"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