CNN: Rubio proposes "Gun Restraining Orders"

[1stLast&Always]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...fety-parkland-florida-announcement/index.html

Whiskey Tango Foxtroy y'all. This was summarized as "someone can petition the court that you are no longer fit for gun ownership", something along those lines. Your mother-in-law may have a say... Will this turd of a proposal even make it out of committee? Please discuss.

 

[NyleRN]

This turd of a RHINO won't make back to office

 

[1stLast&Always]

Remember, he is from Florida. If he wins on the anti platform there and gains any ground the semi-auto ban might too.

Regarding restraining orders I suppose any such proposed order would require a hearing. Can't imagine the resources this would tie up for tax dollars, with all the pettiness people get involved in- as in using it as a tactic against people you don't like to get their rights removed.

The lawyers would eat this up and if it were to become reality I see plenty of SCOTUS worthy cases rising.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Individuals subject to restraining orders are prohibited possessors of firearms in accordance with 18 USC 922g.

 

[Lwright]

Politicians and diapers both need changed for the same reason.

 

[Hoosierkav]

"for the sake of your safety, and those of everyone else, you'll need to prove your mental competence first..."

The next edition of SWATTing.

With a stroke of a pen (or click of a mouse), suddenly, you're no longer competent, based upon the allegation of some person; have fun going through the hoops for your due process.

 

[1stLast&Always]

Politicians and diapers both need changed for the same reason.

Right, so who here is registered to vote in Florida?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is this any different than Indiana's Laird Law?

 

[1stLast&Always]

It sounds more reaching than that. Under Rubios proposal (from what seen so far anyway) anyone could petitition the court for removal of your guns. Under Laird, police take them if they consider you dangerous.

 

[MCgrease08]

I would be open to discussing the concept provided the scope of who could lodge a complaint or petition the court was kept extremely limited. I'm talking immediate family members.

No neighbors, co-workers, a scorned ex, etc. There's too much opportunity for false claims and abuse otherwise.

 

[1stLast&Always]

Yes, this is a slippery slope. Next up, the thought police.

 

[BigRed]

Individuals subject to restraining orders are prohibited possessors of firearms in accordance with 18 USC 922g.

Don't let the facts distract from the little twit's dream of power.

 

[jamil]

It’s reasonable to want a mechanism beyond a restraining order or protective order, to intervene in cases like cruz’s. And excluding the people who are in the best position to recognize dangerous behavior isn’t necessary to prevent using it as a weapon against people.

Just put the burden of proof completely on the petitioners. You shouldn’t have to prove you’re sane to keep your guns. They should have to prove you’re insane. And just saying you said or did something isn’t proof that you’re dangerous. Prove it. Petitioners must make the case that the person is mentally unstable.

But c’mon. Really. If that’s the case, maybe a padded cell is most appropriate.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Right, so who here is registered to vote in Florida?

I was from 2001-2007. First election I voted down there was for replacing Morning Joe RINO with Jeff Miller.

 

[Leadeye]

There would need to be a really hard hitting punishment for false claims.

Either way it's a money maker for law firms.

Always follow the money.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Individuals subject to restraining orders are prohibited possessors of firearms in accordance with 18 USC 922g.

SOME restraining orders, not all. The court papers will indicate if the given restraining order does or not, at least in Indiana. I can't recall the exact wording but it's something like "Brady qualified" or the like. I think only restraining orders between domestic partners qualify, but there might be other qualifiers that could make one "Brady" that I'm unaware of.



...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such personhad the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

 

[Drail]

"..shall not be infringed.." I don't see any mention of restraining orders in there. Or any other "reasonable exceptions". Once you allow ANY exceptions to the B.O.R. you open the door to anything the Govt. can dream up and you have no idea what they may consider "reasonable". You either agree with the Bill of Rights as it was written - or you don't. And telling me that I do not have a right to self defense while you have a Secret Service team with full auto toys because you are SO important isn't going to fly. Our leaders can give up their protection details if they want to disarm us. Here's a clue - they won't.......

 

[jamil]

SOME restraining orders, not all. The court papers will indicate if the given restraining order does or not, at least in Indiana. I can't recall the exact wording but it's something like "Brady qualified" or the like. I think only restraining orders between domestic partners qualify, but there might be other qualifiers that could make one "Brady" that I'm unaware of.



...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such personhad the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

Also there's a difference between "restraining orders" and "[emergency] protective orders". I think the Brady modifier can apply to either depending on the state. But as far as federal, this is from the FBI site:

"The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders."

So restraining orders (which can be ex parte) are not part of the federal requirements, but protective orders are. And this makes sense because an ex parte order would be more like the President is advocating, taking the guns first.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So . . . the solution to a massive law enforcement failure is to give Florida law enforcement and the FBI yet another law to do nothing with?

Yeah, no thanks. We already weaponize personal grudges. Hard pass.

 

[BigRed]

So . . . the solution to a massive law enforcement failure is to give Florida law enforcement and the FBI yet another law to do nothing with?

Yeah, no thanks. We already weaponize personal grudges. Hard pass.

Exactly.