Discussion for article #246518
Guns are not confiscated when an individual is served with the protective order…
My first reaction is, “Why the hell not?” But my second reaction is, “It’s so easy to get guns in this country, what would be the point?”
13 Likes
Maybe if people who got served protective orders had to surrender their guns fewer people would get killed. The NRA naturally has made sure no one can collect data to confirm this or any other epidemiologic questions about gun violence.
12 Likes
Ford had an assault rifle and automatic pistol that he used in the attacks.
Another victory for Wayne LaPierre.
9 Likes
Dear businesses, plan on workplace shootings. Or support sensible gun control. Be sure to let employees know your choice.
Dear GOP, pass sensible gun control in Congress.
Dear NRA, go to hell.
12 Likes
TPM:
Guns are not confiscated when an individual is served with the protective order, the sheriff said …
Maybe they should be.
5 Likes
I was going through that guy’s facebook page last night (don’t know if it is still available or not). Went back through his posts for over a year. There were a few pics of him with his two young kids, who were very precious looking. Didn’t see any that looked like a wife or girlfriend. Then a bunch of his guns, including one with scary-looking brass knuckles for a gun grip. One showed him with a handgun on his lap while he was sitting in his car. Given all of his previous crimes, it will be interesting to find out how he got them all.
5 Likes
“Our hearts go out to our employees and their families who are enduring this tragedy,” Mullet said. "
He didn’t mention prayers? He’ll have a teapotty challenger in the next election.
8 Likes
This is yet another factor in my ambivalence about seizing the firearms of someone who’s been served with a protective order. I’m sure that taking this guy’s guns away from him would have calmed him right down. In short, too late.
Legally, so the NRA would claim.
“We’re going to get through this. We’re going to do it right.”
Yeah, except angry people that a judge has deemed potentially dangerous to at least one other person (to wit, the issuance of a protection order) will still be allowed to own multiple assault weapons. So, it'll be done right, except for that. A minor detail.
1 Like
He’s just glad it wasn’t a white guy dressed in camo. You know, like a patriot.
2 Likes
[quote=“MisterNeutron, post:9, topic:33528”]
This is yet another factor in my ambivalence about seizing the firearms of someone who’s been served with a protective order. I’m sure that taking this guy’s guns away from him would have calmed him right down. In short, too late.
[/quote]Taking his guns away from him might have riled him up bigtime, but he would have had somewhat less effective means to express that anger. And in the time it would have taken to get more guns, he might have calmed down.
Terribly sad.
5 Likes
I don’t think I’d bet on that. This guy had “hothead” written all over him.
2 Likes
Why does Mullet hate God? Why is he attacking Christians!?
3 Likes
He’ll probably get audited for it.
2 Likes
You answered your own question, but there is also a legal argument about taking property without appropriate due process.
1 Like
Watch some gun nut claim “what do you expect from black people?”
3 Likes
Ford was served with a protective order and then went on a shooting rampage? If his domestic partner had been armed with a gun, this all could have been avoided.
See? Guns can make everything better!
2 Likes
The “due process” is the judicial proceeding that produced the protective order. The court is already placing restrictions on his freedom of movement and association. Extending it to a temporary seizure of a few items of property isn’t much of a stretch.
7 Likes