Hey, there! Log in / Register
Legislation would let courts temporarily strip potentially violent people of their gun licenses
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What about knives, cars, pressure cookers...
All of them can be harmful in the hands of a "potentially violent" person.
"what about"
'whataboutism' is not a valid argument because it does nothing at all to dispute the initial point that people who are 'red flagged' because they are deemed violent by the courts should not possess firearms.
Reductio ad absurdum
"A form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion."
If the premise is we should take dangerous items out of the hands of violent people, then why stop at guns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
That is not what this is
"Reductio ad absurdum" would argue: "You can't sell bat eggs for $10 each...because bats don't lay eggs". You don't argue that the price of $10 is bad for bat eggs because simplifying the claim is more important and yields the same result.
What you're describing is slippery slope...and it's a logical fallacy. You can tell by the "why stop at..." verbiage.
Ask this state rep to add those items to this law...
Let us know what she says.
Interesting article.
Interesting article.
Potentially useful measure, though a lot depends on the standard of proof that will be employed and if they keep a tight definition on "temporary" to avoid exploitation and abuse of the measure.
What really caught my eye, though, is the decision to mention the death threats she's received and her suspicion of who's responsible - but to not include her reporting the threats to the police/other law enforcement and the results (if any yet) of any investigation.
DId you miss this line?
"It was a horrible experience," Decker said during a recent evening in Cambridge, where she spoke to constituents about her bill (H.3610). "I had to involve my local police and the state police. ..."
Thank you.
Thank you.
Person with 111 priors
Person with 111 priors including a stabbing can walk free in this state, but what we really need to do is bypass the judicial process for fundamental rights. That will make us all safer for sure.
which militia?
How long you been in the National Guard?
Which press organization do
Which press organization do you belong to?
Irrelevant
Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are mentioned separately.
Nice try, but classic NRA "logic"
No assumption of "well regulated" media in Constitution.
...unlike Militias, which back when that document was scribed were organized community groups, with formal rolls and mandated attendence for training.
What planet are you living on
What planet are you living on? We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Death threats, eh?
Prosecute every single one of these suburban nacho-crunching, keyboard-defiling, basement-dwelling lowlifes. Put em on t.v. like that filth who threatened to burn down the mosque.
Threatening to murder someone is still a crime, right, even in Trumpenscumbumland?
"Decker blames the NRA and
"Decker blames the NRA and its local affiliate, the Gun Owners Action League, for instigating the harassment"
Those are some politically expedient death threats. I agree, lets see some prosecutions.
Of course she blames somebody else
Democrat moonbat. In her mind, everything is somebody else's fault. Why? Is the guy not an adult? It can't be his fault that he made a death threat?
What's the point of stripping his gun if he's already made the threat? Is that going to make him less mad? I doubt it.
Maybe you might want to check the little tale
recently of Julian Edelman. I have no love in my heart for any professional athlete, but Edelman's actions may have saved lives.
So, yes, taking the gun away from anyone with a history of violent threats makes perfect sense.
Is this a serious post? The
Is this a serious post? The point of stripping his gun is that it makes it harder for him to carry out his death threat and kill people. How is this not obvious to you?
My rights end
At the tip of his nose. The gun is his private property, and he has a right to it. I say "no" to gun grabbing hysteria. I think guns are idiotic things for most urban residents to have, but that's their choice.
I wonder..
How many judges are going to be comfortable giving someone their guns back after the one year period? The bill says that a "preponderance of evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger" is needed to have the order lifted.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Not in Massachusetts!
Yawn
What are you afraid of, hon?
You seem to be very terrified.
May I suggest counseling over guns for that?
Law-abiding responsible adults, hunters and so forth
Should have nothing to fear. Psychotic racist losers and paranoid hair-trigger rage-addled bullies, wife-beaters and such, well...a lot of those folks, as well as drug dealers and other criminals, probably shouldn't have guns.
So should we put the burden
So should we put the burden of proof on all defendants?
After all if you are a law abiding peaceable citizen you should have nothing to fear.
These laws might pass if they
These laws might pass if they put an age limit on them (like only for people under the age of 25).
Of course it won't stop a shooter who's 64 years old, but it's better than nothing, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Death threats
What a great way to show that a law protecting the public from potentially violent people isn't necessary.
It's like they really want to
convince people they aren't emotionally stable enough to have guns!
In other news Terrel Muhammed
In other news Terrel Muhammed who shot a young woman in Roxbury(86), killed a Boston cop(93) and attempted to run down two Cranston cops in 2010 walks free today.
In other news
You think this guy should have his guns back.
No, I think he should be dead
No, I think he should be dead.
You on the other hands seem to think a new law will prevent him from arming himself. Too bad that did not help the dead Boston cop. Too bad that did not help Officer Sean Gannon.
Of course the reality is the guy who killed Officer Gannon had already been arrested on firearms charges and could not legally posess a firearm and in 15 years when he is back out on the street there is nothing the state can actually do to stop him from arming himself again.
You are way too excited about
You are way too excited about seeing black men locked up. I'm sure there's a white power web site somewhere else where you can talk about this ignorant garbage all you want.
MA already has a Chapter 209
MA already has a Chapter 209 law. This is a case of the legislature passing MOAR LAWZ!111 to look like they are "doing something" when the same law is essentially on the books. The only difference between Chapter 209 and this new law is shitting on due process.
There's also no penalty for false accusation in line with filing a false police report. So expect cases of legalized swatting without consequences if this law passes.
I suppose some legislators are also expecting a sweet kickback from the bonded warehouses which will get to steal property thanks to this new law.