Bill allowing taking guns from unstable people may get hearing in Lansing

[Smokepole]

When it rains, it pours.

Bill allowing taking guns from unstable people may get hearing in Lansing

By Kathleen Gray
Detroit Free Press
February 20th. 2018

Michigan legislators may start the Second Amendment debate by looking at bills that would keep weapons out of the hands of people with mental health problems.At least 48 bills have been introduced to either expand or restrict access to guns and other weapons since the beginning of 2017. While most of the bills are stuck in legislative committees, unable to get a vote, two that deal specifically with removing guns from people who have mental health issues may take precedence over bills that will expand access to guns.

“With everything that’s going on now, this is a tool that could have helped in Florida,” state Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Oak Park, said of his “extreme risk protection” bill.

The measure would allow family members or law enforcement officials to petition a judge to get weapons temporarily removed from a person who presents a dangerous threat to themselves or others.

Five states – California, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington and Indiana – have such bills, also referred to as "red flag" legislation, and another dozen states are considering similar proposals.

[Scoop]

So a disgruntled wife who's been cheated on can lie to the court and get her soon-to-be ex-husband's firearms taken away from him? Nice ...

[Leader]

So a disgruntled wife who's been cheated on can lie to the court and get her soon-to-be ex-husband's firearms taken away from him? Nice ...

Oh come on now scoop, suggesting a woman would lie is like saying a police officer might.
Never happen.

Only white men lie & they always do.

[dwcopple]

This better not happen. People may avoid treatment for anxiety out of fear of losing gun rights. Politicians suck

[matt11]

So a disgruntled wife who's been cheated on can lie to the court and get her soon-to-be ex-husband's firearms taken away from him? Nice ...

they can pretty much do this already.

[fatskater]

Who decides and how impartial will they be?

[matt11]

Who decides and how impartial will they be?

I heard a few minutes of discussion on the radio, They were saying you had to do something, and would have to goin front of a judge before they could act on anything.

[computeruser]

So a disgruntled wife who's been cheated on can lie to the court and get her soon-to-be ex-husband's firearms taken away from him? Nice ...

More reason not to cheat on your wife or otherwise be a crap husband!

Or to pick a crappy wife in the first place. Choices, like elections, have consequences.

[Roundballer]

I heard a few minutes of discussion on the radio, They were saying you had to do something, and would have to goin front of a judge before they could act on anything.

That is not the way the bill is written. Hell, the court clerk doesn't even have to require notification to the one that the order is written against before they show up to start taking things. This whole thing is a violation of due process and anyone voting for it and those that sponsored it should be brought up on charges of violating rights.

This is an extreme version of a PPO.

[DP425]

So a disgruntled wife who's been cheated on can lie to the court and get her soon-to-be ex-husband's firearms taken away from him? Nice ...

You act like this isn't a relatively easy thing to accomplish right now with a PPO.