Good sense or a violation of his rights?

[Clipper]

The OD is carrying an article about a guy that made threatening calls to a former girlfriend, and the comment section is simply overflowing with comments with many points of view.


Reference:
Man charged after threatening phone calls
By - STAFF REPORT
Observer-Dispatch

This guy not only threatened to kill his girlfriend, he also threatened to shoot cops if they came to his home.

Some comments on the OD comment section are all indignant and hollering that they violated this guys rights and are over reacting in taking his guns when he is only charged with a misdemeanor.

DUHH! This guy had over 20 firearms in the house, 12,000 rounds of ammunition, and 80 clips. HE THREATENED TO KILL PEOPLE, INCLUDING POLICE OFFICERS! What idiot would even begin to think that this action didn't warrant a high bail, and confiscating the guys firearms?

This guy brought the actions of the judge down upon himself. It has no bearing on the case, that his guns were legal and that he had a right to have them. It is a simple matter of the judge attempting to save the lives of innocent victims from a angry, unstable, and threatening nutcase. That is why they call them "judges". They are charged with making "judgement calls." this particular judge did very well in his decisions to take the guns and to require a high bail.

Those that are attempting to advocate for this knucklehead's gun rights need to pick their battles with a little more common sense. They do the the rest of us responsible gun owners and our cause a disservice by simply posting such idiotic crap.

What do the rest of you gunowners think. Am I wrong in not defending this guy's gun rights, and for not condemning the judge for confiscating the firearms?

[Swimmy]

Unfortunately, we live in a time when threats were treated just as threats, and unless some overt effort was made to make good on those threats, the courts were powerless to intervene.

After a spat of violent domestic relationships where the abusive partner threatened to kill the victim or their children, there has been a strong push to allow more government intrusion "in case". Too many cases like Gonzales have occurred and the public outcry was why nothing was done that could have prevented this. Coincidentally, the US Sup. Ct. determined that the word "shall" as used in the law at issue in that case was not obligatory and more akin to "may."

Anywhooo, a simple google search for violent domestic relations will show a litany of articles where an ex kills the other and then commits suicide. The threats must have been pretty serious and believable for the courts to go so far as to take away his firearms. I've only seen that happen three times down here in Broome County Family Court. One time was shortly before the American Civic Association massacre and many thought the shooter was the guy the judge stripped of his gun rights. Many times, the Courts will consider past behavior and whether there is a genuine concern that firearms will be used. If so, the the Courts will intervene. It's an attempt to balance the safety concerns (public policy) and the 2d amendment. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't.

Not having read the entire case at hand, I can only assume that for the Court to order him to surrender his firearms, he must have a pretty violent past and has made true on other serious and violent threats before. Therefore, I assume the Court made a calculated evaluation and decided that public policy had to prevail in this instance because the risk was too great not to.

[corner]

removal of firearms is automatic in allegations of domestic abuse until and unless adjudicated in the defendents favor apparently they got this numbnuts on tape