Trump and His Supporters Have Blood On Their Hands For Mass Shootings

[grean]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Anyone ever notice this guy is on one side then the other?

What do you mean?

[grean]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, you are!

The law IS: "Take the guns. Then go to the courts!"

If you read Chapter 59 you didn't understand it.

That's essentially (not in those specific words) what it says!

So does the Federal statute.

In fact if the "gun" is "evidence" in a case they can't get it back if at all until the case is OVER (including appeals!).

Like I suggested gently to you: Please don't try to lecture me on property forfeitures by LE, in Federal system or Texas.

59 says

May seize contraband if 1) used in or intended to be used in the commission of a crime, or 2) gained from crime or 3) used to facilitate the commission of a crime.

A crime here being a felony or class A misdemeanor.

What you're saying is on a whim, police can basically take property for any reason.

The police cannot seize a house because the neighbors call in a noice complaint.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by grean

Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. He is a parrot as well changing his argument to satisfy who ever is in front of him.

I misunderstood this post, sorry.

[canuckeight]

The good news about this post is that SissyChump is NYC bound. Texas is looking better by the day.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by grean

Trump said the very opposite of that.

What you just said would have to go through the courts.
In order to be prohibited, even temporarily , would require a court order first.

Trump said "Take the guns. Then go to the courts"

He is fucking imbecile of epic magnitude.

Grean, if you havent already realized this, you will soon

Lex knows something about everything. The law, construction, design, education, politics, grammar, the military. You name the subject, Lex knows!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would say neither on this topic. He's right on the law.

The discussion is whether to implement a "mental health" element to the equation so that LE can remove a weapon from the possession of someone who has had a "mental illness" determination in the past. It's a matter of "probable cause" as to the condition. And that is a problem for me.

I've already "gone on record" I oppose a "mental health" condition as being a basis of prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm. And that is primarily because of the vague definition of "mental illness" and the fact that some conditions are controllable by medications or even other therapy. It's too easy for a revengeful person to paint someone with that kind of tattoo.

Well if it ever comes down to it that police can confiscate a gun by virtue of anyone's mental status they need to take their keys and put their car on a hook too. That's of course if they can define Mental Illness and how it would relate to gun violence.

Jim

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by themystic

Grean, if you havent already realized this, you will soon

Lex knows something about everything. The law, construction, design, education, politics, grammar, the military. You name the subject, Lex knows!

He forgets more than you will ever know.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well if it ever comes down to it that police can confiscate a gun by virtue of anyone's mental status they need to take their keys and put their car on a hook too. That's of course if they can define Mental Illness and how it would relate to gun violence.

Jim

Really, that's "the first main battle." My understanding is CA has a law already on the books and enforced. You don't get your guns back if you are judged sane either.

It's funny how the progressive "words have meaning" crowd will insist on their mental competency definition yet they can't correctly define phrases like "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle."

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Really, that's "the first main battle." My understanding is CA has a law already on the books and enforced. You don't get your guns back if you are judged sane either.

It's funny how the progressive "words have meaning" crowd will insist on their mental competency definition yet they can't correctly define phrases like "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle."

Words definitely have meaning. It's too bad Liberals don't have idea of the meaning of words. What's the so called mental illness they always blame for a mass shooting? It's the big "D" Depression, which is total bullshit. People with clinical depression can hardly get out of bed less go kill a bunch of people. If anything they kill themselves by Hanging, Drug Overdose and of course shooting themselves. Another one is Anxiety/ panic Attacks that's another joke there is no significant clinical statistical data that show people with Anxiety or Panic disorder are more prone to violence or have Homicidal tendencies than the rest of the population. The only reason the left may use those words in reference to mental illness is because they are common words most people are familiar with. Hell they need to ban some of these hideous psychotropic medications that cause bizzar behavior. They are worried about guns instead of medications that cause more problems than they help.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

What you're saying is on a whim, police can basically take property for any reason.

No, I'm not "saying" that, so quit changing what I post to appear correct or more informed on the subject. Ch 59 requires "probable cause" to be proven by LE that confiscates the weapon .... but the proof by LE is submitted to a judge AFTER the property is confiscated. As a result ...

..Trump is correct on the law when he says:

Grab the gun and then give Due process.

Don't change the subject: Guns. They were discussing the "mental health" addition to prohibition to have firearms. Let me repeat.... FIREARMS!

Here's what activates the "due process" ....

Art. 59.02. FORFEITURE OF CONTRABAND. (a) Property that is contraband is subject to seizure and forfeiture under this chapter.

Art. 59.03. SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND. (a) Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter, other than property described by Article 59.12, may be seized by any peace officer under authority of a search warrant.

(b) Seizure of property subject to forfeiture may be made without warrant if:

(1) the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the property knowingly consents;

(2) the seizure is incident to a search to which the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the property knowingly consents;

(3) the property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the state in a forfeiture proceeding under this chapter; or

(4) the seizure was incident to a lawful arrest, lawful search, or lawful search incident to arrest.

As I said, if the Feds or State make it unlawful for someone with a court ordered finding of mental health problems to possess a firearm and that person is found with a firearm then the officer may confiscate the firearm found during "A SEARCH" of that person and/or the vehicle or house in which that person is found.

The only requirement is that the search must be "lawful," which means with probable cause and within the area authorized by the purpose of the search.

It does not say the arrest must be for a felony.

[grean]

As I said, if the Feds or State make it unlawful for someone with a COURT ordered finding of mental health problems to possess a firearm and that person is found with a firearm THEN the officer may confiscate the firearm found during "A SEARCH" of that person and/or the vehicle or house in which that person is found.

The only requirement is that the search must be "lawful," which means with probable cause and within the area authorized by the purpose of the search.

It does not say the arrest must be for a felony.[/QUOTE]


You are saying what is correct, but still keep denying that Trump doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are mixing two things. 59 has nothing to do with the above scenario and yes, 59 does require evidence that a crime of a felony degree is at least being planned to be committed.

In the above scenario, The COURT makes a judgement. (That place where due process is given)

THEN, as in after that, next, subsequently, etc.

Police may confiscate. Not BEFORE.

Trump said go to the court AFTER.

There is no wiggle room there.

A TRO is ex parte but somebody had to go to a judge and convince him/her it is needed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by grean

You are saying what is correct, but still keep denying that Trump doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are mixing two things. 59 has nothing to do with the above scenario and yes, 59 does require evidence that a crime of a felony degree is at least being planned to be committed.

Wait! You're telling me my interpretation and application of 59 is correct? But you are saying 59 doesn't have anything to do with confiscation of a firearm from someone who has mental problems?

I guess the question is begged ... how many forfeiture cases have you "handled" or even have any personal experience with the process and/or outcome?

I would venture a guess based on general "observations" that next to the unmentionable subject matter on this blog site that firearms are the most frequently confiscated category of item ... with cash right up there.

Most of the time citizens negotiate a plea based on giving up the property or a part thereof (unmentionable excepted because it's evidence!). The argument is ... did the LE have PC to take it.

There is no "etched in stone" argument on going that the person must have a court ordered finding that they have a "mental illness," but right now the issue is a "Red Flag" provision, which I heard California has in place, and perhaps some other states.

The result is like getting on a "no fly" list. Easy to get on, but hell to get off. That's what will happen with "mental health concerns"!

Look at what is happening with the sexual harassment allegations, the sexual assault allegations, and the witch hunt with the Russian "collusion" bullshit. Look what happens in this forum!

Do you know how easy it is to have someone "hospitalized" for mental issues? Then there is a hearing to determine release or not. All of a sudden person is "in the system"! The person's "computer history" contains that "hospitalization" and "judicial process" and .... BANG! The officer has PC! Firearm is confiscated and Ch 59 proceeding is started!

Trump said: Confiscation then due process. That's what I described.

[themystic]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1060573669
Do you know how easy it is to have someone "hospitalized" for mental issues? Then there is a hearing to determine release or not. All of a sudden person is "in the system"! The person's "computer history" contains that "hospitalization" and "judicial process" and .... BANG! The officer has PC! Firearm is confiscated and Ch 59 proceeding is started!

You really are an idiot. Go try to get someone locked up for " mental issues". You really need to get out more old man.

Trump said: Confiscation then due process. That's what I described.[/QUOTE]

You really are an idiot. Go try to get someone locked up for " mental issues". You really need to get out more old man.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

You really are an idiot. Go try to get someone locked up for " mental issues". You really need to get out more old man.

Does calling someone an "idiot" make you feel more intelligent?

You are high on "feelings" aren't you?

Actually, I didn't post "locked up" ... YOU DID!

Which reveals more negatives and deficiencies of yours.

I posted "hospitalized" ... and yes I do. I also am familiar with how much more difficult it is to get someone "RELEASED" from a "mental health" hold. Did you know that most larger LE departments IN TEXAS have peace officers who have been qualified as "Mental Health Officers"?

I'll answer for you: NO! But be careful. With your delusional rants you might just get scooped up and hauled off to join your "brethren."

Apparently, again, more than you do! But I can understand why it might be difficult for you, because you'd be afraid they might "lock your ass up"!

Go pick some mushrooms. You're failing on here! Here's why!

OOPS!

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/HS.573.htm

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE


TITLE 7. MENTAL HEALTH AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY


SUBTITLE C. TEXAS MENTAL HEALTH CODE


CHAPTER 573. EMERGENCY DETENTION



SUBCHAPTER A. APPREHENSION BY PEACE OFFICER OR TRANSPORTATION FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION BY GUARDIAN



Sec. 573.0001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Emergency medical services personnel" and "emergency medical services provider" have the meanings assigned by Section 773.003.

(2) "Law enforcement agency" has the meaning assigned by Article 59.01, Code of Criminal Procedure.


Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 541 (S.B. 344), Sec. 1, eff. June 9, 2017.




Sec. 573.001. APPREHENSION BY PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT. (a) A peace officer, without a warrant, may take a person into custody if the officer:

(1) has reason to believe and does believe that:

(A) the person is a person with mental illness; and

(B) because of that mental illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person or to others unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(2) believes that there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before taking the person into custody.

(b) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (a)(1)(B) may be demonstrated by:

(1) the person's behavior; or

(2) evidence of severe emotional distress and deterioration in the person's mental condition to the extent that the person cannot remain at liberty.

(c) The peace officer may form the belief that the person meets the criteria for apprehension:

(1) from a representation of a credible person; or

(2) on the basis of the conduct of the apprehended person or the circumstances under which the apprehended person is found.

(d) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) shall immediately:

(1) transport the apprehended person to:

(A) the nearest appropriate inpatient mental health facility; or

(B) a mental health facility deemed suitable by the local mental health authority, if an appropriate inpatient mental health facility is not available; or

(2) transfer the apprehended person to emergency medical services personnel of an emergency medical services provider in accordance with a memorandum of understanding executed under Section 573.005 for transport to a facility described by Subdivision (1)(A) or (B).

(e) A jail or similar detention facility may not be deemed suitable except in an extreme emergency.

(f) A person detained in a jail or a nonmedical facility shall be kept separate from any person who is charged with or convicted of a crime.

(g) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) shall immediately inform the person orally in simple, nontechnical terms:

(1) of the reason for the detention; and

(2) that a staff member of the facility will inform the person of the person's rights within 24 hours after the time the person is admitted to a facility, as provided by Section 573.025(b).

(h) A peace officer who takes a person into custody under Subsection (a) may immediately seize any firearm found in possession of the person. After seizing a firearm under this subsection, the peace officer shall comply with the requirements of Article 18.191, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mistaken ... You're the gift that just keeps on GIVING!!!!

Do you see any "due process" before they are INCARCERATED and THEIR WEAPON CONFISCATED? Why do you keep coming back for me ass-whippings?

[themystic]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Does calling someone an "idiot" make you feel more intelligent?

You are high on "feelings" aren't you?

Actually, I didn't post "locked up" ... YOU DID!

Which reveals more negatives and deficiencies of yours.

I posted "hospitalized" ... and yes I do. I also am familiar with how much more difficult it is to get someone "RELEASED" from a "mental health" hold. Did you know that most larger LE departments IN TEXAS have peace officers who have been qualified as "Mental Health Officers"?

I'll answer for you: NO! But be careful. With your delusional rants you might just get scooped up and hauled off to join your "brethren."

Apparently, again, more than you do! But I can understand why it might be difficult for you, because you'd be afraid they might "lock your ass up"!

Go pick some mushrooms. You're failing on here! Here's why!

OOPS!

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/HS.573.htm



Mistaken ... You're the gift that just keeps on GIVING!!!!

Do you see any "due process" before they are INCARCERATED and THEIR WEAPON CONFISCATED? Why do you keep coming back for me ass-whippings?

Lex, youre priceless! Yes I do feel better calling you an idiot. I mean it in the most loving way

Sir KIA the Idiot