Up next:
"If you are worried so much about gun deaths of children, why have you not donated every penny you have to child leukemia research? Huh? Huh? Do you hate children?
The law to which you refer is not controversial because of any mental health provision, but because of how easy it is for someone to lose a fundamental right:
“…the law will allow a family member, a roommate or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily seize a person’s firearms if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others.” “The law is meant to be used only in the most extreme cases, but critics believe it will allow for guns to be taken based on a false accusation.”
Maybe you did not read the article.
See what I mean?
The problem is that the article gives a very poor sense of how the law works. If we were to simply read the section you quoted, it might sound unreasonable, but there are some problems with that quote. Firstly, it is basically repeating the position taken by the law’s opponents. Secondly, and more importantly, it fails to properly explain the actual mechanisms that the law puts in place.
The critics from your article make it sound like you can just have someone’s guns taken away by making a false or unfounded claim, without any mechanism for review, but that’s not how the law works. I’ve read both the bill summary and the full text (PDF), and there are a series of steps involved, and this is not something that can happen on a mere whim. Here’s my quick and dirty summary of how it works, based on reading the actual law.
The petitioner seeking to have another person’s guns removed has to swear out an affidavit, under oath and subject to penalties for perjury, regarding the reasons for removing the firearms.
There is an initial hearing, which is supposed to happen on the same day, or on the first day the court is open, at which the court is required to hear any evidence the petitioner has regarding the claim that the person is a danger to self or others and should have his or her guns removed.
If the court finds, “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the person “poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others,” it will issue a temporary order to remove the weapons.
Within 14 days of this temporary order, the court is required to hold a second hearing to determine whether the temporary order should be extended to one year.
At this subsequent hearing, if the court finds “by clear and convincing evidence” that the person “poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others,” it will issue a one-year (or, actually 364-day) order. The criteria the court can consider in making this evaluation are listed in the law, and are reasonably extensive. You can’t just roll up to court and say, “Well, judge, he seems a bit sketchy to me, so I don’t think he should have a gun.” The respondent (i.e., the person whose guns are being removed) also has a right to attend this hearing with a lawyer, and to present evidence in his or her defense, and to cross-examine any witnesses.
If the one-year order is issued, there is a mechanism for the respondent to ask for early termination during the period of the order. There is also a mechanism to issue subsequent one-year orders if the person is found to still represent a risk after one year.
The law is 26 pages long, and there are obviously a bunch of details that I can’t summarize in a few short paragraphs. If you want to see the evidence the court can consider in deciding whether to grant the one-year order, go to page 9 of the law.
I’m not arguing that there’s no risk of abuse here, that there’s no risk of guns being taken based on false accusations. But if that is the criterion by which we reject a law, then we would have no laws at all. I can pose a threat to your very freedom by accusing you or something that you didn’t do. If I accuse you of a crime, you might end up spending some time in jail even if the charges are eventually dropped, or if you are found “not guilty” in court.
Now, this case is a little different because, unlike a criminal trial, these hearings only require “the preponderance of the evidence” (first hearing) or “clear and convincing evidence” (second hearing) that you posed a danger, rather than the stricter “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of a criminal trial. But the fact that the standard is somewhat lower doesn’t mean that there’s no standard at all, or that false accusations will be easy and routine. The law itself contains a mechanism by which a person who files a “malicious or false petition” can be “subject to criminal prosecution.”
I don’t know if this law is the answer, and it’s possible that it will result in some problematic cases, but I know that I’m not going to reject it outright based solely on the complaints outlined in that article. Too many gun-rights advocates have cried wolf too many times on reasonable gun regulation for me to take their word at face value.
Which is exactly the burden of proof needed in some states to label someone a child abuser and take their children away. Which is clearly in the best interests of everyone involved. But I don’t hear too many complaints about that.
But, dear god, try to take some unstable person’s gun…
I see that you are full of shit, since the word “mental” is mentioned once at the very end of the article in the context of sheriffs agreeing with that part of the law.
True. The rest of your post is close to how I think, except your last paragraph, and I appreciate the cites and summary.
False accusations of child abuse are NOT in the best interests of everyone involved, and it does happen. The question is the same as trying “to take some unstable person’s gun…”, what should the burden of proof be to deprive people of their fundamental rights?
True, but it’s a vanishingly small problem when compared to the incidence of child abuse.
Temporarily, while it’s sorted out? The preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. If “clear and convincing evidence” cannot be shown afterward, then rights are restored, as they should be.
I don’t disagree.
Father of the year:
Michigan father intentionally shot son, 2, in face with shotgun: prosecutors
I’m sure he’ll feel bad for the rest of his life, so no sense in sending him to jail :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’ve fired various handguns, rifles, and shotguns of different makes and models. Never have I had one malfunction. 
You’ve probably always remembered to load them first.
Mercifully, he appears to be almost as bad at maintaining his guns as he is at being a human being.
Speaking of gun news, haven’t seen many posts lately in the “Positive Gun News” thread. With the millions of DGU every year, seems like there would be hundreds of stories each day!
School employee’s gun accidentally goes off, grazes student.
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/st-josaphat-parish-school-employee-arrested-after-gun-goes-off-in-school?
The school covered up the incident, and nothing comes of it.
The article says the guy was fired, and police are going to press charges. At least that’s something.
They are pressing charges against the employee that brought the gun, not the school that covered up the incident.
Yeah, I get that. But how do you charge a school with something?
You charge the officials involved in the cover-up, not the school. :smack: