Political rant thread

[mOOsE]

Mandatory political content: I'm consistently amazed at the stupidity of the NRA. Sorry, but how much of an asshat do you have to be to insist that those who have been found dangerous enough to warrant a protective order should keep their guns? Wouldn't that be part of the screening that the NRA suggested awhile back to weed out the scary people who shouldn't have guns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?_r=0

The Protection order warranting the removal of guns is sort of grey IMO. Colorado's current bill that mandates gun removal for domestic violence is pretty straight forward, as it has to pertain to domestic violence only. There's lots of protection orders though, and at the heart of the idea of firearms removal, you are essentially removing someone's rights without them being convicted of anything. That's the grey area IMO. It's a very finicky line to cross anytime there is judgement made without due process.

In the instance of the above article, I would have hoped she'd arm herself, knowing damn well her husband had guns and made those threats. Either way though, he likely would have had the same opportunity as he was only served 12 hours prior and would have had a grace period to turn in or transfer firearms. Not that he cared at all about the law or the order anyway... which is what the main argument is for any bill... criminals don't care.

Unfortunately I'd have to say that it would be impossible to screen that sort of person in a background check. He wasn't a felon, had no prior convictions or mental issues... he was only issued a restraining order. If you think about our system of due process, could you, beyond a reasonable doubt, guarantee that the husband made those threats with the only proof being the wife's statement? I'm not saying I believe he didn't, but the process itself requires this when determining a verdict in court, so it leaves a lot to be desired when determining if someone is guilty without evidence or due process. Suppose this situation was you, and you didn't make the threats, but were subject to the order from a spouse that was unstable or seeking custody and wanted to place you in negative light. A protection order could be issued in that same situation, because there doesn't have to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but your rights would be infringed if you owned a firearm. It's just so grey

[erod550]

In that situation I'd say it'd be better to take them away until there is a hearing. Then if he's found not to have made the threats in court, return the weapons to him. Better to err on the side of caution imo than to let him keep the gun(s) and potentially end up using them on his wife.

And not to be inflammatory but here's where someone says he'd just beat her with something else anyway so why even try to protect a woman who has (allegedly) been threatened, right?

[Huzer]

The Protection order warranting the removal of guns is sort of grey IMO. Colorado's current bill that mandates gun removal for domestic violence is pretty straight forward, as it has to pertain to domestic violence only. There's lots of protection orders though, and at the heart of the idea of firearms removal, you are essentially removing someone's rights without them being convicted of anything. That's the grey area IMO. It's a very finicky line to cross anytime there is judgement made without due process.

Generally, in the same protection order, it's also dictated that you not consume alcohol, potentially (depending on the nature of the charge) not be around any minors, nor around firearms. You're usually removed from your home. Innocent until proven guilty my ###, of course, it's all in the name of "protection", right? This one hits close to home, because this is a situation I was in. I was removed from my home and had to wait 8 months for a judge to rule that I could be allowed back in my home. Protection orders are bunk.

[Justin]

I'm a former child protection caseworker, and have dealt with this stuff personally a bunch. I've seen very few instances where the protection order was crap. They're generally initiated for a short period of time, then a longer term one is put in place after further review. I don't see rights as absolute or inalienable, and believe that there should be rational limits to them (the Supreme Court has tended to agree-see 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio for a good example of limits on free speech). Rights aren't handed down by God, they're a collective agreement between all of us about what is and isn't OK. The things we tend to hold as "rights" are the societal permissions that we cherish most. If we generally agree that we cherish them less, I don't know that 200 years of history is always a good reason to maintain the current structure. I see a lack of willingness to enforce restrictions on firearms as prioritizing a historical imperative over the much more concrete life of a human being. The notion that "criminals don't care" is self-perpetuating. If someone violates a law, by definition they're a criminal. The stereotype of lawbreakers being a certain group of people that habitually run around being criminals for the sake of doing wrong isn't accurate. Most of the people who pick up charges made a series of really bad decisions, but aren't consistently in trouble with the law, or if they are it's due to rampant stupidity, not overt maliciousness. Protection orders exist in part to protect those who can't arm themselves, like kids, who are routinely caught in the crossfire. A firearm isn't an answer to domestic violence, as the impact of a shooting lasts long after the event. Would you really want kids to have to witness their mom shooting their dad when a protection order could potentially help? I'm not a pollyanna who believes that they're a cure-all, but they're a valid and useful tool in preventing further violence.

[Justin]

Generally, in the same protection order, it's also dictated that you not consume alcohol, potentially (depending on the nature of the charge) not be around any minors, nor around firearms. You're usually removed from your home. Innocent until proven guilty my ###, of course, it's all in the name of "protection", right? This one hits close to home, because this is a situation I was in. I was removed from my home and had to wait 8 months for a judge to rule that I could be allowed back in my home. Protection orders are bunk.

Looks like we were posting at the same time. Sorry, but protection orders aren't bunk in my experience. It's a major bummer that you were in the situation that you were, but they place a meaningful barrier in the path of harm in many instances (not all, clearly). The legal system sometimes shoots first and asks questions later, in part because the consequences are so huge. I used to pull kids out of any home that had meth in it, or where parents tested positive for meth. Why? Becuase meth makes people nuts. I helped work a case where the parents went on a multiday bender and spent part of it torturing their kids. Another guy, not meth related, burned his kid's feet so badly the kid will probably never walk normally. Why? Potty training issues. The vast majority of the cases were good people that got overwhelmed, stressed, or were terminally stupid. They were also guilty as sin. It really sucks that comparatively innocent people get caught up, but if some of this stuff gets prevented, I'll take a very imperfect system that errs on the side of caution.

[Huzer]

Being caught "in the system", you'll never convince me that it's good. The fact that my case made it to trial is laughable. We were so confident in my innocence, that with what we were able to prove with the prosecutions own experts, we only called one witness in my defense. Sorry to go off the general "gun" theme in this thread, but obviously this is something I'm passionate about. CPS, I'm sure does good. There are evil, vicious people out there. However, "don't shake a baby", and all of its various other terms are a modern day witch hunt. If a child is hurt SOMEONE must be to blame. It can never be a medical condition... I'm working on research showing the disproportionate (population wise) relation of CPS (mainly "Sudden Impact, or shaken impact", otherwise known as shaken baby, but that term is being less and less) cases taken to trial in Colorado (breaking it down per county, to show potential county biases) vs other populations throughout the country. The difficult thing is in the case of a defense "win", records are usually sealed, thus skewing statistics I can gather from public records.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled political rant thread.

[mOOsE]

Looks like we were posting at the same time. Sorry, but protection orders aren't bunk in my experience. It's a major bummer that you were in the situation that you were, but they place a meaningful barrier in the path of harm in many instances (not all, clearly). The legal system sometimes shoots first and asks questions later, in part because the consequences are so huge. I used to pull kids out of any home that had meth in it, or where parents tested positive for meth. Why? Becuase meth makes people nuts. I helped work a case where the parents went on a multiday bender and spent part of it torturing their kids. Another guy, not meth related, burned his kid's feet so badly the kid will probably never walk normally. Why? Potty training issues. The vast majority of the cases were good people that got overwhelmed, stressed, or were terminally stupid. They were also guilty as sin. It really sucks that comparatively innocent people get caught up, but if some of this stuff gets prevented, I'll take a very imperfect system that errs on the side of caution.

Makes sense. But in terms of background checks... how do you propose you weed out these people BEFORE they act? That's the part I don't get. I'm certainly not for laws that affect 100% of the population, because less than .001% of the population has problems. Especially when the laws will not change the behavior of those same individuals. I certainly don't think the NRA is promoting any sort of rights for the man in that article either...

Would you really want kids to have to witness their mom shooting their dad when a protection order could potentially help? I'm not a pollyanna who believes that they're a cure-all, but they're a valid and useful tool in preventing further violence.

I don't understand this logic. You are assuming the mom would shoot the dad for a reason other than defense of herself or kids? If the intent was to do harm, which would be given if there was violation of the order, then yes. It would be in defense of herself and family, they would be alive, which is far greater than dead.

A Protection order is useful, very... but only to those that chose to follow it. If the person the order is against intends to do harm, then what good is the order other than a piece of paper? Even in the article you mentioned, he would still have his guns and he was obviously intent on doing harm regardless of guns. Why would you even consider that the women shouldn't be armed? The only reason she is alive isn't because the police... it's because the man didn't follow through with his threat before they arrived. I consider her lucky.

[I`m Batman]

The stereotype of lawbreakers being a certain group of people that habitually run around being criminals for the sake of doing wrong isn't accurate. Most of the people who pick up charges made a series of really bad decisions, but aren't consistently in trouble with the law, or if they are it's due to rampant stupidity, not overt maliciousness.

Well, that's not true. You can say that about anything if you keep looking at things that way. Like, there's no crazy people, they're just normal people making series of bad/weird decisions.

And yes, there are criminals that are running around daily. Gang members, robbers, serial killers, rapists, etc... They are armed and will do what they want to get what they want. You can choose to not arm yourself but I would like to be able to protect myself and my family if situation would ever arise. It's definitely better than not having anything at all, we all know how that turns out in the "gun free zone". At least if I am armed, I/we would have better odds.

I am not a democrat nor a republican, I just look at what's logical... and the laws that the (D)politicians are passing are NOT logical. It will not do anything except costing a lot of tax dollars and hurting the good guys and giving the bad guys the upper hand when/if that kind of situation would ever happen to me/you/loved ones.

The main question is "Who will follow these ridiculous laws?".
a) Law abiding citizens
b) gang members
c) robbers
d) serial killers
e) rapists

[I`m Batman]

Another thing about the background check thing...
I'm OK with background check for all transfers but I am NOT OK with having to pay for it.

The RIGHT to vote.
The RIGHT to bare arms.

Do you want to pay to vote too?

[Huzer]

If I have the RIGHT to bear arms (as opposed to bare arms, which some people may or may not want to see), should a free gun be provided, or should I have to pay for it? I think the same applies for a background check for guns. Nobody is forcing you to buy one, and since you WANT to buy one, pay the price. Who should pay for it? The gun manufacturer, the gun store, the government (taxpayers)?

[I`m Batman]

Who should pay for it? (taxpayers)?

The same people that pays the guy that counts the votes/the voting system.
Should we start to pay to vote so they can cover the cost? I'm sure all of the cost are already covered in the taxes that we're paying.
It's not like every time they click "submit" button it costs them money. We are already paying their salary with our tax dollars. So what's with the extra cost?

If I have the RIGHT to bear arms (as opposed to bare arms, which some people may or may not want to see), should a free gun be provided, or should I have to pay for it?

You have the right to do so. A gun is a product that you'd have to purchase yourself. Have nothing to with your right or to get it for free.

[Huzer]

I disagree. Pay to play. I'm not subsidizing your gun ownership. I subsidize enough crap without adding more to it.

[I`m Batman]

I disagree. Pay to play. I'm not subsidizing your gun ownership. I subsidize enough crap without adding more to it.

OK. So, you're OK with "Please insert your credit card to submit your vote for the new president." ?

[mOOsE]

I disagree. Pay to play. I'm not subsidizing your gun ownership. I subsidize enough crap without adding more to it.

FYI, the system is electronic and simply checks compiled databases. If we paid to cover the cost, it would be negligible as the system wasn't built FOR the expressed purpose of background checks on gun sales. The 10-12 fee is revenue generation for the state. While their are employees for the background check system, even if there was no check required, they would be employed for the other purposes of the system for law enforcement needs, security clearance checks, etc. I am not opposed to the fee, as I believe its very low and reasonable... but it is poor timing as it doesn't have anything to do with safety or gun rights. I am also concerned that, since there will now be a fee, will it get raised in the future as part of budgeting for the state. Not to mention the logistical frustration it will create for retailers, private sellers, etc. FFL transfers already charge fees for the most part, so will it be included (not likely).

[Huzer]

OK. So, you're OK with "Please insert your credit card to submit your vote for the new president." ?

How is that in any way comparable? Enlighten me.