Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

[sneakypete]

That sounds like due process happening before the taking of weapons.  I appreciate the confirmation.

@thackney

It's one of those things that teeter on a pin. Depends on the situation. If the suspect is ranting and raving and pointing loaded guns at people,the cops on the scene WILL seize the guns he is waving,and chances are will seize all of them temporarily until the dust settles. If this happens on a Sunday night,chances are it will be Monday morning before a judge can sign a order. Meanwhile,the cops have all the guns at the police station,locked away in an evidence locker if they haven't stolen them to take home or sell on the streets.  Meanwhile 12-24 may have passed since the initial seizure,but I am fairly certain the law allows some leeway on timing,but the reality is that even if the cops have the guns,they only have them temporarily and MUST give them back unless there is a court order showing cause.

So,yeah. Sometimes they seize the guns BEFORE they have the court order in their hands,but no matter how much people rant and rave and thump their chest in outrage,it is NOT a "Seizure" until there is a legal court order,and that court order must be for cause. Cops don't decide cause,judges do,and their are pretty damn jealous of their authority.

STILL,some chicken little is going to be out there screaming about how the sky is falling.

[sneakypete]

 

Remember, this thread is about Trump saying "'Take the guns first, go through due process second'".  Maybe you find that conservative and defensible, but I sure as hell don't.

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. Cops have been confiscating guns on the spot since guns and spots were invented and noticed. What they HAVEN'T been doing is KEEPING the guns they seize. Cops have ALWAYS had the right to seize ANY weapons found in the possession of someone they arrest or take into custody for a medial check. ALWAYS. They just don't have the right to KEEP them. They can NOT keep them without a court order. Period.

[txradioguy]

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. Cops have been confiscating guns on the spot since guns and spots were invented and noticed. What they HAVEN'T been doing is KEEPING the guns they seize. Cops have ALWAYS had the right to seize ANY weapons found in the possession of someone they arrest or take into custody for a medial check. ALWAYS. They just don't have the right to KEEP them. They can NOT keep them without a court order. Period.

They took them on the scene because they had what's called "probable cause" to confiscate them.

What Trump is advocating doing is seizing the guns without...on the mere word that someone is crazy with no real proof and worry about the 4th Amendment after the fact

That is ass backwards as to how America and the Constitution is supposed to work.

Why you're defending someone advocating for the exact opposite and for something that is unconstitutional is beyond me and a lot of people here.

[sneakypete]

@Stevensr123
Oh, I see then... Carry on.
 

Good God, y'all! That's all we need is more shrinks!

@agreed

There is NO group of Americans,including inmates in mental institutions nuttier than shrinks. They go into the profession to try to find a way to heal themselves or because insanity runs in their family and they need to try to prepare themselves to beat it.

In reality,all the do and all they can do is tell you what you already know,and then sedate you. Nobody fixes broken minds. It just doesn't  happen. It MIGHT happen in the near future,but my best GUESS is if it becomes possible it will be due to nano-technology and tiny little "robots" doing surgery in your veins.

[Cyber Liberty]

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. Cops have been confiscating guns on the spot since guns and spots were invented and noticed. What they HAVEN'T been doing is KEEPING the guns they seize. Cops have ALWAYS had the right to seize ANY weapons found in the possession of someone they arrest or take into custody for a medial check. ALWAYS. They just don't have the right to KEEP them. They can NOT keep them without a court order. Period.

Who kidnapped Pete and replaced him with you?  @sneakypete isn't nearly as trusting of process as you seem to be.  Sorry, but I personally know people who had to sue to get their weapons returned.  True, it was California, but it was in these United States.

[sneakypete]

@Sanguine

Me neither.  I've been avoiding this thread like the plague until this morning, and we are way far away from where this discussion started.  Trump took a really dumb stand on the application of due process, and he's yet to walk that back.

@Cyber Liberty

Why should he snatch the line back now,when the "fish" he is after haven't finished hooking themselves yet?

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Why should he snatch the line back now,when the "fish" he is after haven't finished hooking themselves yet?

I'll give you the hope this is an angler's trick....

[sneakypete]

@MeshugeMikey

Di-Fi is married to a weapons expert,so she should know everything there is to know. Her Husband used to be the Chief Counsel for NORINCO,the Chinese gun manufacturer and importer that bought all those Semi-Auto AK-47's and the Chinese copy of the Colt 1911A1 into the country. They would still be importing them too,if the BATF hadn't ran a stink operation on Norinco and had PROOF they were also illegally importing full-auto AK-47's into the country and selling them to drug gangs and street gangs.

The BATF had to brief any Senate agencies having to do with trade or firearms on the upcoming raid the day before it happened,and for some odd reason nobody seems to be able to figure out,EVERY NORINCO official in the US caught a flight out of the US that very night,and none of them have been back,since.

MY best guess it that it was just a coinkydink that she was briefed on the raids the same day her husbands employers fled the US.

NOW you know where DI-Fi got the AK-s she was so fond of holding while her photo was taken.

[Sanguine]

All 2 cents worth.

I was guessing zero.

[Sanguine]

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. Cops have been confiscating guns on the spot since guns and spots were invented and noticed. What they HAVEN'T been doing is KEEPING the guns they seize. Cops have ALWAYS had the right to seize ANY weapons found in the possession of someone they arrest or take into custody for a medial check. ALWAYS. They just don't have the right to KEEP them. They can NOT keep them without a court order. Period.

Pete, you can't change the topic of a thread just because you want to discuss something else.

[sneakypete]

Sorry, but I personally know people who had to sue to get their weapons returned.

I have a friend that tried to off himself with his lever action 30/30. This was 40 years ago,and his left arm is still a flipper. He had to get out of the hospital and off the pain pills to get his 30/30 back,but he still has it today,and he did NOT have to hire a lawyer. I just took him to the Sheriff's office and we asking him "when the hell is he going to get his rifle back?" after he got tired of asking the cop that responded to the shots fired call. He had it the next day.

True, it was California, but it was in these United States.

Well,that's one opinion.

[txradioguy]

Pete, you can't change the topic of a thread just because you want to discuss something else.

He's obligated to change the subject because...MAGA /s

[edpc]

I have a friend that tried to off himself with his lever action 30/30. This was 40 years ago,and his left arm is still a flipper.

Has the ‘I’m unarmed’ joke worn out yet?

[Right_in_Virginia]

They took them on the scene because they had what's called "probable cause" to confiscate them. ...

And the definition of "probable cause" is what the new bill will (may) address specific to school shootings --- putting due process before confiscating weapons.

@txradioguy

[Right_in_Virginia]

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. .... 

QFT.   

@sneakypete

[RoosGirl]

And the definition of "probable cause" is what the new bill will (may) address specific to school shootings --- putting due process before confiscating weapons.

@txradioguy

Oh, I get it, it's like deciding the definition of "is".

[roamer_1]

Oh, I get it, it's like deciding the definition of "is".

Yes, with your pants still on.

[txradioguy]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[roamer_1]

@agreed

There is NO group of Americans,including inmates in mental institutions nuttier than shrinks. They go into the profession to try to find a way to heal themselves or because insanity runs in their family and they need to try to prepare themselves to beat it.

But you are willing to let those same lipless metrosexual bastards decide whether I'm looney or not and authorize the state to take my shit? You've gotta be kidding me.

[BassWrangler]

Everything Trump says makes sense when you just preface it with, "Donald from Queens, you're on the air."

[INVAR]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Give the Constitution a rest txradio!  It's an obstacle for Trump to achieve MAGA.

Besides, we're all twisted up in our panties because plain words are just semantics.

Kindof like how our Rights are not really Rights, but *reasonably regulated* government-granted privileges.

[txradioguy]

Give the Constitution a rest txradio!  It's an obstacle for Trump to achieve MAGA.

Besides, we're all twisted up in our panties because plain words are just semantics.

Kindof like how our Rights are not really Rights, but *reasonably regulated* government-granted privileges.

There seem to be some folks here that believe like Obama did that the Constitution is "deeply flawed" and should be changed /ignored because it is a  "charter negative liberties".

[sneakypete]

But you are willing to let those same lipless metrosexual bastards decide whether I'm looney or not and authorize the state to take my shit? You've gotta be kidding me.

@roamer_1

Are you turning into a drama queen,too? What,you think some shrink is going to declare you a mental basket case while you are at home minding your own business,and authorize the cops to go get  you?

Have  you ever heard of a class of people called "Judges"? Or another class called "Lawyers"? The "lawyer" people LOVE to sue the hell out of city,state,and federal agencies because that's where the deep pockets and bad lawyers live.

[sneakypete]

Give the Constitution a rest txradio!  It's an obstacle for Trump to achieve MAGA.

Besides, we're all twisted up in our panties because plain words are just semantics.

Kindof like how our Rights are not really Rights, but *reasonably regulated* government-granted privileges.

@INVAR

You obviously don't even understand the quote you just posted.

I honestly can't remember they last time I saw panic on this level.

[Suppressed]

No,this thread is about idiots wetting their panties in panic over semantics. Cops have been confiscating guns on the spot since guns and spots were invented and noticed. What they HAVEN'T been doing is KEEPING the guns they seize. Cops have ALWAYS had the right to seize ANY weapons found in the possession of someone they arrest or take into custody for a medial check. ALWAYS. They just don't have the right to KEEP them. They can NOT keep them without a court order. Period.

In other words, you're throwing out a stinking red herring, because Trump explicitly talked about taking guns without due process and then following up with due process...
...and now you're saying that all you're talking about is due process.

How about sticking to the topic?