No chance of this being abused. None at all.
avatar

Take one brick of truth, and embed it in a mud wall of lie. Is the brick still true?

“I’m pleased to work with Senator Boxer on this bill, which creates a new grant program to encourage states to allow family members and others to seek court orders to temporarily prohibit dangerous individuals from possessing a firearm. The bill would allow those who know the most about the condition of someone who poses a risk of committing violence to take steps to remove firearms from that individual’s possession.”

I’m torn, here. I have personally gone into someone’s home and removed his firearm because that person was acting bat-shit crazy. I violated his rights. I broke the law. I’d do it again.

I love my brother. This late in the game, I’m not going to get any more brothers. I can live with what I did.

But this proposal is ripe for those going through a contentious divorce or a contested will or mad because mommy grounded her or because he wants to go to Disneyland and daddy says no…

When you go to tinkering around with the mighty engine of justice, you just might get your hand caught in the fan blade.

Comments

No chance of this being abused. None at all. — 2 Comments

  1. Let’s see what penalties there are for abusing the process. I’m guessing there will be no penalties set out in the bill and that there will never be criminal charges filed against anyone abusing it. Furthermore, I’m guessing that if anyone loses his weapons and files a civil complaint against the police or prosecutors or whoever, he’ll never get anywhere. I’d also guess that the “temporary” court orders will either become permanent or will be used as “cause” for revocation of weapons permits or licenses. Finally, I’m guessing that if this becomes law, court orders against men will outnumber court orders against women by at least 10:1. Probably closer to 100:1.

  2. You aren’t the state. A bat-shit crazy feminist, like that judge who ordered a man in service at sea to appear in court immediately or face arrest warrant and loss of custody of his child, could be the one issuing the order (never denied, of course), or one of those bat-shit crazy types who thinks its a good idea to suspend a seven year old kid for pointing his finger at a friend and saying “bang” could be sitting on the bench. OTOH, if you were bat-shit crazy when you took the gun from your brother, you would be in trouble with the rest of the family, and you wouldn’t get away with it, nor would a bat-shit crazy feminist of the type just described be able to get away with walking into her brother’s house and taking his guns for ideological reasons.

    So, no, a law like that is just a way to empower gun grabbers. All they have to do is get a willing judge on the bench.

    As for charges for abuse as Steve suggests, nope it will not work. Decisions as to whether or not a process was abused would depend on whether or not the person whose guns were seized was actually bat-shit crazy or not. This is psyence, an infinitely mutable “discipline” which routinely supplies expert witnesses to both defense and prosecution to tesify on whether or not a person before the court is “crazy”.

    Let the psychiatrists get their foot wedged into the door and you’ve lost the game. It would not be hard for a new sub-discipline to find a disease betrayed by “fanatic belief in limiting government”, or some such. They might call it “creeping schizophrenia”, mostly a disease of the male mind.