Those sons-of-ho’s
The American Bar Association is pushing state and local governments to adopt firearm confiscation laws similar to those in California.
Boy, just what we need to do is adopt something from Kali. I don’t think so.
The statement, “I will not comply.”, comes to mind.
It would certainly be an economic boondoggle for Attorneys. Think of all of the new cases to be litigated at 250 to 400 an hour.
Follow the money and to hell with your freedoms.
What, attorneys advocating policy that requires more work from the legal system? #Cashcow.
#go to hell american boar association
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Law schools churn out thousands of indoctrinated liberal/progressive lawyers every year. There are too many of them, and they need to generate business by thinking up new ways to infringe on our rights. Not all of them, but most of them. They are certainly the enemy of freedom, and are often statists, and globalists.
Ironic that lawyers are recommending policies that don’t have due process of law. :mad:
Strong, the hubris is.
I’ve got a great idea, I live in Texas so why don’t we let the California Lawyers start at the front end of my block. Bring about two hundred or so though because it’s going to get dicey for them when they announce “Hi, we’re from California and we are here to take away your guns.” they might make it past the third house with two hundred.
I wonder what the taxidermist would charge me???
That is why it is called “confiscation” and not “please turn them in”.
Beat me to it. When I saw this on another forum late last night, that was my first thought.
“…The more I think about it ol Billy was right, let’s kill all the lawyers, kill em tonight…”
I don’t care if you’re quoting something. GTF outta here with that shit.
Back on topic, not surprising. Another large powerful organization that’s left leaning. Time to defund the FJE
GD strikes again with sweeping generalizations and calls for murder.
FWIW - We owe our gun club to lawyers. Who worked pro-bono. And are great shooters. And good human beings.
It was a tongue in cheek reference to an Eagles song which draws on the famous Shakespeare quote. It was not a call to go on a murdering spree of attorneys.
or…Shall not be Infringed
What do you call ten thousand lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
I thought lawyers had to take some type of oath stating they would uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state they are licensed in. I guess they don’t cover the Bill of Rights part. David
… and then they get elected to public office.
This resolution is aimed at preventing gun-related DV homicides, not confiscating the firearms of the general population.
I know that many are concerned about ANY such legislation, but make your decision after some research, beyond a biased Breitbart article.
This is the ABA Resolution and Introduction:
RESOLUTION
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, local, territorial, and tribal governments to enact statutes, rules, or regulations authorizing courts to issue gun violence restraining orders, including ex parte orders, that include at least the following provisions:
-
That a person (a “petitioner”) with documented evidence that another person (a “respondent”) poses a serious threat to himself or herself or others may petition a court for an order temporarily suspending the respondent’s possession of a firearm or ammunition;
-
That there shall be a verifiable procedure to ensure the surrender of firearms and ammunition pursuant to the court order; and
-
That the issuance of the gun violence restraining order shall be reported to appropriate state or federal databases in order to prevent respondent from passing a background check required to purchase a firearm or obtain a firearm license or permit while restraining order is in effect.
I. Introduction
There are few more contentious issues in our public policy debates than the contours of “the right to keep and bear arms.” Increasingly, however, there is consensus that guns should be kept away from those whose behavior suggests that they would be dangerous to themselves or others if they possessed a weapon. This resolution takes a small step toward translating that consensus into common-sense legal terms. A Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) is a simple legal procedure to enable courts to remove guns from those who are proven likely to use them dangerously, and to do so in compliance with the Second Amendment and Due Process protections of the Constitution. The American Bar Association should continue its long tradition of being at the forefront of policy-making that meets the challenge of the gun violence crisis, which seriously threatens the health and welfare of the people of the United States.
I bolded the text in the introduction. You can read the rest here by clicking on the links on the page: https://www.americanbar.org/news/reporter_resources/annual-meeting-2017/house-of-delegates-resolutions/118b.html
I feel the due process portion of the resolution is where most will have a problem:
B. Due Process
[b]Procedures for obtaining a GVRO can also be instituted so as to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause. These procedures are generally based on existing domestic violence laws that courts have repeatedly upheld against due process challenges. (The legal basis for these challenges lies in the court’s authority to issue an ex parte order before a full hearing occurs, which is neither explicitly required nor precluded by this resolution.)
In Blazel v. Bradley, 698 F. Supp. 756, 768 (W.D. Wis. 1988), a federal district court held that a Wisconsin law allowing victims of domestic abuse to seek ex parte restraining orders against their abusers was constitutional and satisfied due process requirements. The court emphasized that the procedure under Wisconsin law requires:
- Judicial participation;
- A verified petition containing detailed allegations before the ex parte order is issued;
- A prompt hearing; and
- An allegation of risk of imminent and irreparable harm based on personal knowledge of the respondent.
Courts across the country have come to similar conclusions. They have rejected due process challenges to ex parte domestic violence orders issued after these or similar requirements have been met.
The resolution accompanying this report explicitly requires that a GVRO be consistent with the strictures of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. In particular, the provisions outlined in subsections 1 through 3 of the resolution set specific standards that comport with due process. It is left to the states to determine whether or not to provide for an ex parte order, and, if so, to ensure that such a provision is consistent with due process.[/b]
I may be jaded because of my involvement in teaching classes on DV and helping craft our state’s first mandatory arrest law and the initial model policy for LE agencies.
YMMV
Every night before I go to sleep, I say a prayer for lawyers like Alan Gura. If you do not know who he is, go look him up. Then be thankful.
I’d also like to introduce you folks to Greg Bell and Sean Cody. Both are attorneys, shooters and NFA enthusiasts.
Greg’s a mod here, and Sean contributes valuable advice in our NFA subforum.
So, about that broad brush…