Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by USN_Hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.
Here in Virginia involuntary commitment is extremely hard to do if a person is an adult. If the person refuses to be committed then there isn't much anybody can do.

HIPAA laws and legislation protecting the rights of people with mental issues (even those who pose a danger) have made even judges very leery of issuing orders.
I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?
No, a GVRO is not necessarily made on the basis of mental health. It is based on the provable evidence of threat and danger.
Not necessarily? Is it, or isn't it? Looking at the CA version, no "provable evidence " is required at all! All it takes is a family member, room mate, former room mate, or (now), a coworker complaint to have your guns taken away.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Again - if someone is really that dangerous, why aren't they committed for evaluation? The involuntary commitment - even if only held for a day - bars them from ownership until a judge adjudicates otherwise.
Here in Virginia involuntary commitment is extremely hard to do if a person is an adult. If the person refuses to be committed then there isn't much anybody can do.

HIPAA laws and legislation protecting the rights of people with mental issues (even those who pose a danger) have made even judges very leery of issuing orders.
I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?
No, a GVRO is not necessarily made on the basis of mental health. It is based on the provable evidence of threat and danger.
Not necessarily? Is it, or isn't it? Looking at the CA version, no "provable evidence " is required at all! All it takes is a family member, room mate, former room mate, or (now), a coworker complaint to have your guns taken away.
Look at the bullet points in the article. This isn't replicating California . The authors proposal requires substantial, provable evidence.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by USN_Hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.
I'm asking for a trained mental health professional to provide a recommendation to a judge before someone's rights are taken away - you are asking for a screen shot from an ex girlfriend. Pretty sure I'm on the higher ground here.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by HokieJoe »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:I'm not up to date on VA laws. My understanding is that in many states, a police officer can refer someone for mental evaluation. Let's say it is hard - why not fix that instead of making more laws? A GVRO is still made on the basis of mental health, is it not? So, why should HIPAA not still be in play?

At what point do we say "yeah that person can't be trusted to not go on a murdering spree, but let's leave him on the street?"

I think the mental health system in this country is in complete disrepair. We take people who are a danger to themselves and others....then send them home with a cocktail of drugs to maintain their sanity? Why?
The ACLU has made it almost impossible to even touch mental issues...unless a person has shot up a house or something first.

Yes the police "can" refer a person but the police, because of these rulings from the courts, are extremely hesitant to get involved. The "old" days of the cops picking up a person of being "nuts" and taking them to a mental health facility ended in 1999. The specter of a civil rights civil suit against the department is daunting.
I agree that the ACLU has been a problem here and one of my arguments has always been that HIPAA needs reform. GVRO's are still, at their core, a mental health issue - are they not?

It's a catch 22: either the basis for a GVRO is mental health, in which case all these issues you mention for involuntary commitment are still in play - or the basis for denying someone their civil rights is a determination of the mental facilities without any mental evaluation?

We're not talking about denying someone's rights based on a tweet or youtube comment, are we? I'm fine with that being the basis for an involuntary evaluation, but I'm not fine with someone losing their rights solely on that basis. It's a dangerous precedent.
I agree re HIPAA reform. Single payer will take care of a lot of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not really. Client confidentially and information sharing is relevant for public entities as well.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by HokieJoe »

133743Hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.
The GVRO requires tangible, provable evidence. Not supposition or belief or feelings.

Laws are never changed then? Not buying it. USN is right IMO. This is not the path to take. We need new laws which lock up crazy asses.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.
I'm asking for a trained mental health professional to provide a recommendation to a judge before someone's rights are taken away - you are asking for a screen shot from an ex girlfriend. Pretty sure I'm on the higher ground here.
The GVRO is the same in requiring tangible proof about legitimate threats/dangers to a judge before someone's gun rights are temporarily suspended. You certainly aren't on higher ground. You can make quips about disgruntled girlfriends and the like to try and deflect from the reality of what's being discussed, but it doesn't make you any more right.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

HokieJoe wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.
The GVRO requires tangible, provable evidence. Not supposition or belief or feelings.

Laws are never changed then? Not buying it. USN is right IMO. This is not the path to take. We need new laws which lock up crazy asses.
Never gonna happen. The country has moved the other direction for the past 20 years.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by USN_Hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.
I'm asking for a trained mental health professional to provide a recommendation to a judge before someone's rights are taken away - you are asking for a screen shot from an ex girlfriend. Pretty sure I'm on the higher ground here.
The GVRO is the same in requiring tangible proof about legitimate threats/dangers to a judge before someone's gun rights are temporarily suspended. You certainly aren't on higher ground. You can make quips about disgruntled girlfriends and the like to try and deflect from the reality of what's being discussed, but it doesn't make you any more right.
No it isn't. It's an evaluation of someone's mental health (that's really what this is) without any evaluation by a mental health professional. Instead of established testing procedures by a medical professional, you have a judge looking at screen shots from a computer which may or may not have been created by you. You're solving all the pesky HIPAA issues by not looking at medical evidence.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26371
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by HokieHam »

Notice The Unusuals are absent in this thread from a good discussion on soemthing that might lead to a possible remedy. Except for ip trolling for his glorified single payer disaster.

Their thought process is so immature it’s sad......like spoiled kids.

Everything I don’t like should be illegal, but everything I like should be fine.
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by RiverguyVT »

It is an interesting concept...
Until

Until we see several people petition to have a guy’s guns taken, and then they attack him.

Not to go all CW, but.. a guy simply accused of domestic violence can have his guns taken away. When wandering wife’s boyfriend comes around, then what? And that’s how it already is, now.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by awesome guy »

I'm not a fan of "trained professionals" dictating anyone's liberty. That's another path for abuse from another agent of the deep state.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.
I'm asking for a trained mental health professional to provide a recommendation to a judge before someone's rights are taken away - you are asking for a screen shot from an ex girlfriend. Pretty sure I'm on the higher ground here.
The GVRO is the same in requiring tangible proof about legitimate threats/dangers to a judge before someone's gun rights are temporarily suspended. You certainly aren't on higher ground. You can make quips about disgruntled girlfriends and the like to try and deflect from the reality of what's being discussed, but it doesn't make you any more right.
No it isn't. It's an evaluation of someone's mental health (that's really what this is) without any evaluation by a mental health professional. Instead of established testing procedures by a medical professional, you have a judge looking at screen shots from a computer which may or may not have been created by you. You're solving all the pesky HIPAA issues by not looking at medical evidence.
I'll type slowly so maybe you can grasp the difference here. The GVRO isn't about mental health. It doesn't require evaluation by mental health professionals. It is solely about someone being a dangerous threat as evidenced by tangible, factual, obtainable evidence presented to a judge for adjudication. Again, nothing to do with mental health.

But we're talking past each other. I'm not gonna change your mind and you aren't gonna change mine. Time to move on.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by USN_Hokie »

133743Hokie wrote: I'll type slowly so maybe you can grasp the difference here. The GVRO isn't about mental health. It doesn't require evaluation by mental health professionals. It is solely about someone being a dangerous threat as evidenced by tangible, factual, obtainable evidence presented to a judge for adjudication. Again, nothing to do with mental health.

But we're talking past each other. I'm not gonna change your mind and you aren't gonna change mine. Time to move on.
Umm...you're supposed to say read slowly. How does typing slowly do anything? :lol: :roll:

Evaluating whether someone is a threat to themselves or others is necessarily an evaluation of their mental health. We have mental health professionals who are trained to diagnose people. You want to skip all that and use screen shots by his ex-girlfriend Becky who is pissed because you're now dating her best friend.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by HokieJoe »

133743Hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:I see a big issue with soon to be ex-spouses, or ex-spouses. Protective orders are handed out like candy during divorce and custody proceedings. Many times, they're not valid, because they're obtainment is intended as a legal maneuver or taken out of of pure spite.
The GVRO requires tangible, provable evidence. Not supposition or belief or feelings.

Laws are never changed then? Not buying it. USN is right IMO. This is not the path to take. We need new laws which lock up crazy asses.
Never gonna happen. The country has moved the other direction for the past 20 years.

No, special interest groups have tangled up the court systems with shitty legal cases and bad science. The public is a different matter and are amenable to a different narrative.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by cwtcr hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
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/
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.
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.
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
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by TheH2 »

RiverguyVT wrote:It is an interesting concept...
Until

Until we see several people petition to have a guy’s guns taken, and then they attack him.

Not to go all CW, but.. a guy simply accused of domestic violence can have his guns taken away. When wandering wife’s boyfriend comes around, then what? And that’s how it already is, now.
That was actually my first thought. I like the idea though. Presumably the law would work both ways. You think I'm unstable, FU, you're unstable. The the judge goes reverse oprah on them, you don't get a gun and you don't get a gun.....

Oprah seemed topical given her presidential run that I couldn't resist making a joke that wasn't funny. My apologies.
People who know, know.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by RiverguyVT »

TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:It is an interesting concept...
Until

Until we see several people petition to have a guy’s guns taken, and then they attack him.

Not to go all CW, but.. a guy simply accused of domestic violence can have his guns taken away. When wandering wife’s boyfriend comes around, then what? And that’s how it already is, now.
That was actually my first thought. I like the idea though. Presumably the law would work both ways. You think I'm unstable, FU, you're unstable. The the judge goes reverse oprah on them, you don't get a gun and you don't get a gun.....

Oprah seemed topical given her presidential run that I couldn't resist making a joke that wasn't funny. My apologies.
+1 8-)
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by BigDave »

USN_Hokie wrote: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.
A problem with that (and it's good in theory) is that I may not have the heart to have my close family member locked up (even if I think he/she needs it), but I'm much more likely to be willing to try to get their guns removed.

If I have, say, a senile parent who is constantly waving guns around and shouldn't be left alone, maybe I'm willing to babysit them so that they don't have to be institutionalized, but just because they're able to stay at home doesn't mean they should have guns.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by cwtcr hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: Sure.

Again, though - can anyone tell me that Cho, Lanza, the jackass in Florida, etc. should not have been committed?

Would a "Gun Violence Restraining Order" have stopped Lanza? The answer is NO.

It also begins a slippery slope towards gun registration seeing as how a private transferee wouldn't know about a "GVRO." Obviously, the next step would be to ban private transfers, which would require registration in order to determine if a gun had been illegally transferred.

In short, there's already a system in place and it would work better - people just need to use it! If someone is so dangerous, they should be involuntarily committed for evaluation to determine if they're a danger to themselves or others. Don't move that determination to an angry spouse or a political system which wants any reason to disarm the public.

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.
If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.
the reality is in this day and age you have to do SOMETHING to get the cops or mental people involved, no lawyer is going to let you suggest that someone is mental, not happening today
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by cwtcr hokie »

Based on pre-shooting behavior and not 20/20 hindsight, from what I've seen there wasn't enough to have them committed. Being odd and quirky isn't the ticket. The GVRO requires tangible proof of threats and dangers, not supposition. I find it interesting that you love your gun rights but are quick to commit (lock people up) for odd behavior. I would expect such a harsh 2A advocate as you would have a little more sympathy and understanding for personal freedom. I guess some freedoms are more equal than others.[/quote]

If you want to argue that people in a mental state where committing mass murder of defenseless kids shouldn't be removed from society for treatment, that's an argument I'd welcome. I sure as hell wouldn't want to defend that.

Ironically, you chastise me for supporting court-ordered mental evaluations for crazy folks while you endorse removing someone's civil rights based on a "threat" (danger is implied if they own guns). I'm pretty sure that I stand on higher ground from a personal freedom perspective.[/quote]
No, you're calling for court ordered evaluation (actually commitment) based on odd behavior, not necessarily mental derangement. And yes, I'm calling for a temporary suspension of someone's 2A rights if it has been proven that they pose a legitimate violent threat to do harm with a weapon. FYI it's the threat of imminent danger, not ownership of weapons, that's the trigger. I believe I'm standing a few terraces higher than you on that mountain.[/quote]

I'm asking for a trained mental health professional to provide a recommendation to a judge before someone's rights are taken away - you are asking for a screen shot from an ex girlfriend. Pretty sure I'm on the higher ground here.[/quote]
The GVRO is the same in requiring tangible proof about legitimate threats/dangers to a judge before someone's gun rights are temporarily suspended. You certainly aren't on higher ground. You can make quips about disgruntled girlfriends and the like to try and deflect from the reality of what's being discussed, but it doesn't make you any more right.[/quote]

No it isn't. It's an evaluation of someone's mental health (that's really what this is) without any evaluation by a mental health professional. Instead of established testing procedures by a medical professional, you have a judge looking at screen shots from a computer which may or may not have been created by you. You're solving all the pesky HIPAA issues by not looking at medical evidence.[/quote]
I'll type slowly so maybe you can grasp the difference here. The GVRO isn't about mental health. It doesn't require evaluation by mental health professionals. It is solely about someone being a dangerous threat as evidenced by tangible, factual, obtainable evidence presented to a judge for adjudication. Again, nothing to do with mental health.

But we're talking past each other. I'm not gonna change your mind and you aren't gonna change mine. Time to move on.[/quote]

USN is correct that the system could be gamed very easily, see protective orders in domestic cases. It only takes evidence from one side to get one and that evidence can be easily made up. The other fault with the GVRO is you leave the person that you beleive is a danger in the public....so that person just figures out another way to strike out at the target....there are plenty of other ways to hurt or kill other people than with a firearm. He is saying you have a professional evaluate them, of course the fault there is you are restraining them so many will have an issue with that but the person can easily fool the evaluator.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by cwtcr hokie »

BigDave wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: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.
A problem with that (and it's good in theory) is that I may not have the heart to have my close family member locked up (even if I think he/she needs it), but I'm much more likely to be willing to try to get their guns removed.

If I have, say, a senile parent who is constantly waving guns around and shouldn't be left alone, maybe I'm willing to babysit them so that they don't have to be institutionalized, but just because they're able to stay at home doesn't mean they should have guns.
you would not need a court order to take guns away from elderly parents, same as stopping them from driving
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by 133743Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by USN_Hokie »

BigDave wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: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.
A problem with that (and it's good in theory) is that I may not have the heart to have my close family member locked up (even if I think he/she needs it), but I'm much more likely to be willing to try to get their guns removed.

If I have, say, a senile parent who is constantly waving guns around and shouldn't be left alone, maybe I'm willing to babysit them so that they don't have to be institutionalized, but just because they're able to stay at home doesn't mean they should have guns.
Fair point. Remember that we're not talking about locking little Jimmy up in a padded cell for the rest of his life. If you are involuntarily committed for even a few days, I do believe that is a disqualifier unless you're reevaluated and appeal.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Gun Violence Restraining Orders - an interesting concept

Post by cwtcr hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
if the FBI actually did their job, good luck with that
Post Reply