TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 11:09 pm

DevilDawg wrote: ↑Sat May 26, 2018 2:04 pm Ah yes, precrime.. good thing we had a movie about that benefit to society to condition us to willfully surrender our rights to peoples “feelings”

So, a severely mentally ill person should just be left alone by his/her family, friends or authorities until a crime is committed? Do you base all of your decisions on movies? On the contrary, my opinions in this matter are based on real life personal experience that ended in the death of a family member and the attempted suicide of another that left him with the mental capacity of a 4 year old for the 30 years.

The point being, proactive action by those that know the mentally ill person can go long way in protecting the mentally ill person as well as others. They just need a process to do so.

I'm truly sorry for your experience. I also have personal experience with this. My family member became mentally imbalanced and showed potentially deadly anger issues. The family managed to remove all firearms from his house. It didn't do any good... He attacked the family with a double-bit axe.

This bill did point out a real issue (mental health), but it then proposed an wholly inadequate solution. A better solution would be to provide a mechanism to have the person confined while he is evaluated and then provided some real help.

Bills like this are nothing more than a vehicle for firearm confiscation... one step at a time.

EDIT: I realize I neglected to mention it, but my hypothetical solution would include a court hearing which includes the accused. Part of our "due process" includes the right to face your accusers. That never should be omitted.

If you guys think this law is so correct, please tell me why it ONLY targets firearms.

If "the person is mentally ill to the point of harming themself or others", why doesn't it mention taking away their knives, axes, hatchets, hammers, screwdrivers, etc? Don't forget vehicles. It's been abundantly proven that cars & trucks can be used as deadly weapons.

It seems to me that if a person is that mentally ill, we would all be better served if they took him/her off the street and got them the help they need.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Fri May 25, 2018 5:02 pm

Pawpaw wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm

mojo84 wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.

With due process of course...

'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...

So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?

Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.

Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, you are really upset with how search and arrest warrants are obtained and believe that process is unconstitutional? It appears this proposed law works very similar to them. Do you believe people should be tried and convicted prior to being arrested?

I'm not an attorney but it does not appear to me that only a jury trial is the only form of due process. https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=595

That's an absurd argument. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone said anything about being arrested for the suspicion of a crime. This whole discussion is about the government seizing weapons because someone thinks you might commit a crime.

Being arrested and charged with a crime is part of due process. Confiscating someone's legally owned property just because they might possibly commit a crime is not..

mojo84 wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ELB wrote:Seems to me that if a person” qualifies” to have his firearms taken away because he is mentally unstable and/or danger to others, then it Should be the person that is confiscated, not the firearms.

If someone is this dangerous, then they should be locked up. They should not have access to any weapons, including vehicles, knives, etc.

With due process of course...

'Due process' meaning a jury of your peers not just a robe on a bench...

So arrest warrants that temporarily take away one's freedom should be ruled on by a jury before being issued instead of a robe on a bench?

Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.

Amendment V wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.