Sensible Gun Safety

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

It falls apart when one says legitimate anything before a trial occurred. There’s no logic that works around that except take rights away. It’s stupid also because felons can’t own guns. It’s a total straw man argument. A joke.

You can’t say anything is legitimate before the trial. So dumb. The whole approach here is eerily close in syntax and cadence to PB.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

It falls apart when one says legitimate anything before a trial occurred. There’s no logic that works around that except take rights away. It’s stupid also because felons can’t own guns. It’s a total straw man argument. A joke.

You can’t say anything is legitimate before the trial. So dumb. The whole approach here is eerily close in syntax and cadence to PB.

Felons can't own guns?? How come no one told all of those felons that? They could at least out of politeness register those illegal weapons with local law enforcement.

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

It falls apart when one says legitimate anything before a trial occurred. There’s no logic that works around that except take rights away. It’s stupid also because felons can’t own guns. It’s a total straw man argument. A joke.

You can’t say anything is legitimate before the trial. So dumb. The whole approach here is eerily close in syntax and cadence to PB.

Felons can't own guns?? How come no one told all of those felons that? They could at least out of politeness register those illegal weapons with local law enforcement.

Jesus Christ just go overdose on oxy so we don’t have to deal with absurd inane jerk sessions that would be considered dumb by my children.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

It falls apart when one says legitimate anything before a trial occurred. There’s no logic that works around that except take rights away. It’s stupid also because felons can’t own guns. It’s a total straw man argument. A joke.

You can’t say anything is legitimate before the trial. So dumb. The whole approach here is eerily close in syntax and cadence to PB.

Felons can't own guns?? How come no one told all of those felons that? They could at least out of politeness register those illegal weapons with local law enforcement.

Jesus Christ just go overdose on oxy so we don’t have to deal with absurd inane jerk sessions that would be considered dumb by my children.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

[MDlaxfan76]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

Yeah you have to hold a very high standard when removing one from society and stripping them of their freedom as well as physical world. Too many folks toss around putting xyz in jail or removing them from society

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

There’s also this bizarre embedded assumption that we have to have a system that drives effectively a no risk/fatality/loss approach. That’s a noble goal but we make administrative and level judgements every day that accept some risk and/or loss. See the FDA for one.

Striving for a goal is great but sober expectations also need to be set. Any system set up with an unrealistic expectation that we can eliminate risk of folks under “charge”/allegation

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

[MDlaxfan76]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

This pro-gun group (Guns Save a Life) certainly despises bail reform and makes a point of such in the Nance situation.

https://www.gunssavelife.com/2024/01/23 ... in-joliet/

According to them, his prior arrest was for allegedly "aggravated discharge of a weapon", purportedly shooting at a woman...so he was out on bail, $100,000. Didn't take his guns away...

Here's a different point of view and additional info: https://patch.com/illinois/joliet/stop- ... bail-group

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

I believe you are not a criminal until after the trial and conviction or plea.

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

I believe you are not a criminal until after the trial and conviction or plea.

Yo get that bomb tossing nonsense out of here!

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

I believe you are not a criminal until after the trial and conviction or plea.

My bad.... alleged criminals.... of course the alleged criminal could have a past criminal conviction which thereby technically makes him a former criminal and an alleged criminal as well.

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

I believe you are not a criminal until after the trial and conviction or plea.

My bad.... alleged criminals.... of course the alleged criminal could have a past criminal conviction which thereby technically makes him a former criminal and an alleged criminal as well.

And yet despite all your wasted effort there to say something, a former and alleged criminal is in fact not a criminal. Language matters.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

I am NOT saying I'm good with the removal of the violent offender's guns pre-conviction. I'm endeavored to say, in my opinion, based on the circumstances surrounding his arrest, and previous record, it is a travesty he was granted bail. If he hadn't violated his bail conditions - and murdered 8 people - he would have faced a jury of his peers where, if convicted of a felony, he would have lost his right to own firearms. My original post on this person/event had at its crux this basic premise and observation by myself.

We'll have to see what SCOTUS comes up with on the Rahimi case regarding much of what you refer to above. That one's a sticky wicket because Garland chose such a scum bag as a crash test dummy.

On your fixable list, I've shared in this thread above my thoughts on what I feel are needed checks and balances which currently don't exist as ERPO's are being written into law. Safe storage is a great idea, when approached voluntarily and via education and public awareness campaigns. Again, in my opinion. Not a fan of registration and the slippery slope it ushers in.

Strongly agree on culture of violence as big part of problem. Disagree on the glorification of guns as part of the problem, except as it exists within the culture of violence, and in a small percentage of overall law-abiding legal gun owners who are fringe, extreme, and unsettling in their ideals.

Appreciate and respect your replies.

Mr. Geneva: You will be pleased to know I am, without prejudice, consciously uncoupling from our interactions, and moving far, far away.

Be well.

ok, but that then blows a big hole in your willingness to sacrifice individual rights.
If you don't see the hypocrisy, I probably am speaking to deaf ears.

Personally, I can't imagine a more important right under our system than due process before incarceration.
Of course, there are societies which disagree.

In some, certain kinds of crimes are indeed curtailed to near non existent. They have differing "travesty" issues.

I am 100% not in favor of anyone having individual rights denied. Incarceration should only occur if one is found guilty and so sentenced by a judge - after a trial by a jury of one's peers. Not sure where I wrote or implied otherwise. When I first posted about Mr. Nance, I felt he had checked the boxes (second paragraph) to earn a "maybe this individual shouldn't get bail" exception:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

That's what was top of mind. Not that 99.99% of folks arrested should have any of their rights violated. But rather that the 0.01% "second paragraph box checkers" might just be deserving of being held over for trial without bail - as doing so will potentially benefit public safety. I obviously need to communicate my thoughts more clearly. Or leave them in my head! I'll try to do better moving forward. Apologies.

Don’t we have instances when people are held without bail in this country?

Only if you are lucky enough to catch the criminals first.

I believe you are not a criminal until after the trial and conviction or plea.

My bad.... alleged criminals.... of course the alleged criminal could have a past criminal conviction which thereby technically makes him a former criminal and an alleged criminal as well.

And yet despite all your wasted effort there to say something, a former and alleged criminal is in fact not a criminal. Language matters.

They can't be considered wasted now can they? They got your attention.

[MDlaxfan76]

For cradle's benefit, Gov. Hochul was on Morning Joe this AM talking about the revisions to bail discretion that they've put through that enables judges to have some discretion as to who to hold, who to have higher bail, etc, enabling judges to actually hold tougher over a broader spectrum of crimes rather than mandating release with low or no bail for lesser crimes. Prior rules had judges handcuffed, forced to release. But there's differing implementation by judges that result in some head scratchers...assault of a police officer?

Violent crime is down by a lot in NY, but the current focus is now on escalating lesser, typically property crimes in which the perps feel they can operate with near impunity. Mostly organized, gang crime. Very frustrating to police.

I didn't hear this, but sounds like they need to somehow differentiate between the organized behaviors and the petty one offs that kids or desperate folks might do on their own.

[cradleandshoot]

For cradle's benefit, Gov. Hochul was on Morning Joe this AM talking about the revisions to bail discretion that they've put through that enables judges to have some discretion as to who to hold, who to have higher bail, etc, enabling judges to actually hold tougher over a broader spectrum of crimes rather than mandating release with low or no bail for lesser crimes. Prior rules had judges handcuffed, forced to release. But there's differing implementation by judges that result in some head scratchers...assault of a police officer?

Violent crime is down by a lot in NY, but the current focus is now on escalating lesser, typically property crimes in which the perps feel they can operate with near impunity. Mostly organized, gang crime. Very frustrating to police.

I didn't hear this, but sounds like they need to somehow differentiate between the organized behaviors and the petty one offs that kids or desperate folks might do on their own.

Damn, no cable no MSNBC. Gov. Hochul has been dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Bail reform as passed by the fanatical FLP tyrants that run this state have proven to be an abysmal failure. The KIA boys proved that last year. 3300 plus vehicles stolen for joy rides in Rochester alone. The vast majority of these thefts were younguns under 16. On the rare occasions that they were caught all the police could do was issue an appearance ticket, pat the young thief on the fanny and send them on their way. Gov. Hochul isn't stupid. She finally came to the conclusion that what the Democrats were doing in this state was a disaster of epic proportions. By that I mean the out of control crime was going to bite the Democrats in the butt come election. Even NYS Republicans as stupid as they are understand an opportunity when it's handed to them.

[MDlaxfan76]

For cradle's benefit, Gov. Hochul was on Morning Joe this AM talking about the revisions to bail discretion that they've put through that enables judges to have some discretion as to who to hold, who to have higher bail, etc, enabling judges to actually hold tougher over a broader spectrum of crimes rather than mandating release with low or no bail for lesser crimes. Prior rules had judges handcuffed, forced to release. But there's differing implementation by judges that result in some head scratchers...assault of a police officer?

Violent crime is down by a lot in NY, but the current focus is now on escalating lesser, typically property crimes in which the perps feel they can operate with near impunity. Mostly organized, gang crime. Very frustrating to police.

I didn't hear this, but sounds like they need to somehow differentiate between the organized behaviors and the petty one offs that kids or desperate folks might do on their own.

Damn, no cable no MSNBC. Gov. Hochul has been dragged kicking and screaming into the real world. Bail reform as passed by the fanatical FLP tyrants that run this state have proven to be an abysmal failure. The KIA boys proved that last year. 3300 plus vehicles stolen for joy rides in Rochester alone. The vast majority of these thefts were younguns under 16. On the rare occasions that they were caught all the police could do was issue an appearance ticket, pat the young thief on the fanny and send them on their way. Gov. Hochul isn't stupid. She finally came to the conclusion that what the Democrats were doing in this state was a disaster of epic proportions. By that I mean the out of control crime was going to bite the Democrats in the butt come election. Even NYS Republicans as stupid as they are understand an opportunity when it's handed to them.

Long read, but thorough. No need for cable.
Beginning in 2020, Hochul has put through 3 modifications to bail, after the law preceding her election had issues that needed to be tightened up.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2 ... on/385379/

How is violent crime doing in New York cradle?
How is the state doing comparatively nationally? For instance, how is the homicide rate compare? How is trending?