Sheriff's team seizing guns from thousands in Illinois - Page 7
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 109

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kwimby View Post
    So. Anybody still think known felons and the mentally impaired shouldn't have their firearms confiscated ASAP?

    Please confine you answer to the question.

    We are not talking about Gawd, founding fathers or moving the goalposts here.
    Yes, because those who are "mentally impaired" is subject to abuse and can not even be gotten right in 50% of the cases or non-cases. It is always better to err on the side of those defined than it is to side with those who define.
    Therefore Kwimby should not
    Own a gun, based on the mentally impaired restriction.

    I'll be here all week :D
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    This fits in perfectly with the liberal/communist agenda. After taking guns from felons and those they conceive to be memtally ill, they can turn their attention to combat veterans. We're....gasp!...trained killers and have the propensity to do so again. They call us "murderers" at our coming home ceremonies, why not just be completely true to themselves and come out with it on TV?
    In the early 70s it wasn't just combat vets that were tagged that. It was anyone who served in the military and their families were also harassed for the spouse's/parents being in the military.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by kwimby View Post
    So. Anybody still think known felons and the mentally impaired shouldn't have their firearms confiscated ASAP?

    Please confine you answer to the question.

    We are not talking about Gawd, founding fathers or moving the goalposts here.
    1) IMO, once you've paid your debt to society (and I mean TRUE debt, no plea bargains, no early release), all your rights should be restored.

    2) What the hell is "mentally impaired"? Who decides? Who cares? If people took their right, nay, their responsibility, to provide for their own personal defense/protection seriously (and who else is gonna take care of ya?), then the next idiot who starts up at a movie theatre or school or wherever, gets his sh#t blown away and that takes care of that. Soon enough, that kinda crap will cease. Works for me.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    Because of something I did when I was a kid with no parental guidance, do you think I should have be thrown back in a cage?
    If it was a violent felony? Absolutely. And never allowed to legally own a firearm.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    What does any of that have to do with IL's FOID system? It's registration, plain and simple, and is only in place so that sweeps like the one being discussed in this thread can be implemented sans the due process that all citizens are entitled to. Otherwise, good, clean police work and application of due process would be what authorized confiscations from people who committed crimes and were found guilty by a jury of their peers, not by some arbitrary and ambiguous "lawful authority" as-described in the NICS law I cited. Unless all of these confiscations are from people convicted of felonies, then the sheriff is using the NICS sections regarding mental competence. It doesn't make sense to me that the people having their weapons seized are due to felony convictions though, because just their arrest and charge would initiate an FOID revocation. Certainly their conviction would, right? So the only thing that makes sense to me is that they're using that unconstitutional, purposely vague "lawful authority" within NICS to deem people "mental defectives."

    Some of you guys seem to think that if a person with a badge says its for the community's own good, then it's legal, and should be supported. How anyone can view this country in such a Pollyanna light these days is beyond me.

    There are constitutional provisions for the taking of property and/or liberties under the rubric of due process. Some sheriff deciding on his own volition to go out making sweeps without making public the circumstances that led to the already-unconstitutional FOID system "violation" doesn't fit within those provisions.

    I asked snatale42 for documentation of how the people being pursued were being included on the list the sheriff was working from. He gave a line written by a reporter giving his/her take on what was happening. In other words, nothing in the way of documenting the basis upon which the sheriff is relying to exert his authority. I'd be open to learning that my suspicions about how the list is being compiled is mistaken, but so far, no one has offered any documentation, but they've tripped all over themselves to relieve the sheriff of having to account for his/her actions. I don't get it.

    Blues
    This issue brings society to a crossroads. No one wants to give our most violent and unstable people a firearm. Yet the constitution provides that the general public shall not be disarmed. Then we have special interests on both sides of the issue have a personal agenda. So what is the answer? There is no definitive answer. Someone in society must be tasked with identifying those who are so disturbed as to warrant notification to NICS. Generally that should be done only after adjudication of mental illness based on the opinion of TWO shrinks; one hired by the court, one hired by the defendant. And violent felons? Most of us don't complain when the death penalty is imposed on a violent murderer... the ultimate constitutional rights violation. That argument is has been made by liberal thinking humanists for centuries. Yet the same persons who would volunteer to "throw the switch" are against taking his gun. Perhaps all violent felons should be executed... and then buried with their firearm.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    If it was a violent felony? Absolutely. And never allowed to legally own a firearm.
    It must be terrible to live with no faith in mankind.

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    It must be terrible to live with no faith in mankind.
    The more I get to know about it, the less I like.

    Stick around long enough and you will eventually agree with me.

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    If it was a violent felony? Absolutely. And never allowed to legally own a firearm.
    Hypothetical: Okay, let's suppose I do time b/c of a homicide conviction. One day, I am coming home from work and I find my door open slightly, so I proceed with caution. What I find in my home is my wife being raped by a violent criminal... I, being me... proceed to beat this mother f*cker to death for violating my wife in the worst way. I continue to punch his face until it caves in and my hands are broken... he's dead. I gladly do my time... I know what I did, I killed that guy. But y'know what, people like that don't deserve anything other than punishment, IMO. So, I serve 10 or 20 years for the felony and get out. I never hurt anyone in prison and I had never hurt anyone prior, I just did what needed to be done. I reunite with my family and want to live a normal life again...

    So, I still don't deserve the right to self-defense with a firearm? What say you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kwimby View Post
    The more I get to know about it, the less I like.

    Stick around long enough and you will eventually agree with me.
    I've already seen the worst mankind has to offer but at that same time, I saw the best. Yeah, I believe in man. You're a fool if you condemn everyone based on the actions of a few.

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    This issue brings society to a crossroads. No one wants to give our most violent and unstable people a firearm. Yet the constitution provides that the general public shall not be disarmed.
    You ignored this and replied as though I never acknowledged it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Blues
    There are constitutional provisions for the taking of property and/or liberties under the rubric of due process.
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that no one can ever be disarmed. In fact, under due process, not only can the right to bear arms be denied, the state can take your very life, so this is a total red herring argument. We're not talking about the state *never* being constitutionally authorized to disarm *anyone*, we're talking about what constitutes due process and what doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Then we have special interests on both sides of the issue have a personal agenda. So what is the answer? There is no definitive answer.
    The Hell there ain't! Where do people come up with this sophistry?

    1) The Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the federal government)

    2) The Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the states)

    Next.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Someone in society must be tasked with identifying those who are so disturbed as to warrant notification to NICS. Generally that should be done only after adjudication of mental illness based on the opinion of TWO shrinks; one hired by the court, one hired by the defendant.
    You say "the court" as though *a* court has to be involved in the decision-making process to disarm somebody. THEY DON'T!!!! The controlling section of NICS says:

    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.
    Nothing says a court must be involved in the process, it is an either/or proposition between a court, board, commission, OR other "lawful authority." The commas and the word "or" leaves a court as a simple option to whatever "lawful authority" chooses to leave the courts out of the process. That removes the constitutional mandate of due process in the mental competency provisions of NICS, and that is my objection to it, not just that there's a legal way to disarm somebody who "needs" to be disarmed under wholly constitutionally sound processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    And violent felons?
    Violent felons get some semblance of due process by the very fact that they are adjudicated to be felons. I'm not talking about them. I don't personally agree with life-long disarmament, but that's a different issue than what this thread is about. The sheriff discussed in the OP article started sweeping for FOID revocations. I want to know how their FOIDs got revoked in the first place, and if it's based, as I strongly suspect, on the NICS provisions that allow almost anybody to simply deem somebody mentally deficient sans any requirement for medical expertise or a court that protected the FOID-holder's due process rights, then exactly what I feared the NICS revisions of 2007 would be used for are coming to fruition in IL right now.

    Hopefully that clarifies what my previous post was about for you, BC. And also hopefully, you wouldn't support what I fear is going on in IL, and you will acknowledge that even if it isn't going on as I suspect, that the commas and the word "or" that I cited above prove that such an unconstitutional, no-due-process way of disarming people is possible under the current NICS laws.

    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...

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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