• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should police take guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?

Should police take guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?


  • Total voters
    26

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?



I say no.






2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.
 
Last edited:
"Suspect"? No.

Suspicion is merely that, suspicion unsupported by probable cause.

No right is supposed to be abridged by prior constraint without at least probable cause.
 
If the law allows for it, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with police executing their duty under the law. Whether such a law is constitutional or not, I am less certain.
 
Our legal system is founded on people being punished after it has been proved that they did something wrong.
 
They better have hard evidence of something. Suspicion leaves a gapping hole that can and is abused.
 
Obviously, I'd make an exception if they realized that a serious crime was imminent.
 
Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?



I say no.






2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.

Absolutely, so long as they can honestly articulate the supposed threat. I failed to disarm a mentally disturbed person once many, many years ago. The judge said the family had the guy under control and probate court would decide his fate. I recommended we seize his firearms and was told not to.

That was my last day on duty before leaving for annual training with my reserve unit. On the bus trip to the airport I got a page. My boss was calling to tell me the bad guy had took his 12 gauge and went to a preachers home, knocked on the door, and shot him in the head when he answered. Right in front of the preachers daughter.
 
I voted "no".

But I am only partially correct.

If there is evidence and reason to suspect that someone is about to harm others, it would seem reasonable to TEMPORAILY disarm them. It would also seem reasonable to return the weapon which was taken if the suspicion is disproved/unfounded.

The problem with that is, the person in question has to prove their innocence - the reverse of the norm.

I suppose such is a case-by-case matter.
 
If the law allows for it, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with police executing their duty under the law. Whether such a law is constitutional or not, I am less certain.

It is unconstitutional... plain and simple.
 
Depends. What are the criteria for "suspect?"

Proven severe chronic cases of mental illness causing regular occurrences of voices and hallucinations with violent fantasies?

I'd be okay with disarmament with potential for regaining firearms after getting professional help

Suspected member of a gang? Not a chance.
 
Police ought to be able to confiscate any weapon that's being brandished or is otherwise unsecured, as long as the owner can retrieve it without hassle at the police station as soon as the next morning.
 
In the case of people with documented physchological issues, retardation, or other handicaps which would likely prevent them from being able to excercise the responsibility of gun ownership, or if it was proven that the arms were procured illegally, yes.

But sans documentation of those issues, the state should not have any right to confiscate any arms that were obtained in a legal manner by a mentally stable, law abiding individual.
 
Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?



I say no.






2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.

Depends on the nature of their suspicions. However, if someone is demonstratably suicidal, or is making threats against the lives of others, I see nothing wrong with temporarily removing their access to weapons, pending evaluation of their mental health.
 
Not just "no" but, oh, "HELL NO!!!"

"Suspicion" is a rather nebulous term. Just what constitutes “suspicion”?

This is something that can be taken advantage of by the state very easily.

Remember, it was only very recently that the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano labeled “those individuals that are proponents of ‘States Rights’ or those that oppose the growth of the Federal Government as ‘Right Wing Extremists’. Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

She also said that, “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Apparently, not being a member of the proper, politically-correct group can have you labeled as “suspicious”.
 
Absolutely. But it depends on the degree of suspicion. I would use the legal obligation that my profession requires me to use: intent/means. If someone tells me that they have intent and means to kill themselves or another, I am legally bound to report this. I would use the same determining factor for someone who owns a gun. If they state that they have intent to use the gun to harm themselves or another, the gun should be confiscated. No question about it.
 
Where you point a gun says everything about whether you should have one.
 
Unfortunately, when the loons point a gun in the wrong place it is usually too late.
 
Guess it's better than being the Arnold Schwarzenegger. :mrgreen:

LOL.

On a serious note, and I wont do serious too often, having been in the US military I have had guns pointed at me and I have pointed guns at others.

Both conditions are disturbing.

Guns and idiots do not mix, the US needs gun control.
 
Last edited:
If the law allows for it, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with police executing their duty under the law. Whether such a law is constitutional or not, I am less certain.
Are you assuming there is a law?
 
LOL.

On a serious note, and I wont do serious too often, having been in the US military I have had guns pointed at me and I have pointed guns at others.

Both conditions are disturbing.

Guns and idiots do not mix, the US needs gun control.
So that's what you served in the military for? I'm glad you are out.
 
Absolutely, so long as they can honestly articulate the supposed threat. I failed to disarm a mentally disturbed person once many, many years ago. The judge said the family had the guy under control and probate court would decide his fate. I recommended we seize his firearms and was told not to.

That was my last day on duty before leaving for annual training with my reserve unit. On the bus trip to the airport I got a page. My boss was calling to tell me the bad guy had took his 12 gauge and went to a preachers home, knocked on the door, and shot him in the head when he answered. Right in front of the preachers daughter.
It could have gone the other way, with the man doing nothing at all.
 
Absolutely. But it depends on the degree of suspicion. I would use the legal obligation that my profession requires me to use: intent/means. If someone tells me that they have intent and means to kill themselves or another, I am legally bound to report this. I would use the same determining factor for someone who owns a gun. If they state that they have intent to use the gun to harm themselves or another, the gun should be confiscated. No question about it.

Yes, within the context described above by Captain Courtesy.
 
Back
Top Bottom