Pelosi and Cuomo Sign Gun Confiscation Bill into New York State Law

  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 09:53 AM
Speed race 10 feet Okay , Somebody runs you over with a Ford pickup your still dead ,,, ( auto kill a lot more people every year ) ,,, And less then 21 feet with a knife is deadly Take note tactically speaking.
Point is the intent bad people will do bad things Originally Posted by rexdutchman
Ford...

Sir you're not being creative either.

Your dead if someone uses a hypodermic needle to inject Windex in your veins.

Baseball bats.


You want distance?

Homemade bombs. You don't even have to aim. You don't have to be on the same block. Simply sit it on a door step and walk off.

Wonder why that hasnt happened yet? Oh yeah it did last year in austin.

Why he only did two, God only knows...

He could have killed many many many more than he could have ever dreamed to kill with a gun.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 09:56 AM
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a mechanism to remove threats. I'm just saying do it right.

Red Flag Laws take property. They don't remove any threat.
SpeedRacerXXX's Avatar
The end of my post rabbited off course a bit.

We're not discussing doing away with guns. I'm trying to explain how Red Flag laws do not remove a possible threat.

Without appropriate due process of having an in person mental health evaluation by a train medical doctor, like your family member was afforded, the rights of citizens who have committed no crime, can be stripped of their rights.

That's just wrong.

The Supreme Court, agree with their decision or not, has said non felonious crimes are not cause for taking away a person's rights.

You can beat your wife and still keep your guns.

If your neighbor or brother gets pissed at you, you can get your property taken without being able to object or defend yourself prior to having your stuff yanked from you.

I'm thinking this will get batted down once it's reaches SCOTUS. Originally Posted by grean
To correct you. The family member did not undergo a mental health evaluation by a doctor. Family members went to her home and took her and placed her into a nursing home. Since I was not involved and I do not know Texas laws regarding what they did, all I will say is that moving her to a facility where she could get 24 hour care if needed was the right move.

I'm sorry we disagree with on Red Flag laws. I continue to say, gun rights advocates on this forum when asked how to curtail homicides in this country say don't blame the guns, keep the guns out of the hands of those who are most likely to commit such crimes. So you are saying do nothing if you think someone who owns a gun and shows a mental capacity that could lead to him using that gun against himself or others?
SpeedRacerXXX's Avatar
The cops "burst" into house until you can show where Mr. Willis invited those cops to come over to his house for a cup of coffee.

And Mr. Willis was executed because he tried to protect his property from thieves.

One relative is on record as stating Mr. Willis wasn't a danger to anyone, but you, of course, are going to side with the story of the relative Mr. Willis was in a pissing contest with because it serves to advance your anti-gun agenda. How self-serving of you.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Get a grip on reality old man.
SpeedRacerXXX's Avatar
Speed race 10 feet Okay , Somebody runs you over with a Ford pickup your still dead ,,, ( auto kill a lot more people every year ) ,,, And less then 21 feet with a knife is deadly Take note tactically speaking.
Point is the intent bad people will do bad things Originally Posted by rexdutchman

99.999% of the people killed by vehicles are deemed ACCIDENTS!!
Homicides are deliberate. Vehicles are not made to kill or wound others. Guns, for the most part, are. Ridiculous analogy.

I haven't fired a gun in about 50 years but I bet I could hit a target 10 feet away with minimal training. Give me any other weapon and I couldn't make that claim -- knife, bow and arrow, hatchet, etc.
SpeedRacerXXX's Avatar
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a mechanism to remove threats. I'm just saying do it right.

Red Flag Laws take property. They don't remove any threat. Originally Posted by grean
And what is your definition of doing it right?
I B Hankering's Avatar
Get a grip on reality old man. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
You'd be the one living in a delusional fantasy. Your notion of justice is the same as Hitler's who selectively disarmed the citizens of Germany based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation and religious beliefs.
“We knocked but nobody opened. We knocked again and more loudly ... Then Hoffman sprang forward and kicked in the door. In this room were only a woman and a slight, pale girl, with untidy black hair. She confronted us ... ‘You push your way into the house like hangmen. Don’t you realize that we are human too?’ ... ‘You are protecting the very class who brought this misery upon us. They exploit and despise you as much as they do us. And now you think a lot of yourselves because you’ve got guns. Put them away – or, rather, give them to these people who will know how to use them for a right purpose!’ Sergeant Kleinschroth said from under his helmet: ‘We know all about that, Miss, we’ve heard it all before. It is just guns that we are after. We don’t want anything else.’” The Outlaws, by Ernst Von Salomon
SpeedRacerXXX's Avatar
You'd be the one living in a delusional fantasy. Your notion of justice is the same as Hitler's who selectively disarmed the citizens of Germany based on race, ethnicity and political beliefs. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Again, get a grip on reality.
I B Hankering's Avatar
Again, get a grip on reality. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
You haven't the grip on reality to give such advice. You advocate that jack-boot Fascism is justice; that's "unreal".
bambino's Avatar
Get a grip on reality old man. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Didn’t you once say you’re in your 70’s? You ain’t no spring chicken.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 06:57 PM
And what is your definition of doing it right? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
This. It's already on the books. It commits the person to an institution so THEY are no longer a threat. And it's not ex parte.

The judge talks to the person to be committed.

SUBCHAPTER B. JUDGE'S OR MAGISTRATE'S ORDER FOR EMERGENCY APPREHENSION AND DETENTION



Sec. 573.011. APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION. (a) An adult may file a written application for the emergency detention of another person.

(b) The application must state:

(1) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences mental illness;

(2) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the person evidences a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others;

(3) a specific description of the risk of harm;

(4) that the applicant has reason to believe and does believe that the risk of harm is imminent unless the person is immediately restrained;

(5) that the applicant's beliefs are derived from specific recent behavior, overt acts, attempts, or threats;

(6) a detailed description of the specific behavior, acts, attempts, or threats; and

(7) a detailed description of the applicant's relationship to the person whose detention is sought.

(c) The application may be accompanied by any relevant information.


Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.




Sec. 573.012. ISSUANCE OF WARRANT. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (h), an applicant for emergency detention must present the application personally to a judge or magistrate. The judge or magistrate shall examine the application and may interview the applicant. Except as provided by Subsection (g), the judge of a court with probate jurisdiction by administrative order may provide that the application must be:

(1) presented personally to the court; or

(2) retained by court staff and presented to another judge or magistrate as soon as is practicable if the judge of the court is not available at the time the application is presented.

(b) The magistrate shall deny the application unless the magistrate finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that:

(1) the person evidences mental illness;

(2) the person evidences a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others;

(3) the risk of harm is imminent unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(4) the necessary restraint cannot be accomplished without emergency detention.

(c) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (b)(2) may be demonstrated by:

(1) the person's behavior; or

(2) evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in the person's mental condition to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty.

(d) The magistrate shall issue to an on-duty peace officer a warrant for the person's immediate apprehension if the magistrate finds that each criterion under Subsection (b) is satisfied.

(e) A person apprehended under this section shall be transported for a preliminary examination in accordance with Section 573.021 to:

(1) the nearest appropriate inpatient mental health facility; or

(2) a mental health facility deemed suitable by the local mental health authority, if an appropriate inpatient mental health facility is not available.

(f) The warrant serves as an application for detention in the facility. The warrant and a copy of the application for the warrant shall be immediately transmitted to the facility.

(g) If there is more than one court with probate jurisdiction in a county, an administrative order regarding presentation of an application must be jointly issued by all of the judges of those courts.

(h) A judge or magistrate may permit an applicant who is a physician to present an application by:

(1) e-mail with the application attached as a secure document in a portable document format (PDF); or

(2) secure electronic means, including:

(A) satellite transmission;

(B) closed-circuit television transmission; or

(C) any other method of two-way electronic communication that:

(i) is secure;

(ii) is available to the judge or magistrate; and

(iii) provides for a simultaneous, compressed full-motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the judge or magistrate and the applicant.

(h-1) After the presentation of an application under Subsection (h), the judge or magistrate may transmit a warrant to the applicant:

(1) electronically, if a digital signature, as defined by Article 2.26, Code of Criminal Procedure, is transmitted with the document; or

(2) by e-mail with the warrant attached as a secure document in a portable document format (PDF), if the identifiable legal signature of the judge or magistrate is transmitted with the document.

(i) The judge or magistrate shall provide for a recording of the presentation of an application under Subsection (h) to be made and preserved until the patient or proposed patient has been released or discharged. The patient or proposed patient may obtain a copy of the recording on payment of a reasonable amount to cover the costs of reproduction or, if the patient or proposed patient is indigent, the court shall provide a copy on the request of the patient or proposed patient without charging a cost for the copy.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 06:58 PM
The same code allows for any peace officer who believes a person to be a danger to themselves or others to detain that person and go through a similar process.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 07:00 PM
I gotta say I've been waiting for like a week for someone to ask me what the right way is.

I'm proud of my restraint.

I deserve to go get a blow job....and definitely some good Russion.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 07:01 PM
Speed,

Do you see now why the Red Flag Laws are nothing more than a gun grab?

We already can get people who are unstable and a danger to themselves completely off the streets, not just their guns.

And we do it with legal due process.
  • grean
  • 03-06-2019, 07:07 PM
Also your family member either did go willingly or she went through this. Age doesn't mean less rights.