Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Anti-gunner Trump

So, a person is entitled to a preliminary hearing or grand jury indictment before they can be arrested?

Warrants constitute due process for arrest. Arrests under certain circumstances prior to due process have been part of American jurisprudence from the beginning, e.g., you see someone commit a felony. Trump, it would seem, is talking about backing up the police van to your house and confiscating your firearms based on someone believing you're unstable, then arranging for a hearing on the matter at some later date. That doesn't equate to an arrest based on probable cause. That's a taking without due process. Apples and oranges.

Trump's proposal sounds more like civil forfieture and likely has the same potential for abuse. My thoughts are that Trump will walk this proposal back due the brewing backlash of a storm on the horizon. The momentum to pass something is here, but I don't believe this is it.

An arrest can be made upon probable cause, without waiting for a warrant. If a LEO has probable cause that a crime has been committed, he can make the arrest, and comport with the principles of due process.

The LEO don't hafta get a warrant, nor anybody's permission, and it's completely constitutional.

And, that ain't to take your guns, it's to take your whole Hawkeye ta jail.

And keep ya there.

Even without bail, for a period of time. Or even tellin ya why you're locked up.

And it's constitutional, according to the Superme Court, *right now*. This very minute.

So, the Fifth Amend can be constitutionally complied with, by arrestin some Hawkeye that desperately needs it, upon probable cause.

Immediately.

Constitutionally.

You, it would seem, would let a Cruz shoot up a school, while in a faraway court, somebody mulls over whether or not ta stop him.

Your analysis is absurd. First you restate what I already said, then suggest it's the same as backing up a police van to someone's house and taking their stuff based on someone's arbitrary judgment of their mental state. It's not. You can pretend apples are oranges to your heart's content, though.

It's gettin pretty bad, when *you* don't even know what *you* posted.

You are bitchin cause you don't believe government action, without prior due process, in seizing someone's firearms, comports with the constitution.

I've pointed out that government can, right now and constitutionally, seize your whole person, upon probable cause and without prior due process.

Obviously, if your entire person can be seized, your property, a lesser interest, can also be seized, upon probable cause.

To break it down even further, if a LEO has probable cause that your firearm was used in the commission of a crime, they can seize that firearm from you, right that instant.

Without a warrant or court process.

And it's constitutional.

Right now.

I've already disposed of this same nonsense. Reread my prior post.

You're too stupid to argue with.

Reread your first grade primer.

Trump did say all of the things you guys are worried about. It was really hard to watch.

But the one consistent thing about Trump is that he is easily walked back from positions like this (anti-guns) once it is explained to him how it will hurt him with his base. His campaign was given 30 million dollars from the NRA and once he does the math on this he isn't going to follow though on any of this anti-gun nonsense he spewed in that meeting.

It sounded really bad, but nothing will change. Or at least he won't be the cause of any change that happens.

What was the high point of not only Obama's first but also second term when it comes the 2nd-remember now, he would have if he could have-the economy. i.e. the market and getting more people working, individual savings, health care? Perhaps 2014 when you could legally grow weed in Oregon. Yea that has to be it.

I've written the White House 3 times. My congressman and Senators twice. I have also written Senators Cruz, and Paul to get someone to educate the President and I have written Toomey to call him out for the lie he told the President today. What have you done?

What he is talking about is an emergency ex parte protective order. An affidavit containing certain facts that must meet certain minimum standards and a petition for the order is presented ex parte to the judge. If he grants the order, then the firearms would be confiscated and a hearing MUST be held within fourteen days to determine if the protective order will be extended and granted from that point. That is how it works.

Cordin to The Real Browneye, that's unconstitutional.

Fu-Butt-head, again, apples and oranges. Why can't you get this? What's the mental block you're experiencing?

Of course it's lawful to arrest someone who presents as a danger to himself or others, prior to the actual hearing. That's not the same as collecting someone's firearms prior to a hearing based on someone's arbitrary judgment about his stability. Arrest based on probable cause isn't the same thing as what Trump seemed to be referring to (based on the quote I was commenting on), i.e., simple confiscation followed by due process later.

If it's constitutional to arrest a person, based upon probable cause, it's constitutional to arrest their firearms, based upon probable cause.

You're trying to BS your way outta your stupid statements by imputing your BS interpretation of what President Trump "seemed to be saying".

Then, you compound the BS by throwin in: "based on someone's arbitrary judgment". That's neither been stated nor implied anywhere.

The problem is, you're believing what you *think*. Don't ever do that.

It is now, and has been for decades, legal to seize a person's property, based upon probable cause.

Simple confiscation, based upon probable cause, followed by due process later.

It's the way it is now, and the way it's gonna be in the future.

The notion of backing up the police van and collecting Fu-Butt-Head's guns because someone at the police station didn't like his posts on the Fire isn't what most of us Trump supporters expected to hear him advocate. If that's what you advocate, just come out and say so.

I'm hoping he didn't mean what it sounds like he meant.

California, Connecticut, Indiana Washington, Oregon..., already have statutes allowing temporary seizure of weapons
if a judge deems the person a threat to themselves and/or others.

example, Oregon:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB719

in brief...

a judge will consider the following forms of evidence:

A written affidavit or oral statement made under oath by the person making the request
A history of suicide attempts or threats, or violence against others
A history of attempted, threatened, or actual use of physical force against others
Any previous convictions for: misdemeanor violence, stalking, domestic violence, driving under the influence, animal cruelty
Evidence of recent illicit drug abuse
Previous reckless or illegal use, brandishing or display of a deadly weapon
Evidence of having acquired or attempted to acquire a deadly weapon within the past six months

If the request is successful, the judge issues the order, which applies for one year. The subject of the order has 24 hours to hand in any firearms
or gun license they may possess, either to a law enforcement agent or licensed gun dealer. Law enforcement officials are also authorized to
confiscate such firearms. For the next twelve months, the subject of the order cannot legally buy, possess, or attempt to buy or possess any firearm.
They have 30 days in which to apply for a hearing to overturn the order, and such a hearing must take place within 21 days of their request.

2011 Connecticut Code:

Title 29 Public Safety and State Police
Chapter 529 Division of State Police
Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others.

Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others. (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 18.)

Subsec. (d):

No clear and convincing evidence defendant posed a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or others. 50 CS 246.

FOX News just now reported that Trump will take Executive Action today to:

1. Expand DHS Test Program to prevent school violence
2. Require Fixes to FBI Tipster Program
3. Take Weapons from someone who threatens an attack on schools
4. Grants for Training for Schools so they can Train & Arm School Faculty

I’m fine with that.