The article says that the judge acts when the police or a family member is concerned. It is not clear if the gun owner is involved - I’d think there would be problems with the gun being hidden if he was. So it depends on what you mean by due process. Clearly the gun is seized without anyone being convicted of anything. Just like being jailed after an arrest.
It’s interesting that Alzheimer’s sufferers are a target of the law. I wonder if those who think it fascistic also think they have a right to keep their guns. The second amendment says nothing about being mentally competent, after all.
In any case, Trump knows diddly squat about writing laws, so a federal law in this area would probably look like the state laws. And I doubt the NRA would think it is all okay if the cops went to a judge first.
The problem with comparing the current proposal and the existing laws is that the existing laws have specifics and the proposal is nebulous at best.
In CA, the gun violence restraining order law went into effect in 2016. In 2016, it was used 86 times. Generally the suspension lasts 21 days, however in 10 of the 86 incidents the seizure was extended to 1 year due to continuing ongoing circumstances. 1 year is the maximum in CA. As more agencies become aware of this tool, I expect the figures to increase.
The CA law at least purports to have a judge make the assessment, though that alone is not sufficient to satisfy due process, IMO. Obviously it doesn’t meet the federal criteria for prohibited persons and even temporary seizure would not be supportable ex parte. I don’t know if anyone has litigated this issue as standing could be a barrier. There are a lot of details that vary by state, such as the standard of evidence required (preponderance, clear and convincing), the length of time the orders are in effect, whether the hearings are ex parte, who holds the firearms during the prohibition period, etc.
I’m not arguing that Trump’s raw proposal is Constitutional. It seems that tons of his raw proposals aren’t. But the basic idea has been implemented. Not clear how effective the laws have been, but they seem to be Constitutional.
Only WillFarnaby can tell us if a judge being involved makes it non-fascistic.
Don’t be silly, Stranger. Of course WillFarnaby is using an idiosyncratic definition of ‘fascist’, which he won’t share with you, but he will sneer at you for not using it!
I’d say that if brown shirts are making the decisions, then it’s definitely fascistic. (But to be clear, that’s not the proposal).
If due process, which comes in second, can be circumvented via repeated confiscations by the cops, yeah that’s authoritarian.
Things become fascist when the executive branch gets to apply the law unevenly on their whim, especially when the target is large commercial entities. This proposal only qualifies on the first part, uneven application by a nonjudicial actor subject to hierarchical authority. Not quite fascist, but on the road.
Weird but unlikely. Trump’s proposal won’t move in Congress. Anything that passes this GOP congress would be signed by a President of either party. Nor does Trump use the bully pulpit effectively to push for concrete proposals: he gets tripped up on policy details and even broad-brushed outlines. Furthermore, nobody in his administration will bother to coach him on this subject: it’s not worth the effort and none support gun control in any fashion anyway.
Does Trump need Congress to enact seizure without due process when he has Homeland Security, given the absurdly wide definition of that term? I’m sure an executive order would be enforced without regard for race, religion or immigration status.
I’m happy to hear Trump say this. But it’s not because I think it has a chance of happening: It doesn’t. Literally everyone else in government, including both parties in Congress and every level of the courts, would oppose it. And it’s not because I’d like to see it happen: I don’t. I’d like to see more gun control, but this is the wrong way to do it.
No, I’m happy to hear Trump say this because it might, just might, convince a little more of the electorate, and of the body of politicians in power, that Trump is a dangerous, unstable idiot. And the sooner the nation as a whole comes to that realization, the better. Far better for them to realize it from his idiotic ideas that he can’t put into action, than they they do so from idiotic ideas that he can.
The gov. has no problem taking away money from people they think are drug dealers and there is no due process there. They take the money even when nobody is charged with a crime. Never heard of a court ruling against that , at least so far.
It’s seizing property(it’s not just money that gets taken) without due process.
The police should at least have to prove the money(or other property) was ill-gotten gains.
There are legitimate reasons for people to have fairly large amounts of cash on their person.
“Gun violence restraining orders” have a disturbing amount of support, some in both parties. I wish you were right that “Literally everyone else in government, including both parties in Congress and every level of the courts, would oppose it”, but many seem to be on board with the idea of “take the guns first, due process second”.