Gun conficstion for making gun violence threats

There is your answer right there , see how long it took . Gun grabbers hate America , Americana and the Constitution . They will never stop trying to take away your rights . Don't give them an inch .

 

here's one for ya kid ... enjoy ..

 

The same reason my uncle owns 28 golf clubs.

 

Funny, I thought people died because liberals let criminals and crazies walk the streets unchecked.

 

Really?
Man goes to Africa and shoots a lion, man's fault.
Man goes to school in Florida and shoots 17 kids, gun's fault.

 

And as we have seen, at least two of those could have been prevented but were not.

 

Often it is a person's own gun killing them. 22,018 of those 35,000+ gun deaths in 2015 were from suicide.

 

I am one of the most pro gun people in the country and I think your idea has merit. If a person with a gun, without cause, threatens another then yes the person making the threat should have their guns taken.

 

You mean threaten them if they don't hand them over.

The issue is what criteria is used. You know if it was up to some people they'd deem anyone a threat for the slightest reason or excuse. Why not, just to be on the safe side?

In my opinion, if you do this, the criteria should have to be pretty close to the level of criteria required to arrest someone.

But I'm very skeptical that's going to be the case.

 

I hope this doesn't apply to off-handed Facebook posts that someone might have carelessly written in a heated exchange late at night.

Perhaps true, but I don't have confidence these laws are going to be well written.
More than likely they will be very nebulous and intentionally open-ended so a judge can do whatever he thinks is the best course of action, and if questioned about it later plausibly claim he was just following the guidelines of the law.

It only takes one biased judge on the bench, then everyone will know and refer their applications to him.

 

Criteria would have to be a specific threat to use your guns for some violent act and a threat to do a school shooting should top that list.

 

I think anyone with the proper credentials should have the ability to go to court to have someones 2A rights taken away if they present a risk to themselves or others. These people would include close relatives, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and school administration ( there are plenty of 18 year old high school students).

The important part is that its done through the courts where the accused has legal representation and a judge to lay out what the accused needs to do to regain his or her rights.

 

I'd agree with that but would take the extra step of a law that stated "threaten a school shooting or any form of mass attack such as Vegas and you lose your guns no questions asked"

 

No. It must be done through the courts. Doesnt matger if they are a threat just to themself or are threatening a mass shooting.

 

Take their guns first and let courts decide later. We can't let people like this that openly threaten mass shootings have guns. If a judge decides to give the guns back then it's on him or her what happens next.

 

I would want it to be a full trial by jury. And clear laws defining the crime. If I am out and about carrying concealed, and somehow my shirt gets pulled up and exposes my weapon, I don’t want to lose my guns because someone felt threatened.

 

A law that was very specific about threats to kill people in mass and especially in schools would not pertain to your scenario

 

It wouldn’t, but stupid gun laws are on the books now.

 

I just feel the proper authorities should be able to confiscate guns from someone like this recent shooter who basically said he was going to shoot up a school. Especially with his history of mental problems and animal abuse. The red flags here were to obvious to ignore.

 

I've been a life member of the NRA since the mid 60's, so I too know who they really are and what they do- all of which is positive. I doubt many serious gun owners would object to any gun laws related to the high-risk people who generally have records of conflicts and police/mental health contacts that identify that risk. So I agree with you. However I think it needs to be more than just taking guns away from such people, there also needs to be a point at which we monitor people who present the stronger risks, so that we have a chance to act before the fact when necessary. The key point that most anti-gun people refuse to acknowledge is that until you control the killer, you don't control the threat.

 

I think it would be an OK law with one giant caveat. The law defining "threat to oneself or others" would have to be extremely tightly drawn and not left up to a judge's wide open discretion.

 

Sure it should. Why would a person feel the need to threaten someone over the internet? There is no reason for that. A person compelled to threaten violence over the internet is in my opinion a violent person.

And if you don't agree with me............

 

I agree, but threatening self defense is not a threat. If I said, "if you break into my house I will shoot you dead". That would be a perfectly legally acceptable killing where I live.

Anybody who threatens to shoot up a school, abortion center, or church or go to somebody's house and kill their family has serious problems and needs attention from the authorities, including disarming them. That's a recorded threat that would be admissible in court to confirm it's veracity. (accounts get hacked and people establish patterns that can be judged)

 

You dont strip someone of their rights, then get around to court at a later date. Go to court first, then take any weapons. Remember, this is to be used only for a clear threat to themselves or others so getting an immediate court date for the plantiffs to lay out their case shouldnt be all that hard.

 

So if it takes weeks or months to accomplish all that...the guy is free to urn those weapons on a school, movie theater or concert?

If he is not a threat he can get his guns back...in the mean time he doesn't get to kill YOU