Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
- Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
- Party: Independent
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
The FBI got a report a month before the FL shooter went off........ what something needs to be done. The steps were taken and the agencies involved failed miserably. So now you think they will somehow do things correctly. And again, take the FL shooters guns away.....he was researching how to bomb people to death, you really think a restraining order would stop him, he committed 50- 100 felonies, not sure he cares if he violates some order, do you?ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
So your evaluation of the entirety of the FBI is based on this one mistake on their part. Wow. They are an incredibly good organization down thru the rank and file. To say or think otherwise is nonsense.cwtcr hokie wrote:if the FBI actually did their job, good luck with that133743Hokie wrote:That's it. It potentially could have. The info from the person that reported him to the local FBI would certainly have been enough to at least get a hearing from what I gather.cwtcr hokie wrote:I like the idea but I am with USN, someone with that many issues needs to be involuntarily committed, guns are not the only way to take out other people. But keep in mind in the FL case that the family he was living with said he was a fine person and showed no signs at home, they did not know about all his stuff that was out there....so it would not have stopped the FL shooter133743Hokie wrote:Disagree. This is recognition of habits way earlier than commitment level. And this isn't calling for detaining or confining people (again, it is for those cases recognized that are not commitment level), but for short term restriction of ownership. It's very logical and follows the pattern of a system that has worked fairly well (nothing is perfect) on the abuse side. Certainly an improvement, and one that would likely reduce some of the incidences.USN_Hokie wrote:Nah.133743Hokie wrote:I think this is an interesting approach to this issue that balances 2nd Amendment issues with public safety and welfare.
====================
"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/
If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
1. It isn't a lesser imposition - for the last time we're not talking about indefinite commitment. We're talking about taking a person for a mental health evaluation and getting them the help they need (drugs, counseling) and discharging them. It's also not a lesser imposition because it's the status quo! You're just talking about adding more to it!133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
2. No, I'm not sure a GVRO would stop any of them to be honest. It would do nothing to stop private sales (look for that to be the next battle cry), illegal sales, or folks who steal their weapons from others (Adam Lanza killed his mom in her sleep and took her guns).
Frankly, involuntary commitment is what the person needs if they're threatening to hurt themselves or others.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
For the last time, a TRO is much less of an imposition than committing someone, however short term you think that might be. Plain and simple.USN_Hokie wrote:1. It isn't a lesser imposition - for the last time we're not talking about indefinite commitment. We're talking about taking a person for a mental health evaluation and getting them the help they need (drugs, counseling) and discharging them. It's also not a lesser imposition because it's the status quo! You're just talking about adding more to it!133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
2. No, I'm not sure a GVRO would stop any of them to be honest. It would do nothing to stop private sales (look for that to be the next battle cry), illegal sales, or folks who steal their weapons from others (Adam Lanza killed his mom in her sleep and took her guns).
Frankly, involuntary commitment is what the person needs if they're threatening to hurt themselves or others.
Last edited by 133743Hokie on Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
I bet that's not the last time you're going to say that....133743Hokie wrote:For the last time, a TRO is much less of an imposition than committing someone. Plain and simple.USN_Hokie wrote:1. It isn't a lesser imposition - for the last time we're not talking about indefinite commitment. We're talking about taking a person for a mental health evaluation and getting them the help they need (drugs, counseling) and discharging them. It's also not a lesser imposition because it's the status quo! You're just talking about adding more to it!133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
2. No, I'm not sure a GVRO would stop any of them to be honest. It would do nothing to stop private sales (look for that to be the next battle cry), illegal sales, or folks who steal their weapons from others (Adam Lanza killed his mom in her sleep and took her guns).
Frankly, involuntary commitment is what the person needs if they're threatening to hurt themselves or others.
Just saying.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
Actually it is.HokieFanDC wrote:I bet that's not the last time you're going to say that....133743Hokie wrote:For the last time, a TRO is much less of an imposition than committing someone. Plain and simple.USN_Hokie wrote:1. It isn't a lesser imposition - for the last time we're not talking about indefinite commitment. We're talking about taking a person for a mental health evaluation and getting them the help they need (drugs, counseling) and discharging them. It's also not a lesser imposition because it's the status quo! You're just talking about adding more to it!133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
2. No, I'm not sure a GVRO would stop any of them to be honest. It would do nothing to stop private sales (look for that to be the next battle cry), illegal sales, or folks who steal their weapons from others (Adam Lanza killed his mom in her sleep and took her guns).
Frankly, involuntary commitment is what the person needs if they're threatening to hurt themselves or others.
Just saying.
I know he's one of those guys that has to have the last word, so I'll let him do so by responding to this and then we'll be done.
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
I think we all agree that you are fine with people losing their rights because ex girlfriends have scores to settle. A GVRO is a great way to disarm more people based on dubious testimony.133743Hokie wrote:For the last time, a TRO is much less of an imposition than committing someone, however short term you think that might be. Plain and simple.USN_Hokie wrote:1. It isn't a lesser imposition - for the last time we're not talking about indefinite commitment. We're talking about taking a person for a mental health evaluation and getting them the help they need (drugs, counseling) and discharging them. It's also not a lesser imposition because it's the status quo! You're just talking about adding more to it!133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
2. No, I'm not sure a GVRO would stop any of them to be honest. It would do nothing to stop private sales (look for that to be the next battle cry), illegal sales, or folks who steal their weapons from others (Adam Lanza killed his mom in her sleep and took her guns).
Frankly, involuntary commitment is what the person needs if they're threatening to hurt themselves or others.
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
Saying the same thing over and over is not an argument. Just saying.133743Hokie wrote:Actually it is.HokieFanDC wrote:]
I bet that's not the last time you're going to say that....
Just saying.
I know he's one of those guys that has to have the last word, so I'll let him do so by responding to this and then we'll be done.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
"What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/[/quote]
Nah.
If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.[/quote]
Disagree. This is recognition of habits way earlier than commitment level. And this isn't calling for detaining or confining people (again, it is for those cases recognized that are not commitment level), but for short term restriction of ownership. It's very logical and follows the pattern of a system that has worked fairly well (nothing is perfect) on the abuse side. Certainly an improvement, and one that would likely reduce some of the incidences.[/quote]
I like the idea but I am with USN, someone with that many issues needs to be involuntarily committed, guns are not the only way to take out other people. But keep in mind in the FL case that the family he was living with said he was a fine person and showed no signs at home, they did not know about all his stuff that was out there....so it would not have stopped the FL shooter[/quote]
That's it. It potentially could have. The info from the person that reported him to the local FBI would certainly have been enough to at least get a hearing from what I gather.[/quote]
if the FBI actually did their job, good luck with that[/quote]So your evaluation of the entirety of the FBI is based on this one mistake on their part. Wow. They are an incredibly good organization down thru the rank and file. To say or think otherwise is nonsense.[/quote]
I am basing my current opinion on the fact they tried to change our election of a prez and the new fact that they were specifically warned about the FL moron ONE MONTH AGO and failed miserably...so yea, my opinion of them is pretty low at the moment. If you think otherwise then that is super for you
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation’s mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ider-grvo/[/quote]
Nah.
If someone is that dangerous, they warrant being involuntarily committed. People who have been involuntarily committed are already prohibited. It's an established process which uses due process and doesn't impact the gun rights of other people in the home (recall that Lanza used his mom's gun). All of these people had no business being out on the street.[/quote]
Disagree. This is recognition of habits way earlier than commitment level. And this isn't calling for detaining or confining people (again, it is for those cases recognized that are not commitment level), but for short term restriction of ownership. It's very logical and follows the pattern of a system that has worked fairly well (nothing is perfect) on the abuse side. Certainly an improvement, and one that would likely reduce some of the incidences.[/quote]
I like the idea but I am with USN, someone with that many issues needs to be involuntarily committed, guns are not the only way to take out other people. But keep in mind in the FL case that the family he was living with said he was a fine person and showed no signs at home, they did not know about all his stuff that was out there....so it would not have stopped the FL shooter[/quote]
That's it. It potentially could have. The info from the person that reported him to the local FBI would certainly have been enough to at least get a hearing from what I gather.[/quote]
if the FBI actually did their job, good luck with that[/quote]So your evaluation of the entirety of the FBI is based on this one mistake on their part. Wow. They are an incredibly good organization down thru the rank and file. To say or think otherwise is nonsense.[/quote]
I am basing my current opinion on the fact they tried to change our election of a prez and the new fact that they were specifically warned about the FL moron ONE MONTH AGO and failed miserably...so yea, my opinion of them is pretty low at the moment. If you think otherwise then that is super for you
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
USN brings up a great point, are you talking about taking every weapon in the residence...what is your plan if somebody else owns them? What if it is the parents weapons? OR for someone over 18 what if it is a roommates weapons? Possible scenario: The GRVO is put in place and all the weapons in the residence are taken.... the ex boyfriend of the persons roommate finds out and murders the ex girlfriend roommate (cuz the ability to defend herself is gone). Commit the person that is the issue and nobody else affected133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept
Your last statement is totally false, many ways to mass murder beside an AR-15.... and that statement will only be true if the person has zero ability to buy another one (some criminals will buy guns illegally)133743Hokie wrote:You're fixated on commitment when a GVRO is a lesser imposition, temporarily separating them from their weapons. Much less intrusive. GVRO is LESS meddling by the government and is a less onerous responsibility for the government. Do you really want a police officer to just be able to show up at your house because your girlfriend Becky is upset with you and calked the cops for some wacko reason? C'mon, you know better. A GVRO would stop almost all of these mass murderers.USN_Hokie wrote:You make a great argument to make mental institutions great again.ElbertoHokie wrote:I think it's a good step to take. SOMETHING needs to be done. Something tangible.
As far as getting people committed vs taking their guns away, I believe getting people committed is a much tougher thing to do. Plus there has been such a big reduction in mental health facilities for years. The move to deinstitutionalize is one of the causes of a spike in the homeless populations. In the 1950's, a lot of those people would have been committed. They're not right in the head but currently, there's no where else for them to go but the mean streets.
Pushing more responsibility on that part of government(mental institutions whether state or federal) doesn't seem to be the proper way to me. Intuitively, I feel like confining someone against their will versus removing their right to bear arms, even on a temporary basis, is a much harsher treatment and should require more evidence. I know the constitution may not see either differently but my moral compass does.
A couple points:
1. As a society, we concede that there are some adults who don't possess the mental facilities to operate safely in public (both their safety and others). So, your opening argument is false. We just disagree on what the threshold should be. I think that someone who says they're going to commit mass murder and has had the cops called to his house 39 times meets that threshold.
2. Involuntary commitment could be as short as 72hrs. We're not talking about the cliche of throwing someone in a padded room for the rest of their life.
3. The process doesn't have to be hard. A police officer can refer someone for evaluation.
4. A "GVRO" wouldn't stop a Lanza. Commitment would. Or, would you infringe the rights of other gun owners in the household? Either way, it's a bad outcome.
5. It's not more responsibility for the government - we're telling them to use the process in place. A" GVRO" is far more meddling by the government. In CA, they're going to let a coworker report you and get your civil rights removed.