If only there was something we could do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

RO/PO the burden of proof is on the person seeking the order. It’s not an automatic order just because someone makes an allegation.

Are you for or against red flag laws and temporary restrictions of firearms for people that have a DV restraining/protective order?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

The person seeking the order must make the case to the judge, but at least in Maine, the person being restrained by the order doesn't have any chance to challenge the claims made prior to the order going into effect. A temporary order can be granted based on the request and a hearing for a permanent order scheduled; until the hearing, the temporary order remains in effect.

Until the hearing, the process involves zero due process. IMO, while it certainly can be abused especially since the person requesting the order gets to make their case first, that's a necessary concession in order to protect those that truly need immediate protection.

Sounds like due process to me. What is due process? When the cops take your control of a car after they "suspect" the driver of DUI they are initiating the st step in "due process" ending in a trip in front of a judge. Same with red flag.

But if you can afford a fancy lawyer and cash bail your "due process" is quite a bit different than a poor person's "due process".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

The person seeking the order must make the case to the judge, but at least in Maine, the person being restrained by the order doesn't have any chance to challenge the claims made prior to the order going into effect. A temporary order can be granted based on the request and a hearing for a permanent order scheduled; until the hearing, the temporary order remains in effect.

Until the hearing, the process involves zero due process. IMO, while it certainly can be abused especially since the person requesting the order gets to make their case first, that's a necessary concession in order to protect those that truly need immediate protection.

---

can you help me understand the diff between a standard “red flag” DVRO and the “yellow flag” law in Maine.

In OR, a “red flag” state, if you are subject to a protective order, firearms are automatically confiscated.

My (crappy) understanding of the ME “yellow flag” law is that a separate hearing/order is required to remove firearms when someone is already subject to a DVRO. But authorities can preemptively remove the weapons from the time a complaint is filed until the hearing.

What did I miss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

The person seeking the order must make the case to the judge, but at least in Maine, the person being restrained by the order doesn't have any chance to challenge the claims made prior to the order going into effect. A temporary order can be granted based on the request and a hearing for a permanent order scheduled; until the hearing, the temporary order remains in effect.

Until the hearing, the process involves zero due process. IMO, while it certainly can be abused especially since the person requesting the order gets to make their case first, that's a necessary concession in order to protect those that truly need immediate protection.

---

The defendant will get to challenge the claim at the hearing for a final order. It’s not that much different than any other person under indictment for a crime. There’s stipulations. The judge also has leeway in the temporary order whether or not to restrict access to firearms until the hearing, it’s not a given. The federal law doesn’t come into play until after the hearing and again the judge has leeway in regards to firearms restrictions if a final order is granted. This is the kind of stuff that the 2A zealots don’t talk about. It’s no different than anyone awaiting trial for a violent offense. Sometimes bail isn’t granted, is that a violation of someone’s constitutional rights? I don’t think most people would say that it is depending upon known facts.

People need to stop thinking in absolutes, not just 2A but everything.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

But if you can afford a fancy lawyer and cash bail your "due process" is quite a bit different than a poor person's "due process".

---

But the government took the car prior to trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cisco Kid

But the government took the car prior to trial.

---

They don't keep your car while waiting for the trial. You can go get it out of impound,

Still....
I got three more cars.. and a motor scooter.. If you can't make bail you sit in jail... especially if you're innocent..

Yeah, weak analogy. I'll try harder. My MAGA FB friend from East Palestine PA posted this today. I'm sure there is some logic in it someplace. I hear him saying he's a scared little pussy.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/305194605684444

"Officermate" sounds like those chickenshits who are all "BlUeLiVeSmAtteR!!'" with back the blue stickers all over their truck like it's some kind if premium white privilege card expecting the cops to ignore their open container + speeding and pull someone else over instead.. Law and Order's for those other people..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

The defendant will get to challenge the claim at the hearing for a final order. It’s not that much different than any other person under indictment for a crime. There’s stipulations. The judge also has leeway in the temporary order whether or not to restrict access to firearms until the hearing, it’s not a given. The federal law doesn’t come into play until after the hearing and again the judge has leeway in regards to firearms restrictions if a final order is granted. This is the kind of stuff that the 2A zealots don’t talk about. It’s no different than anyone awaiting trial for a violent offense. Sometimes bail isn’t granted, is that a violation of someone’s constitutional rights? I don’t think most people would say that it is depending upon known facts.

People need to stop thinking in absolutes, not just 2A but everything.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the plaintiff is clearly not an unbiased third party (which a prosecutor hopefully is, or is at least trying to be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

The biggest difference, IMO, is that the plaintiff is clearly not an unbiased third party (which a prosecutor hopefully is, or is at least trying to be).

---

The unbiased third party is the judge

So far THREE suicides at Wake County gun ranges this year. Two this month alone. I guess they're not getting their deposit back on the gun rental..

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-new...gh-police-say/

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...281924238.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

So far THREE suicides at Wake County gun ranges this year. Two this month alone. I guess they're not getting their deposit back on the gun rental..

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-new...gh-police-say/

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...281924238.html

---

You'd think that they might be able to figure out how to stop this from happening?

Hard to get through this article- be forewarned. The cell phone vid from the Vegas shooting- people just start dropping before others realize what's going on. Gripping and horrific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ass-shootings/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jax

Hard to get through this article- be forewarned. The cell phone vid from the Vegas shooting- people just start dropping before others realize what's going on. Gripping and horrific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ass-shootings/

---

Sick to my stomach reading through that. It really gives perspective of the horror and hopelessness of the people caught in a mass shooting. It is insane to think that there are conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones claiming that these kinds of horrific events are staged. Gun nuts can keep claiming that a "good guy with a gun" can stop these from happening. But that is BS. Laws need to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jax

Hard to get through this article- be forewarned. The cell phone vid from the Vegas shooting- people just start dropping before others realize what's going on. Gripping and horrific.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ass-shootings/

---

Brutal. Tell me again why we need to let people have automatic weapons.

I started a thread on AR15 forum about this article and the members refuse to even look at the linked article. That’s what we’re up against in the debate about stricter gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

Brutal. Tell me again why we need to let people have automatic weapons.

---

Because they are the best choice for killing elementary school children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

Brutal. Tell me again why we need to let people have automatic weapons.

---

*semi-auto.

though, its pretty easy to turn them full auto illegally. I think we all know the reason why 95% of AR/AK/etc military-esque rifle owners own those rifles... its because they think they look cool, and because they are fun to shoot. All the other "legitimate" reasons they will cite dont make their top 3 reasons in their heart of hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

*semi-auto.

though, its pretty easy to turn them full auto illegally. I think we all know the reason why 95% of AR/AK/etc military-esque rifle owners own those rifles... its because they think they look cool, and because they are fun to shoot. All the other "legitimate" reasons they will cite dont make their top 3 reasons in their heart of hearts.

---

I guess the bump stock case is going up to the SCOTUS. And yeah, I guess I should have written “semi”

Semi seems like such a poor semantic excuse when it really is a fucking machine gun. Especially w somethjng like a bumpstock. Sure it’s not a Gatling gun, but spraying clips w one pull isn’t effecting shooting so it’s a bit of a moot argument when it comes to AR type weapons imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper

I guess the bump stock case is going up to the SCOTUS. And yeah, I guess I should have written “semi”

---

Someone with military knowledge correct me if im wrong, but dont standard issue M4s have 3 round burst and full auto, but 3 round burst is mostly used because full auto is so inaccurate?

Basically, the only reason to own or want a full auto as a civilian is to experience the rush of a mag dump (AKA the rush of lighting money on fire). Or to kill as many people in a crowd as possible. Either way, youre a fucking asshole.

It’d be nice if there was the same level of outrage and protest generated for this shooting at a hospital that the Hamas-Israeli hospital thing generates.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/us/ne...ims/index.html

Just another responsible gun owner doing some responsible gun owning…

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/cri...a-9dcb7a7888e1

^^^y’know, a porta-potty is probably not the most defensible position when creating a barricade

And here’s another one in your fine city
Woman goes to airport with handgun and 100 rounds, shoots into ceiling of terminal. She wants to kill her family in Houston


Edit to add https://www.kgw.com/article/news/cri...1-edf1cd3b4a17

Quote:

---

An officer reported that after two shots were fired, a witness saw Patterson behind a pillar, holding a handgun, then put it on the floor and asked, "Is anyone going to do anything?" According to court documents, the witness said he heard another person ask Patterson why she fire the gun, and Patterson replied "that she was crazy."
Patterson also, when asked by an operations supervisor if the gun was hers, replied, "Yup, I did it." A bullet hole was reported in a window of the airport's roof, according to court documents. The recovered .380 caliber handgun had one round in the chamber and one round in the magazine; officers also found two spent shell casings.
When officers spoke to Patterson after her arrest, she said she "came to the airport to shoot her gun but not hurt anyone," according to the court documents, and that she drove from her home in Kennewick, Washington, because she wanted to kill family members in Houston, Texas. Patterson also stated that she "did not intend to fly out of state but thought about killing her second cousin," local to the area, adding that she harbored thoughts for at least two years. She specifically referenced her mother, sister and aunt.

---

Yeah, she should definitely be allowed firearms…