Trump Goes Gun Grabber, Prompting White House Clean-Up

Trump Goes Gun Grabber, Prompting White House Clean-Up

The president on Wednesday took a handful of distinctly un-Republican positions on guns—including saying police should dispense with due process and just ‘take the guns first.’

LACHLAN MARKAY
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG
ANDREW DESIDERIO

02.28.18 5:19 PM ET

https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/...TX4ZE1D_zttelx

KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS

In 2016, NRA-endorsed Republican candidate Donald Trump won the presidency after many months of insisting that his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton was going to grab your guns.

In February 2018, President Trump publicly called for a subversion of due process, and for the government to “take the guns first.”

During a televised meeting with lawmakers at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, the president and assembled legislators spent the hour riffing on ideas for securing schools and curtailing gun violence in America.

Trump ping-ponged between various policy positions and postures, invariably making unforced interjections that would make his staunchest pro-gun supporters cringe.

When Vice President Mike Pence talked about how those who are a “danger to themselves or others” should have their firearms taken away, but also afforded due process, the president jumped in to one-up Pence.
“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump said, breaking with his own vice president on live TV. “Because that's another system.

Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.”

The president continued, sounding like the caricature of “gun-grabbing” Democrats he’d once warned against: “I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions on whether or not this was now the official position of the Trump White House.

However, two administration officials told The Daily Beast that aides were already preparing “clarifications” for future statements or briefings in anticipation of being asked if the president wants to take away people’s guns without due process.

RELATED IN POLITICS

https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/...mp-lede_gmosf0Trump to Survivors: Solution Is More Guns in School

https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/...un-hero_nqqvhmTrump Aides Confess: He Only Hears the NRA

https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/...6703/DL_lcm7hlNRA’s Dana Loesch Hammers Trump's ‘Due Process’ Comments

The comment did, however, rankle some feathers among Republican lawmakers. “Before you take away someone’s gun, they’re entitled to due process,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), a Trump ally, told The Daily Beast.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), who has been critical of Trump, released a scathing statement suggesting that the president was exhibiting weak leadership skills.

“Strong leaders don’t automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason,” Sasse said. “We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them.”

Trump’s gun-grabbing moment, of course, would be another addition to the ongoing trend of senior Trump aides claiming after the fact that the president did not say what he, in fact, said publicly.

“It’s to the effect of: the president was not talking about violating anyone’s rights, he was talking about keeping guns out of the hands of violent, mentally unstable people and criminals,” one official said, explaining what a canned response would look like.

In the course of an hour, Trump cast aside other key pillars of Republican orthodoxy on gun rights.

He endorsed legislation first pushed by the Obama White House to expand federal background checks for private gun sales, shot down GOP efforts to expand the rights of concealed carry permit-holders, and even suggested reviving a Democratic measure to ban “assault weapons.”

Trump wanted everyone in the room to be, in his words, “very, very powerful on background checks.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who has pushed an assault-weapons ban for years, was visibly giddy as the president suggested including that measure in congressional gun-control legislation. “We’re gonna get it passed,” the president then declared.

For Trump, it was a reversion to positions he held nearly two decades ago. In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump wrote, “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

After returning to the Capitol, Democrats who attended the meeting were elated but cautious that the president could renege on his promises like he did on immigration, when he promised to sign whatever legislation Congress sends him.

“He didn’t mince words about it. I don’t understand how, then, he could back away from that,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said. “I don’t know how much clearer he could have been.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said the onus is on Trump to deliver GOP votes on a comprehensive background-checks bill.

“He asked why nothing has happened. The reason why nothing has happened is because Republicans have given the NRA veto power on background-checks legislation,” Murphy said. “If the president is the deal maker, the closer that he claims to be, then he will deliver Republican votes on a background checks bill.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...house-clean-up

'Surreal' Trump meeting on guns left Republicans reeling, Democrats optimistic

Quote:

---

including saying police should dispense with due process and just ‘take the guns first.’

---

Some states have a temporary restraining order process for certain situations where threats have been made or occurred that allows this when there are incidents that seem to warrant it even when no charges are pressed or arrests made. This is what he was talking about.

The president on Wednesday took a handful of distinctly un-Republican positions on guns—including saying police should dispense with due process and just ‘take the guns first.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Some states have a temporary restraining order process for certain situations where threats have been made or occurred that allows this when there are incidents that seem to warrant it even when no charges are pressed or arrests made. This is what he was talking about.

---

That's not what he said. Personally, I don't find assuming what one is thinking to be a good practice. Say what you mean and mean what you say, but don't assume we're mind readers, Mr. President.

That was the issue that had been discussed earlier in the meeting and throughout the week by all types of Republicans and Democrats. People familiar with the whole meeting and the whole discussion of possible solutions would know exactly what he's talking about. It's already law in a number of states. I don't know that I agree with it, perhaps in a domestic violence situation or in a terrorism/mass shooting threat, it might make a difference. I also see where it could be abused as well. I also see where the person would have other guns stashed the police don't know about, so they might have stopped it for an hour or a day, but not in the end.

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess

It is common practice to set legal ages for activities that require maturity such as voting, driving, and drinking alcohol. Purchasing and possessing a firearm necessitate the same, or greater, ability to act responsibly, and data shows that young adults account for a disproportionate number of gun homicides and suicides. By strengthening our minimum age laws for purchasing and possessing firearms, we will help protect our young people and the public at large from all too common tragedies.

BACKGROUND

Laws imposing minimum age requirements for the possession and purchase of firearms are intended to decrease access to firearms by young people and, correspondingly, to decrease the number of suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings among that population.

• In 2014, 21,101 people under the age of 21 were shot by guns. 3,265 died from those gunshot wounds.1.)) Of these deaths, 1,925 were classified as homicides, 1,145 as suicides, and 122 as the result of unintentional shootings;2
• Firearms were used in 41% of suicide deaths among individuals under age 21 in 2014.3

Laws that prohibit unsupervised possession or purchase of firearms by children and young people can prevent tragedies. Based on data from the FBI, 18- to 24-year-olds account for a disproportionate percentage of arrests for homicide and violent crime in general.4 A survey of convicted gun offenders in 13 states found that nearly a quarter of them would have been prohibited from obtaining firearms at the time of the crime if the minimum legal age for possessing any type of firearm was 21 years.5 Yet, as described below, federal law and the laws in most states continue to allow unsupervised access to firearms by individuals in these age groups.6

Additional information about laws preventing child access to firearms is included in our summary on Child Access Prevention.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW

Federal law in this area distinguishes between long guns (rifles and shotguns) and handguns, and between gun possession and gun sales. Federal law also provides stronger age restrictions for sales by licensed gun sellers.

MINIMUM AGE FOR GUN SALES AND TRANSFERS

Under federal law –	Handguns	Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)
Licensed firearms dealers	Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.7	Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.8
Unlicensed persons	Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*.9	Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.

Minimum Age for Gun Possession: Subject to limited exceptions*, federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18.10 Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
*Exceptions: Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting.11

SUMMARY OF STATE LAW

Several states and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements that extend beyond those contained in federal law. Those laws generally fall into four categories:

• Laws imposing a stricter minimum age for handgun purchases than federal law;
• Laws imposing a minimum age for all long gun purchases, from licensed or unlicensed sellers;
• Laws imposing age requirements for possession of handguns that are stricter than federal law; and
• Laws imposing a minimum age for possession of long guns.

Additional information about laws preventing child access to firearms is included in our summary on Child Access Prevention.

STATE MINIMUM AGE LAWS THAT EXTEND BEYOND FEDERAL LAW

State	Purchase of a Handgun	Purchase of a Long Gun12	Possession of a Handgun	Possession of a Long Gun
Alabama
Alaska		1813		16 (without parental consent)14
Arizona		18 (without parental consent)15		1816
Arkansas		18 (without parental consent)17
California	2118	1819
Colorado
Connecticut	2120	1821	2122
Delaware	2123	18 (without parental consent)24
D.C.	2125	1826	2127	21 or 18 with parental consent28
Florida		1829		1830
Georgia
Hawaii	2131	2132	2133	2134
Idaho		18 (without parental consent)35		18 (without parental consent or hunting license, or while hunting)36
Illinois	2137	2138	2139	2140
Indiana				1841
Iowa	2142	18 (without parental consent)43	2144	1845
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana		1846
Maine		16 for transfers, 18 for sales47
Maryland	2148	1849	2150
Massachusetts	2151	1852	2153	15 (with parental consent) or 1854
Michigan		1855		1856
Minnesota		18 in cities (without parental consent) or 14 outside cities (without parental consent)57		14 (with firearms safety certificate), otherwise 1658
Mississippi
Missouri		18 (without parental consent)59
Montana
Nebraska	2160	1861
Nevada62				1863
New Hampshire
New Jersey	2164	18 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:39-10e., 2C:58-6.1a, 2C:58-3c(4).))	2165	1866
New Mexico			1967
New York	2168		2169	1670
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio	2171	1872
Oklahoma		1873		1874
Oregon		1875		18 (without parental consent)76
Pennsylvania		1877		1878
Rhode Island	2179	1880		1881
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas		18 (without parental consent)82
Utah		18 (without parental consent)83		18 (without parental consent)84
Vermont		1685
Virginia
Washington			21 (for possession outside private property)86	1887
West Virginia				18 (except in hunting)88
Wisconsin		1889		1890
Wyoming	2191	1892

STATE LAWS GOVERNING MINIMUM AGE TO PURCHASE AND POSSESS FIREARMS

For citations to these laws, please see the chart above.

States Imposing Minimum Age Requirements for All Firearm Purchases

Although federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling long guns to persons under 18, there is no federal regulation of the sale of long guns by unlicensed dealers to minors. Similarly, while federal law prohibits handgun sales by licensed dealers to persons under 21, unlicensed dealers are prohibited only from selling handguns to persons under 18. As listed above, many states have imposed a minimum age for the purchase of all firearms, including both handguns and long guns, regardless of whether they are purchased from a licensed firearms dealer.

States with Stricter Minimum Age Requirements for Possession of Handguns than Federal Law

Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Washington, and the District of Columbia impose minimum age requirements for the possession of handguns which are stricter than the federal minimum of 18.93

States Imposing Minimum Age Requirements for Possession of Long Guns

While federal law prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling a long gun to anyone under 18, there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun. Twenty-three states have enacted laws to at least partially close this gap, and impose a minimum age at which persons can possess long guns. Many of these laws contain exceptions which allow younger children to possess long guns where the minor’s parent or guardian is present, or when the minor is engaged in hunting or target shooting.

SELECTED LOCAL LAW

New York City

In New York City, however, no person under age 21 may be granted a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry any firearm, with certain exceptions. It is also unlawful to transfer a firearm to any person under age 21 unless he or she is exempted. A person under 21 may carry, fire or use a rifle or shotgun without being subject to the permit requirement if he or she is in the presence of, or under the direct supervision of, a permit holder, or engaged in a military drill, competition, or target practice at a firing range.94

KEY LEGISLATIVE ELEMENTS

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

• Minimum age of 21 is imposed for all handgun sales, from licensed or unlicensed sellers (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, District of Columbia).
• Minimum age of 18 is imposed for all long gun sales, from licensed or unlicensed sellers (22 states and the District of Columbia).
• Minimum age of 21 is imposed for possession of handguns (Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia).
• Minimum age of 18 is imposed for possession of long guns (16 states and the District of Columbia).
• Younger teens are allowed to possess long guns only under direct adult supervision.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/

Trump: Take guns 'early' without going to court first

President Trump says law enforcement officers should "take the firearms first and then go to court" when responding to reports about potentially dangerous individuals.

Going to court to get a warrant to take someone's weapons "would have taken a long time," Trump says.

Vice President Pence said a proposal for obtaining warrants to seize weapons should "allow due process" before Trump cut him off.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday called for seizing guns "early" from potentially dangerous people without having to first obtain a court order.

"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida," Trump said at a White House roundtable discussion with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on school safety and gun policy reform.

"To go to court would have taken a long time," Trump said.

Trump made the suggestion after Vice President Mike Pence suggested that new gun policies should "give families and local law enforcement ... the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapon" from a potentially dangerous individual.

Pence made sure to note that any such proposal should "allow due process." But Trump, interrupting his Cabinet ally, suggested that law enforcement officials should "take the firearms first and then go to court."

Pence was speaking about so-called gun violence restraining orders, a policy that has gained support from some conservatives as a way to act against potential mass shooters without compromising the protections of the Second Amendment.

The exchange between the two leaders of the Executive branch came amid a wide-ranging discussion on how lawmakers should proceed in crafting new gun policies after a gunman wielding an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle killed 17 students and adults at a Florida high school in February.

The meeting included 10 senators and seven U.S. representatives of both major political parties.

Kevin Breuninger
Published 11 Hours Ago
Updated 10 Hours Ago CNBC.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/trum...e-process.html

Click on the link and listen to the dialogue. Trump is saying when there is probable cause to take the guns such as like in the Cruz case, get the guns, then work out a court order through due process. This would protect the person from lies, mischief, fraud, dishonesty and so forth, but errs on the side of caution. I can see the wisdom of it, still not sure I support it, but it's a reasonable suggestion.

Lets say the FBI went down there, the Sheriff went there, everyone go go's to the Cruz location, to do what? He hasn't done anything yet you can arrest him for, now what? He just says oh I was just joking, I was just kidding around, oh they were threatening me and I was mad and spouted off tough talk back to defend myself, they're just trying to steal my inheritance, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now what? Trump is saying, there's been a serious probable cause complaint, take the guns and hold them, then go to court and work it out. But you'd have to get them all, getting 1 or 2 of the stash isn't going to solve the problem. He can go buy more illegally or steal them, too.

So, there's no easy solutions to this, but maybe some improvements across several fronts will make a difference. I sure hope so.

JD2 excerpt:

Quote:

---

Laws that prohibit unsupervised possession or purchase of firearms by children and young people can prevent tragedies.Based on data from the FBI, 18- to 24-year-olds account for a disproportionate percentage of arrests for homicide and violent crime in general.4 A survey of convicted gun offenders in 13 states found that nearly a quarter of them would have been prohibited from obtaining firearms at the time of the crime if the minimum legal age for possessing any type of firearm was 21 years.5 Yet, as described below, federal law and the laws in most states continue to allow unsupervised access to firearms by individuals in these age groups.6

---

I'm not buying this argument because most of those shootings were probably done by drug dealers, gang-bangers, etc. who were probably already felons and were not legally allowed to own a gun. Secondly, most of these shootings were done with handguns, which you already have to be 21 to purchase. When you start closely inspecting the details of these arguments they all end up being very weak. Criminals are going to get and possess guns, regardless of the age requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Some states have a temporary restraining order process for certain situations where threats have been made or occurred that allows this when there are incidents that seem to warrant it even when no charges are pressed or arrests made. This is what he was talking about.

---

I agree. I can't read his mind, but I don't think he was referring to skipping due process in the long term.

Let's face it, although we supposedly "presume innocence" until proven guilty, We put people in jail, demand bail for some to get out (extortion), all in advance of a trial! The presumption is of guilt! If you can't make bail, you may remain in prison until trial. If the verdict is guilty, the court may give credit for time served. So it is presumed a punishment. However, if the verdict is Not Guilty, you get no compensation for the time you were punished for something you didn't do. If you pay bail, you are not compensated for the cost of a bond, if you opt for that, or compensated for interest or other income you forfeit from not having possession of that money.

Since this is our policy, it is certainly in keeping with that policy to confiscate weapons from someone suspect until a determination can be made. Our problem is abusing that authority for convenience.

NRA's Loesch rips Trump's idea of seizing guns without 'due process'

Dylan Stableford Senior Editor
,Yahoo News•March 1, 2018

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch criticized on Thursday President Trump’s suggestion that law enforcement should seize guns from potentially dangerous people “first [and] go through due process second.”

“Due process must be respected,” Loesch said in an interview with “Fox and Friends.” “You have to harden schools and protect kids, but due process must be respected.”

During a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday, Trump suggested that law enforcement should have taken away the weapons used by the suspected gunman in last month’s deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., long before the massacre.

The teenager, who has been charged with the 17 killings, had reportedly shown signs of mental illness and was reported to police dozens of times in the weeks and months before the killings.

“I like taking the guns early,” Trump said. “Like, in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida — he had a lot of [flags], they saw everything — you could do what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The gun lobby, which had enthusiastically supported Trump’s election and which Trump had praised in return, dismissed the president’s remarks in a statement on Wednesday night.

“Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic, our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies,” Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon. “They can start by fixing the broken mental health system, strengthening background checks to ensure the records of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms are in the [National Instant Criminal Background Check] system, securing our schools and preventing the dangerously mentally ill from accessing firearms.”

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/kf...cfac9396a9f7a0
President Trump pauses during a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) More

Loesch echoed that sentiment on “Fox and Friends.”

“It’s not a failure of the law, it’s a failure of enforcement,” she said.

Loesch said that those who are identified as mentally unstable gun owners should have their due process.

“They go before a judge, they’re adjudicated either mentally unfit, a danger to themselves or others or, because of their own free will, they’ve voluntarily given up their rights because they’ve behaved so criminally heinously that the punishment of that is giving up their Second Amendment rights,” she said.

“But they receive due process. That’s really important to remember here.”

Loesch said the gun lobby opposes increasing the age requirement to purchase certain firearms from 18 to 21 — a policy that has been repeatedly proposed by the president since the massacre in Parkland.

“When we talk about the age restrictions, you’re not punishing the gangbanger in Chicago,” she said.

“You’re not punishing those individuals that are adjudicated unfit or are dangerous to themselves. …

You’re punishing people like I was when I was 20 years old, living on my own. You’re punishing the 19-year-old deer hunter who is just looking forward to deer season — those are the people that you are punishing here.”

https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/.3...GUNS-TRUMP.JPG

During Wednesday’s meeting at the White House, Trump asked Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. — who in 2013 co-authored with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., an unsuccessful bipartisan gun control bill that would have expanded background checks — whether their bill included raising the age for gun purchases.

Toomey told the president it did not.

“You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA,” Trump said.

On “Fox and Friends,” Toomey called the idea that he’s afraid of the gun lobby “ridiculous.”

“I’m the guy that wrote the bill that the NRA opposed,” Toomey said. “The Manchin-Toomey legislation was strongly opposed by the NRA. They didn’t endorse me in my reelection. They haven’t given me a dime since 2010. I’m the guy that stood up to the NRA.”

The Pennsylvania Republican said he would consider increasing the age restriction for buying guns, but is “skeptical” of its usefulness.

“I don’t think that ages have been handed down by Moses — I think we can have that discussion,” Toomey said. “But I know for a fact that in Pennsylvania, most 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds buy long guns because they are hunters or they go target shooting and they are not a threat to anyone.”

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday, Toomey said that Trump’s “due process” remark took his “breath away.”

“It doesn’t work that way in America,” he said.
On Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo asked Trump special counselor Kellyanne Conway whether Trump was “ignoring the Constitution” with his comments.

“No, not at all,” Conway said. “The president respects the Constitution, including the Second Amendment and the 5 million or so members of the NRA who are law-abiding, peaceful gun owners.”

Conway continued: “In light of Parkland, everybody is so frustrated at the breakdown in the system. The fact that this individual was known to local law enforcement, federal law enforcement. This individual was all over social media, showing off his firearms, threatening to do exactly what he ended up doing. So with that as our backdrop — which, let’s be honest, is what spurred this conversation in the first place for the last 15 days — what the president is saying is that sometimes the processes take too long.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nras-loes...161656071.html

View image on Twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWliv9OV...jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...q1N_normal.jpgXavier Becerra
✔@AGBecerra

Today we announced that our Bureau of Firearms agents seized 28 firearms from an L.A. man prohibited from owning them. We must do all we possibly can to remove weapons from individuals who should not be in possession of them. #APPS #GunSense http://goo.gl/amUH5Q
12:39 PM - Feb 21, 2018

• 
  160
• 
  83 people are talking about this

Attorney General Becerra made a plea for more resources at a press conference last week, standing feet away from a cache of weapons that comprised one of the largest busts by the APPS unit to date: 28 firearms, including 13 AR-15-style rifles, and 66,000 rounds of ammunition, including tracer bullets that allow the shooter to see the path of the bullet.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/california-gun-seizure-squads/index.html

This is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I've come to expect from liberal gun-grabbers, but it's not what I would expect to hear from the President of the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

I agree. I can't read his mind, but I don't think he was referring to skipping due process in the long term.

Let's face it, although we supposedly "presume innocence" until proven guilty, We put people in jail, demand bail for some to get out (extortion), all in advance of a trial! The presumption is of guilt! If you can't make bail, you may remain in prison until trial. If the verdict is guilty, the court may give credit for time served. So it is presumed a punishment. However, if the verdict is Not Guilty, you get no compensation for the time you were punished for something you didn't do. If you pay bail, you are not compensated for the cost of a bond, if you opt for that, or compensated for interest or other income you forfeit from not having possession of that money.

Since this is our policy, it is certainly in keeping with that policy to confiscate weapons from someone suspect until a determination can be made. Our problem is abusing that authority for convenience.

---

There's still due process. You would need a search warrant to look for the guns. You would need a valid complaint and probable cause for the warrant. Just as you would for any search or seizure warrant. Trump didn't use the words "without due process", he said take the guns first, then go to court. This is actually what police do every day already with search warrants, very quick easy court procedures that they usually go through either right before they show up at the home or while some cops wait at the home or facility, other cops go get the warrant. What Trump was talking about that takes a long time is the adjudication of a mental illness determination. And he's right about that, that process can take months, years, and not end well, because a lot of behavior that ends up in murders is not mental illness at all, it's just the sociopathy associated with killers, especially mass murderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

There's still due process. You would need a search warrant to look for the guns. You would need a valid complaint and probable cause for the warrant.

---

I'm not sure that's true. If they chase you into your home for suspicion of some crime and arrest you, I understand that they can search the premises. They don't have to get a warrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

I'm not sure that's true. If they chase you into your home for suspicion of some crime and arrest you, I understand that they can search the premises. They don't have to get a warrant.

---

Oh, good to know!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh, good to know!!

---

You were planning to run into your house, with cops on your tail, after robbing a bank? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

You were planning to run into your house, with cops on your tail, after robbing a bank? :wink:

---

Haven't you heard? The Russians are coming, none of us know what we might need to do when that happens.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Haven't you heard? The Russians are coming, none of us know what we might need to do when that happens.

---

Funny, there was a movie, back in the Cold War days: "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming". It wouldn't have much meaning today, but if the Cold War reignites, maybe there would be a remake of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

Funny, there was a movie, back in the Cold War days: "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming". It wouldn't have much meaning today, but if the Cold War reignites, maybe there would be a remake of it.

---

Yes, I know that movie (it's actually where I got the line for my post). Now would be an EXCELLENT time for a remake of that movie. Or even a re-run of the old one.

:)

BINGO! Joe Biden Wants To Send Federal Agents To Confiscate Guns