What do you think of gun violence restraining orders?

[Timshel]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/

Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.


...


The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a “person close to Nikolas Cruz.” According the FBI, that person provided “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”


In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.


Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that’s four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.

[SmarterthanYou]

why must people insist of further restricting the rights and freedoms of others because of government failure?

[dukkha]

it's a good idea..look at the Cruz online profile..if there are threats as well as glorification of terrorism/murder etc
there should be a process to temporarily suspend gun sales on the PROBABLE CAUSE the subject was unstable

[SmarterthanYou]

it's a good idea..look at the Cruz online profile..if there are threats as well as glorification of terrorism/murder etc
there should be a process to temporarily suspend gun sales on the PROBABLE CAUSE the subject was unstable

is it your contention that the mere image posing a 'threat' (defined by who?) is enough to not only suspend and deny a right, but to arrest that person before a crime is ever committed?

[USFREEDOM911]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/

Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.


...


The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a “person close to Nikolas Cruz.” According the FBI, that person provided “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”


In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.


Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that’s four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.

There already is a process in place, for this; so I'm not sure what you're asking.

[dukkha]

is it your contention that the mere image posing a 'threat' (defined by who?) is enough to not only suspend and deny a right, but to arrest that person before a crime is ever committed?

not just an image. multiple images and threats references, and the fact the cops went to his house 39times (etc.)
That is a profile of sociopathic danger. That all could be taken before a judge and a restraining order issued against him to possess guns put in place.

[USFREEDOM911]

not just an image. multiple images and threats references, and the fact the cops went to his house 39times (etc.)
That is a profile of sociopathic danger. That all could be taken before a judge and a restraining order issued against him to possess guns put in place.

So what exactly should be the parameters; because I've seen Watermark post enough BS, to qualify being possible put on a list?

SEE SOMETHING
SAY SOMETHNG.

[dukkha]

So what exactly should be the parameters; because I've seen Watermark post enough BS, to qualify being possible put on a list?

SEE SOMETHING
SAY SOMETHNG.

look at Cruz's situations.. start there..I would assume you use normal restraining order criteria

[iewitness]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/

Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.


...


The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a “person close to Nikolas Cruz.” According the FBI, that person provided “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.”


In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.


Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them. For those keeping score, that’s four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ? if you give the damned the consent to "deem" a person incapable; you will "deem" most everyone "incapable'. I will stick to my God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I love shooting and being a deterrent to the damned. gun owners are "winning" in that the damned are being punked and i am laughing. I am. these are all productions/ great delusion. I do love them little rascals. ..

[USFREEDOM911]

look at Cruz's situations.. start there..I would assume you use normal restraining order criteria

I would feel terrible if I just passed off Watermark's comments as him just being him; because he could actually snap and by previously reporting him; it could save lives, even his.

[Timshel]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ? if you give the damned the consent to "deem" a person incapable; you will "deem" most everyone "incapable'. I will stick to my God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I love shooting and being a deterrent to the damned. gun owners are "winning" in that the damned are being punked and i am laughing. I am. these are all productions/ great delusion. I do love them little rascals. ..

WTF???

The second amendment does not preclude this. Some restraining orders require the surrender of guns now. Ex felons are not usually free to get guns.

No, not everyone would be deemed "incapable". Did you bother to read any of what I posted or the article?

[Timshel]

why must people insist of further restricting the rights and freedoms of others because of government failure?

So you would be okay if the FBI had acted but it's not okay if family and the courts do? Why?

[Timshel]

is it your contention that the mere image posing a 'threat' (defined by who?) is enough to not only suspend and deny a right, but to arrest that person before a crime is ever committed?

Read the article (at the link)...

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):


It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

[Timshel]

There already is a process in place, for this; so I'm not sure what you're asking.

Where? What is it?

They have these in California and Washington. AFAIK, nowhere else.

[Rune]

is it your contention that the mere image posing a 'threat' (defined by who?) is enough to not only suspend and deny a right, but to arrest that person before a crime is ever committed?

Yep.
That's what the peanut brain said.