's power. That's what they are paid for.
SCOTUS has refused to overturn the GCA 1968 and other gun laws, because they are loyal to the Deep State, and the Deep State wants to disarm the American people.
I lost interest when we started talking about the history of the 2A. Here is the bottom line - when you lose a Constitutional right without getting due process, it is a BS law.
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
Very good points!
I'm interested to hear the answers from LEOs, especially with regard to the "I don't have any guns" response.
If you live in a state with registration and/or UBCs, if you say you don't have any guns, they will reply "oh yes you do!" and proceed to tear your house apart looking for them.
I wonder what would happen in a state with no registration or UBCs, though. Would they obtain a search warrant and force their way into your house to search?
Another question I have is: do they ever do "no knock" warrants on red flagged individuals?
How are you even supposed to know you have been red flagged? What if you think it's a criminal breaking in?
It would suck to be killed by the police in your own home, due to being red flagged by a vengeful ex-wife or girlfriend or some random Bernie supporter who wants to **** you over.
Just proves your family can't be trusted.
Your OP quote states that he threatened anyone who entered his home. No mention of intruder. Just that he would shoot anyone. Either you have an error in your OP or are changing your follow ups. Which is correct? Did he threaten to shoot intruders or anyone? I’m 60% certain that it’s perfectly legal to shoot intruders even in WA, so anyone claiming to defend themselves would not be making crazy illegal claims. If he made claims of self defense, I’d be right there with you.
Your OP makes it sound like he made an irrational threat. Coupled with a claimed diagnosis of dementia, there is a reasonable expectation that he could do it. Dementia is a ***** of a disease. He could in a span of minutes not differentiate between a welcome guest and intruder. You claim there is no diagnosis of dementia. How do you know? If there is no actual diagnosis of dementia then I would agree with you 100%. The people making false claims should face music as should those acting on unverified claims.
Im not supporting unconstitutional RFL, but I do support removing guns from people who are a danger to others. I’d prefer that those decisions be made based on factual evidence and people be given a chance to challenge those decisions.
Thanks for your service fastbolt!
It is always interesting to debate with you!
So if you showed up to confiscate someone's guns and they said "go away" and refused to open the door, you would just leave?
The SWAT team wouldn't be sent to storm the house?
But how would you be able to check, if they won't let you into their house?
They should be.
It seems logical that by "anyone who enters his home", he means "anyone without permission."
Anyone who enters his home without his permission is an intruder.
Why would he shoot someone if he willingly let them into his house? That doesn't make any sense.
Well you know what happens when you ASS U ME.
Have you ever interacted with someone with serious dementia? By the sounds of your responses It doesn’t sound like it. My great grandfather had serious dementia. I could be sitting having a conversation with him and as if a switch was flipped he would look at me and ask who I was. He could be sitting i his home and decide that he needed to go home. And boy he would go off to the races, towards his childhood home in a different town, on foot, in the middle of dinner. Wife’s grandmother had dementia. In the AM she would be normal. After lunch she wouldn’t recognize her kids or grandkids... It’s like that.
It’s perfectly possible that a person with dementia could answer the door for his nurse, maid.. cable guy and let them in to do their agreed upon task and a few minutes later think they are an intruder. It’s a sad disease.
This is why I keep coming back to did they have a diagnosis dementia on record that would show he was a danger. If not, sue the family and cops and judge and the janitor who cleaned the judges office.
What should have happened was the family should have taken care of things without involving the cops. But in today’s society, it seems wiping your ass requires a law or some sort. It’s why we can’t have nice things.
I don’t agree with RFL in general. I see them as ripe for abuse. I do however see a need to somehow handle exigency situations before people get hurt. My preferences are
1. Family takes care of issues.
2. Evidence based decision making, NOT claims and he said, she said crap.
3. Those charged have the right to challenge the charges and the chargers.
4. Harsh penalties for false claims.
5. Harsh penalties for those acting without verification of facts.
Depends. Literally situationally dependent. (Like a lot of LE actions.) My unit specialized in serving many types of TRO's and Orders After, and we saw a LOT of them. (Both those issued in the courts in our county, and issued in other counties and brought to us for service because the Restrained Person was known or thought to be located in our jurisdiction.)
The situations could be (and often were) as varied and different as you might (or might not) imagine. This is why I was involved in helping teach classes and participating at training seminars where this (and other) enforcement subjects were discussed for cops. Fielded a lot of calls from other agencies asking about this and other types of actions, orders and services, too. The "average" cop, especially in smaller and "less active" agencies, might not see more than a few such things, combined, throughout a year (or longer).
NO, the SWAT team typically wouldn't be called to storm the house.
Of course, that's why we always carefully reviewed and assessed the information given to the courts in the applications for the Orders, and also tried to discuss things with the Protected Person (if possible) ahead of our attempted service.
It's also why Orders served at residences, especially if a Move-Out order was part of the Order ... and especially if guns were still reported to be possessed by the Restrained Person (no initial criminal DV case, so no initial cops to seize guns at a scene) ... we typically tried to send 2 of us for the attempted service. If some particular Order might be involved in a convoluted and nasty situation, and an active criminal case (where the suspect wasn't still or yet in-custody), we might even take another detective or 2 from the unit, and/or notify the beat units to stand by.
Like I said, depends ... and throughout my time serving some thousands of Orders, things could be just as different as they could be similar.
Depended. Never say never, and never assume.
FWIW, if you have any interest (and some time) and you're curious about the GVRO as legislated in CA, here's some links with some info. The first 2 are grabbed from attorney websites.
These 2 are from the state's Leginfo website. The first is from the 2013-2014 law that took effect in 2016. It discusses search warrants that may issue for some GVRO's.
(This is a short bit of the text. )
"This bill would allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law. The bill would also require the law enforcement officer executing a search warrant issued upon that ground to take custody of any firearm or ammunition that is in the restrained person’s custody or control or possession or that is owned by the restrained person, which is discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search and would provide rules for executing the search warrant when the location to be searched is jointly occupied by the restrained person and one or more other persons."
Newest recent change to the law, which takes effect in 2020, adding to the persons who may petition for a GVRO.
Read the same links for general info and legislation I posted for hammerkill.
While I can't speak to whatever passes for "red flag" laws in other states, the one in CA contains some stringent requirements.
My point. You're assuming. You might want to think he said intruders, but you can't know that's what he said, or meant.
If the gentleman said anyone, and you're the one who wants to assume he meant intruder, you may be reading something into it that isn't there ... and wasn't there to see by either the concerned family or the judge reviewing the petition.
If the gentleman threatened to shoot anyone entering his home, and the family thought this was a problem and it caused them to have to resort to petitioning for a "reg flag" order, you might consider giving both the family and the court (and judge) the benefit of the doubt.
The press release also makes it seem as though the gentleman didn't resist the service of the order and the relinquishment of the firearms, and even cooperated in the process. Still want to assume he said/meant intruders?
Thank you for your sympathy. As everyone else who has had to care for a family member suffering this type of devastating medical problem, it's pretty horrific. You can't easily (or fully) imagine the helplessness without having to live through it with a loved one.
My mother lasted longer than her doctors expected, although we did manage to get her in an excellent longterm nursing facility, which greatly helped, but which is also an emotionally wrenching process and odyssey in itself. Her passing was a blessing by the time she reached the final stage where her body was still living, but she was no longer able to respond to anyone or anything. the eyes were vacant, and she seemed to only want to sleep (perchance to dream?). As anyone who has worked in Hospice can tell you (and they warned us, as the hospice doctor was a close friend of my wife), there comes a point where the patient exhibits reaching a "transition" (to dying) stage, refuses their meds, food, etc. Goodbyes had been said before, fortunately, for everyone who came to say goodbye.
FWIW, I've also known a few cops whose health had eventually deteriorated and reached a point where they knew they were suddenly a risk to themselves, and especially family, if they continued to try and handle guns. It varied with the person, but I've seen someone either turn guns in, or make sure they remained safely stored, unloaded and locked away, to be dispersed (estate) upon their passing.
My father didn't have dementia, but he developed a terminal cancer, and there came a point when he realized he ought not be handling a gun ever again.
With "rights" ought to come the personal ability to have the right to have the dignity to make such decisions for yourself, while you're still able, or know that a loved one(s) will be willing and able to step in, at some point, and make the decision for you, so you don't become a safety threat to yourself or your family.
The other angle to all this, it's involving nanny government in family matters. The family could have had some balls and resolved this themselves. But who needs that pesky old freedom and responsibility then when you can just have Big Brother run your lives?
That's the goal of leftism, to insert government into everything and destroy families. Encourage betrayal and namedropping. And it's working.
Thanks for the info fastbolt!
BUMP, because everyone needs to see how the red flag law will be abused if it passes.
If the red flag law passes, gun ownership will no longer be a right. Instead, owning a gun will be a privilege that the politicians and Deep State bureaucrats can revoke at any time, if you ever say something they don't like.
The red flag law will give the government veto power over who can own a gun.
Please call or email President Trump and your senators and Congressional representatives, and tell them to OPPOSE the unconstitutional red flag law.
Has anyone actually read the stalled S.7 federal bill?
Skimming through it I noticed that it seems to go a step further than even CA's GVRO in the respect that someone knowingly making false statements under oath would be prosecutable as a felony. CA's GVRO law makes it a Misd, and I'm not sure if any other of the 17 (total at last count) states provide criminal penalties for lying in an affidavit or petition hearing.
These would still be issued at the level of the state (or district, like DC, PR or Tribal lands).
Even if Congress and Senate don't act to pass legislation trying to induce states to craft their own laws (offering grants, etc), it's likely that more states are still going to make their own laws. That might create a hodgepodge of how the assorted different state laws are worded and enforced, though.
Someone can always file a claim for damage/loss with the city, county or state agency they believe damaged their firearms, and if the claim is denied they may seek to file a civil suit (depending on the laws of the state, of course). Providing proof of such alleged damage might become an issue to be addressed, of course.
Nowadays, with it being so easy to document property using phones and digital cameras, you'd suspect that persons surrendering the property, the cops receiving/taking the property into their possession and the Property/Evidence people either directly receiving the property, or removing it from locked evidence storage lockers (if the property is taken overnight or on weekends/holidays) might wish to document the condition of such valuables at various steps in the process. (I'd think that agencies returning firearms and ammunition might also wish to take pictures to document the condition of the returned property, too.)
Why not take advantage of technology, all the way around?