Gun conficstion for making gun violence threats

So what wording in the law? and give an example.

Where did you study law?

 

That's incorrect the wording of the lot is he accused everyday to prosecute and win claims.

Have a look at this.

"
WHAT PLAINTIFFS MUST PROVE TO WIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT IN THE U.S.
To win a U.S. defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff, at the very least, must prove that the defendant:

• Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff;
• Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact;
• Acted either negligently or with actual malice;"

http://kellywarnerlaw.com/us-defamation-laws/

read the following bold-faced type and think does this cover some vague any type of threat or is it specific.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfullythreaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.

 

If, for example, you allow someone's rights to be taken away just because they are deemed "a threat", that could open the door to all sorts of different reasons.

Based on very very flimsy evidence and dubious lines of logic.

It also has some potentially very concerning constitutional implications, because then a judge could rely on reasoning that is supposed to be constitutionally protected.

 

read the following and you will have an answer to your own question and you don't have to ask me or propose stupid examples anymore. You will know read and understand.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfullythreaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.

 

I believe convictions are based on the threshold of evidence being Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and it is not dubious because you need a jury of peers to decide whether or not it is proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

then file a federal case against 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g)

I wish you luck.

 

Exactly, once on the books it's not likely to get changed. So why let other problematic laws get passed?

But if you were familiar with the law you would be aware that all sorts of rights can be taken away BEFORE, or in the absence of a conviction.​

 

None need to be its already there. I've pasted it multiple times and you pretended like it isn't there.

 

Can't someone be a threat before they commit a crime?
Post 44 by Josephwalker seems to be a sensible way to forestall a mass shooting.

 

nope...cant work. It will be twisted and abused no matter how its written because its open to interpretatiin. Why look no further than here on PF to see how a leftist with even a small amount of control of interpretation will abuse it. I was infracted for saying "the second amendment will protect me" in regards to a hypothetical of someone attempting to hurt me. Reason being, thats a threat. We already have laws on the books for this. In this last case, the FBI dropped the ball, the laws already on the books worked but their implementation didnt. A better solution is to gather everyone involved in this case who failed at their job and fire them. Why should law abiding citizens lose their rights because of the actions of a terrorist and people in government who cant do their jobs. Case after case we find the FBI was aware but did nothing. If the FBI did its ****ing job, these kids would still be alive. Same with the tsarnaev brothers victims. Why everyone is talking guns as the problem when clearly its incompetence is bat **** crazy.

 

How is the OP regurgitated talking points? It's an idea i have heard nowhere else and seems a common sense approach to a serious issue.

 

Taking your guns if you threaten to use them for a mass shooting just seems like common sense to me and I don't think a well written law could be abused. The local law in Florida knew about this nut but could do nothing. This would give them a tool. I don't consider it an anti gun law, it's an anti nut law.

 

we already have those laws. They werent enforced. Also guess which president took that control over to the feds?

 

The right to make a threat never existed

 

There are many DP liberal judges in FL, and many, if not most, Republicans are liberals now. Hence all the Independents.

 

I wasn't talking about the OP

 

And what if someone says you did, but you didn't?

There should be no revocation of rights without due process. Period.

 

You can't "threaten" self-defense. We've got some real geniuses running around, huh?

 

I'm thinking of specific verifiable threats such as the ones this Florida shooter made online. IMO if someone says they want to shoot up a school take them at their word first and take their guns second.

 

Well if that happens they should take the person into custody where they can't get to ANY weapon.

You don't need a gun to kill a large number of people.

Vehicle attacks are obvious. Pull a fire alarm, drive into crowd.

China had a large rash of attacks with machetes and knives that also killed a lot of people.

The point is, the impetus should be to remove the PERSON from doing harm, not just access to guns.

 

I'd agree to remove the person first in theory but then what? You can't keep someone locked up forever because they might shoot up a school. You could however take their guns and put them on a no buy no way list. If they are determined they can try to make a bomb or some other form of mass murder device but you have removed the easiest and most efficient means to do so when you remove the gun. I realize the give em an inch they'll take a mile feeling is strong and well founded but in this particular instance I'm personally willing to risk it.

 

You lock them up and assess their threat.

Making a specific threat is a felony. Charge them.

 

This nut job in Florida said he wanted to be "a professional school shooter"online. Currently that's not specific enough to charge him but I think it should be. That's another subject though.

 

What we do know is that there was more than enough evidence to take this guy into custody and figure out what he was up to.

The FBI even admitted as much.

 

They definitely dropped the ball here but that kind of makes my case. Redundancy is good in airplanes and laws that could help stop school shootings. Come at these guys from all angles,if they slip one net the next one will get them. Local police were on to this guy and if they had the law they could have seized his weapons.

 

Yeah. According to what I read the local police had responded to the home he was living in 39 times. I don't have a lot of detail on what they were for, but 39 times?

I've called the police twice in my life. Once was for a guy I saw struck by a car that took off in a pedestrian crossing, and once for an elderly neighbor I checked on that had fallen and broken his hip inside his house.

39 times??