Trump says take guns first and worry about 'due process second' in White House gun meeting

SGM Erik Marquez - What it really boils down to is there are plenty of laws on the books to fix this just the courts and LEO's to do their jobs

SGT Jim Arnold - Agreed

SGT Jim Arnold - isn't that why the had involuntary commitment laws for threats of harm or injury?
Yes, that covers threats to self, and during that commitment, if warranted due process could take place and a court order sought to remove weapons from possession... But again, that is AFTER the action..

Having dealt with involuntary commitment law's as a police officer their where many a time that hospitals would just release these people it was a joke and the 48-hour commitment would never happen, why once the doctor asked to do you want to hurt your self or others they would answer no. The written narrative we would send over did little to keep these people for observation if they didn't say it or presented themselves as a none threat they released them. it's not an LEO failing to do there job's its hospitals refusing to keep these people because the wards for them are full and they have no room. until being or acting crazy is a crime criminal courts have no reason to see these people most jails wont take misdemeanor arrests anymore. Probate court is not a choice law enforcement has it's not an avenue for them to take. The failure comes around because no one who can really address the issue has an actual legal way to do so there is no court system set up to deal with the number of mental health individuals walking around who should never have or own a firearm. to add to the problem wanting to kill your self alone is not illegal, and most of these people are looking to do that and take others with them. can a fix be found yes will it take some work yes could it infringe on peoples rights and then force them to prove they are not a danger? yes, it can.

The preponderance of evidence is required in a civil (Non-Criminal( lawsuit for the trier of fact (Jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This Preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy and not on the amount of evidence, This meaning does not apply to criminal law and if we are going to address the ability of someone to own a weapon then at least make the burden of proof the same as in criminal court or have the issue dealt with in the criminal court system. after all, you are talking about taking someones constitutional right away. Part of the problem is that much of the evidence in civil court can be viewed through the lens of the judge or jury and has a very weak definition as to whether it is evidence or not. That is how' activist judges and juries can enforce rules that affect people who would never be found guilty in criminal court.

PFC Michael Korach - I understand how the preponderance of evidence is used in civil courts. My point is that a preponderance of evidence can only be used in a court by a judge and jury to “pass judgement” on a person or entity. The scary part about people using this phrase to support “their opinions” is that they are attempting to pass judgement in the media and thereby poisoning our jury pool. I’m not a fan of foreign law being applied in the United States, but in this case, I believe Canada has the best policy: Put a gag order on all investigations and trials until a verdict is rendered. The people who say “We have a right to know” can’t really say anything because they will know, maybe not in the timeframe they want. I believe what these people really want is to affect the outcome of the verdict. If I’m not mistaken: that in itself is against the law, maybe we should start prosecuting it. Where to find the line between free speech and affecting a trial… that’s’ a good question.

PS: In my opinion there should be no civil courts and different standards of judgement. I believe if it were looked at honestly, it would be found unconstitutional.

SFC (Join to see) - Well that would be a whole other conversation on the gag orders we can thank the mainstream press and their attorneys for the vastly expanded open records laws in most states , Now on the preponderance of evidence question, there is a reason for the two different standards, the issue elected officials will have in enacting any new law for gun ownership based on mental health will be the HIPA law and the protection it gives for medical information, so the only tools that can currently be used are criminal protection orders (Domestic, stalking ect) or a criminal court-ordered mental health evaluation. which don't get used as much for securing firearms from the person who gets the order placed on them. Now once that's done they may be able to order a psychological exam as part of the order if they can get that enacted into law. Not likely because I just don't see them having the will to do that. if you thought getting arrested was a big deal, try getting someone put on a 48 mental evaluation hold much less getting them declared mentally unstable enough to lose their rights under the current processes in place throughout the country. I can remember a time when I could just drive them to the state hospital and they would remain there until the 48 hr hold was up or their condition improved that ended and after that I drop them off at the local hospital and before a finish the report on the incident they are right back home and starting up again it was just insane.

PFC Michael Korach - I don’t see anything happening either. All sides are posturing trying to put themselves in the best light for whenever their best chance comes. I believe for the gun control nuts they are trying to control the teens and young adults who don’t really know much about life yet, much like what was done in the 60’s. It will be interesting.

Top, with all due respect. We dont have definitive proof of anything. I think some people wish so bad for President Trump to fuck up for the sole reason that their long time hate is justified.