Sheriff's team seizing guns from thousands in Illinois - Page 2
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 109

Thread: Sheriff's team seizing guns from thousands in Illinois

  1. #11

    Due Process Required

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalamity023 View Post
    When I read this article I was torn. The idea of removing arms from criminals, mentally unstable, etc.. Is a good one, however, who's to determine the threshold for removal of the FOID card? Who's to say that because someone was depressed over a breakup in 1973 and sought a counselor, and now that information is discovered due to a renewed inquiry, that this is right? Violent crimes won't get an argument, the gray area is the mentally unfit. Who's judgement do we go by. Very Very slippery slope we're on...
    I too was torn regarding the FOID revocation that is causing the gun seizures.
    ~
    Is this occurring after being convicted of a felony/violent misdemeanor crime or is this occurring because of on indictment that will lead to a court appearance. Due process is the needed key to this problem. Unless the individual has been given due process and has been found guilt or adjudicated mentally deficient they have no right to seize anyone's firearms through the FOID revocation.
    ~
    The FOID in this being used as an instrument (government intervention, 2A violation) to sidestep the rights of all citizens if due process is not applied to properly.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalamity023 View Post
    When I read this article I was torn. The idea of removing arms from criminals, mentally unstable, etc.. Is a good one, however, who's to determine the threshold for removal of the FOID card? Who's to say that because someone was depressed over a breakup in 1973 and sought a counselor, and now that information is discovered due to a renewed inquiry, that this is right? Violent crimes won't get an argument, the gray area is the mentally unfit. Who's judgement do we go by. Very Very slippery slope we're on...
    Who gets to decide is a matter of law, not conjecture. We can thank the Congress and Bush (and to some extent, the N R A for supporting them) for the current law on this issue of "who gets to decide." The NICS code sections were revised in 2007 and I studied and wrote extensively about it. Here is an excerpt from a post I made back in 2007 before Bush signed it into law:

    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    The above is the latest revision (2007) to NICS concerning how one gets "adjudicated" to be incompetent to own and/or carry a gun. If you're interested in the referenced section in (C) that controls adjudication as a mental defective, that section is here. You will see though, that this 2007 legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecified "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Click on the link to verify that for yourself if need be.

    The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified anywhere, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, so let's do just that; break it down. Basically what it is saying is.....

    The Federal Government may not provide to the Attorney General any record of adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if....

    ....the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing by some doctor, or self-appointed "commission" or "board" of doctors and/or lawyers, or perhaps just some local anti-gun yahoos "officially" appointed by a Mayor or County Commission or whatever, because this law does not stipulate what constitutes a "legal authority!!"


    The law is so ambiguous as to allow the formation of some body with the imprimatur of governmental legitimacy, but it mandates no standards whatsoever that protects gun owners from being tagged as "mental defectives" by literal partisan hacks bent on ridding the United States of private gun ownership.


    Please note that the word "court" is an either/or proposition. Only if the "lawful authority" chooses to utilize a court to limit or deny your rights to own a gun, will your constitutional rights be subject to the due process that they mandate you are entitled to. Otherwise, the "legal authority" is left completely wide open, so if IL institutes a "commission, board, or other lawful authority" that authorizes mass confiscations based on whatever criteria that "lawful authority" determines on its own authority, it is "legal" under current NICS "law."

    That's who decides, and gun-owners were cajoled into supporting this by the millions by the N R A, as GOA, SAF and JPFO tried unsuccessfully to counter the N R A's propaganda surrounding their phony "pro-gun" claims about the "Veterans Disarmament Act" as it came to be known.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    I think experience is a great teacher. Once exposed to violent crime people trend toward removing the firearms of bugs. And someone has to decide who the bugs are. Convicted of a crime of violence? Say goodbye to gun and voting rights.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hog Jaw, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,275
    Howdy,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalamity023 View Post
    When I read this article I was torn. The idea of removing arms from criminals, mentally unstable, etc.. Is a good one, however, who's to determine the threshold for removal of the FOID card? Who's to say that because someone was depressed over a breakup in 1973 and sought a counselor, and now that information is discovered due to a renewed inquiry, that this is right? Violent crimes won't get an argument, the gray area is the mentally unfit. Who's judgement do we go by. Very Very slippery slope we're on...
    You will not lose your gun rights over going to see a counselor over a breakup back in 1973.

    Besides, in 1973 I was 8-9yo at the time.

    Only a judge can adjudicate you as being "unfit" and take away your gun rights.

    If the system worked properly the Aurora movie shooter and the VT shooter would not have been allowed to buy guns.

    I'm all for nut control, not gun control.

    Paul
    I'm so Liberal that I work at the Bill and Hillary Clinton Regional Airport!

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,097
    Quote Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post
    There is nothing wrong with this. This is one of the ways to prevent violent crime. If felons, people with mental issues, and others whose FOID card has been revoked, continue to have guns then they put the general public and law abiding gun owners at risk. This is within the existing IL law. Everyone should support this effort.
    This is a bit of bs. Can you tell me who is totally safe with a firearm. Every mass murderer in history was once a sane and rational peron. Hell, they probably even had friends. This is why everyone should either be armed or disarmed. FOID is simply gun registration. Can you prove to me that you are not insane?

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by JimTh View Post
    This is a bit of bs. Can you tell me who is totally safe with a firearm. Every mass murderer in history was once a sane and rational peron. Hell, they probably even had friends. This is why everyone should either be armed or disarmed. FOID is simply gun registration. Can you prove to me that you are not insane?
    He is on a pro-gun forum, therefore by anti-gun zealot's opinions, he is insane. And yes, the idea of removing guns from the hands of the insane is a good one. But the problem comes in trying to determine who is insane. Statistics show that even trained person in the field make many errors in judgement on this subject.
    Approximately 56% of these doctor's Diagnosis' are schizophrenia.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1% of the entire world's population has schizophrenia.

    20% of the entire population has a mental illness. 1 of 5 people.
    56% of those, according to these doctors have schizophrenia.

    56% of 20 = 11.2 %



    11.2 % is quite a distance away from the 1 %

    Z = 3.013

    A probability of 0.0014 that 11.2 %
    was due to randomness alone.
    Psychiatrist Statistics - Doctor's incompetence just has to make you think about who we let judge who is mentally impaired.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Only a judge can adjudicate you as being "unfit" and take away your gun rights.
    Hi Pretty Simple Paul,

    Just wanted to let you know you're full of crap. I posted the NICS section just above that says that, besides a court, any "board, commission or other lawful authority" can take your guns away without involving a court. The word "or" being the operative word. You can claim otherwise, but you'd be buckin' the legislative analysis of the Second Amendment Foundation (who brought and won both Heller and McDonald), Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. In other words, your brainless blather will have no credibility if/when you argue the point, but I know that won't stop you. It's been your pattern to exaggerate your vapidity since the day you got here. Have at it Pretty Simple Paul.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Hi Pretty Simple Paul,

    Just wanted to let you know you're full of crap. I posted the NICS section just above that says that, besides a court, any "board, commission or other lawful authority" can take your guns away without involving a court. The word "or" being the operative word. You can claim otherwise, but you'd be buckin' the legislative analysis of the Second Amendment Foundation (who brought and won both Heller and McDonald), Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. In other words, your brainless blather will have no credibility if/when you argue the point, but I know that won't stop you. It's been your pattern to exaggerate your vapidity since the day you got here. Have at it Pretty Simple Paul.

    Blues
    I would have given you a like for this post, but the word "blather" irritates me.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Hi Pretty Simple Paul,

    Just wanted to let you know you're full of crap. I posted the NICS section just above that says that, besides a court, any "board, commission or other lawful authority" can take your guns away without involving a court. The word "or" being the operative word. You can claim otherwise, but you'd be buckin' the legislative analysis of the Second Amendment Foundation (who brought and won both Heller and McDonald), Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. In other words, your brainless blather will have no credibility if/when you argue the point, but I know that won't stop you. It's been your pattern to exaggerate your vapidity since the day you got here. Have at it Pretty Simple Paul.

    Blues
    I would have given you a like for this post, but the word "blather" irritates me.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    783
    Judges sign warrants for raiding wrong addresses, the police perform warrantless searches with little probable cause, and vague lawful authorities make questionable determinations of guilt; does it not make sense that even more mistakes can and will be made on the issue of weapons confiscation?

    I'm all for sorting out the felons and the mentally ill from having firearms but at this juncture I cannot see the authorities making sound and Constitutional judgements where overwhelming force and heavy handed tactics are now the norm. All of this enforcement appears to be at an all too convenient time and I'm sure many rightful owners will get swept up in all of this. Where guns are concerned, any seizure will result in a very long and difficult process of gaining the property back if at all. IMO, all of this selective enforcement is simply another means of taking our guns and our rights away. All while using complicit, compliant, and ultimately imperious local and state police forces.
    “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast