TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:34 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:25 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:11 pm I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and what may be a good alternative to address the need to protect the general public from a crazy person that owns and possesses guns. We seem to expect family members to do something but do not provide sufficient legal means to do something.

I'm not sure locking people up without due process is the answer? I'm honestly interested in this as I have close personal experience with a family member that was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had several guns he would not surrender to me or other family members. Even though he was diagnosed PS, they said he wasn't eligible to be involuntarily committed because he promised to take his meds. He is now dead from an overdose of the prescribed meds.

I hope you will offer some insight into a solution and not just opinion dismissing the issue based on gun rights issues since innocent lives could be at stake.

I will just be analyzing the Bill, pointing out that it's a poorly veiled fraud on the public, and discussing alternatives available under current law. I'm not a mental health professional, so I'm not qualified to offer treatment suggestions. Mental health professionals have long proclaimed that the vast majority of people suffering from a mental illness do not post a danger to themselves or others. Those that do pose a danger are more likely to harm themselves rather than other people.

It is indisputable that, if any person is a danger to themselves or others, then removing only one of many tools that can be used to injure or kill others will not protect innocent lives. The only way to truly protect people is to remove the dangerous person from society. When and how to do that has been and will always be a very troublesome issue. Stalin, Hitler and countless other despots have used mental illness as an excuse to imprison and murder millions of political opponents. Protecting the innocent also involves protecting the falsely accused.

Chas.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:11 pm I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and what may be a good alternative to address the need to protect the general public from a crazy person that owns and possesses guns. We seem to expect family members to do something but do not provide sufficient legal means to do something.

I'm not sure locking people up without due process is the answer? I'm honestly interested in this as I have close personal experience with a family member that was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had several guns he would not surrender to me or other family members. Even though he was diagnosed PS, they said he wasn't eligible to be involuntarily committed because he promised to take his meds. He is now dead from an overdose of the prescribed meds.

I hope you will offer some insight into a solution and not just opinion dismissing the issue based on gun rights issues since innocent lives could be at stake.

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:42 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:35 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:22 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:20 pm ...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

Didn't say that, did I?

I did say that if a person is dangerous enough to cause a problem by using a gun, he's dangerous enough to cause a problem by using his fists, a car, a bomb or whatever. The focus of any law controlling dangerous persons should be the dangerous person, not guns and cars and stuff used by everybody else.

You weren't the only one quoted. You did agree with the person you quoted that said it.

My point is, those that think we should lock people up without due process are promoting an even worse infringement on one's rights than temporarily taking their guns away? Also, when did we start locking people up because we think they may be dangerous or may commit a crime?

Like I said previously, I haven't made my mind up one way or another but believe the subject of dealing with seriously and dangerously mentally ill people needs to be discussed and addressed in some manner. Especially family members need a way to get someone help and keep them and others safe while doing so.

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:22 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:20 pm ...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:43 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:32 pm It's important to note not just anyone can file for the extreme protective order. It is limited to certain people that can file the application.

(a) An application for a protective order under this chapter may be
filed by:
(1) a member of the respondent's family or household;
(2) a parent, guardian, or conservator of a person who
is under 18 years of age and a member of the respondent's family or
household; or
(3) a prosecuting attorney acting:
(A) on behalf of a person described by
Subdivision (1) or (2); or
(B) at the request of a peace officer.

So "Family" includes extended family?
"Conservator" includes teachers, daycare workers, Church volunteers...?
Literally any police officer?

I'm sorry but my estranged ex (if I had one) shouldn't be able to get a fly-by-night judge to sign a backroom order with no immediate means of appeal and a risk for permanent ban.

(d) At the close of the hearing, if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an immediate and
present danger of causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or
death to any person, including the respondent, as a result of the
respondent's serious mental illness and access to firearms, the
court shall issue a protective order that includes a statement of
the required finding.

Sorry but I'm not EVER going to be one who if ok with taking away fundamental rights without the accused having committed an act for which they can be punished. If someone is dangerously violent, we have a process for booking them into a care facility that deals with such.

But now this person will be out on the street with access to all kinds of dangerous things (including cars, acid, bomb making supplies, gasoline, arson supplies, knives, clubs, literally just about anything else that could be used to kill another person) and somehow that is supposed to keep our society "safe"... Because they don't have guns.

The revolting level of boot-licking required to be ok with this is sad.

First off, can you not make a case or argument without involving insults? I've noticed a trend with you.

It's also apparent you haven't had to deal with such a situation personally or you are just ill informed with regard to the challenges a family can have when it comes to dealing with a family member that is a danger to themselves or others. Look at several of the mass shooters. Once of the first things many of us think of is how did the parents or family members not see what was going on and take their guns away prior to them going of the tracks and committing mass murder.

Also, about locking someone up instead, how is that better than removing their guns from them? With the difficulty and time it takes to get someone involuntarily taken into custody or committed, It makes sense to have a method of temporarily removing the tool they may be inclined to use to do harm.

I have mixed emotions about this bill. At this point, I am neither for it or against it. However, I do believe their needs to be a quicker method to address a potentially dangerous situation before something bad happens. Maybe that is an expedited trial or maybe is it is something similar to what is being proposed. However, just to dismiss it totally without considering all sides is irresponsible.

Here is the definition of conservatorship since you appear to be unclear of who a conservator is and what is involved in one being appointed. www.caregiver.org/conservatorship-and-guardianship

As far as having someone involuntarily committed, the process that is already on the books is not all that different than what is proposed in the bill. www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio ... ntID=30801

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:01 am This is not a personal situation, but as a "retired" USAF Senior NCO, I saw several airmen and NCOs go through bitter divorces. It's generally understood that many divorce lawyers will use any and every edge to get a "win" in the proceedings. What better thing to use for leverage than an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" filed by one of the two parties, likely the wife, at the behest of a lawyer looking for that win? Sure would gain some sympathy from some judges who might not be so 2A friendly in the first place. I understand the INTENT of the thing, but again, it would seem just too easy for abuse.

There are already laws on the books that can easily be used to make a false claim.

It's important to note not just anyone can file for the extreme protective order. It is limited to certain people that can file the application.