I will give you a few examples of such situations.

1. Suspect violently assaults a tourist and robs them but the tourist does not want to prosecute. Class A felony and a crime of violence. The case could be open and shut, completely caught on camera, but the suspect will be released if the victim refuses to return to court to prosecute.

2. Mom and juvenile daughter live alone together. Mom gets a new boyfriend who sexually assaults the daughter and threatens the daughter with a deadly weapon to keep quiet. Cops are called and the guy gets arrested but the mom states that as the parent, her daughter does not have permission to testify in court. The boyfriend gets released because the prosecutors cannot proceed without the daughter being allowed to testify.

3. Suspect robs an elderly person at gun point but is caught and identified.  Before the case can go to trial the elderly person dies of natural causes. The prosecution doesn't have a complainant and the suspect gets released.


Here are three possible scenarios in which there could be overwhelming evidence that the individual is violent and a real danger to society but because of a technicality they cannot be denied a firearm. Yes I agree that conviction should be the standard but there are certain situations where relying only on convictions as necessary proof of a violent tendency/history is inadequate.  Do you see what I am getting at?

I wouldn't say that a denial of firearms should be automatic but perhaps there could be another court review process for when there is strong evidence they are a dangerous individual but there is no conviction due to some technicality.  Imagine there was someone caught planning a mass murder event but a key witness called cops and foiled it but come to trial the witness has died or moved and can't be located for trial. This individual gets released without testimony from the key witness and thus has no criminal record. The next month he buys a bunch of guns and kills a bunch of people. How could we defend allowing him to purchase firearms simply because there was no criminal conviction?

Where they convicted of a FELONY?

By your standards maybe they should round up all the Japanese because they might be spies, or incarcerate all the Arabs because they might be terrorists...Last time I looked this is still America, even if the Demorats want to make it into something else....
 

  Imagine there was someone caught planning a mass murder event but a key witness called cops and foiled it but come to trial the witness has died or moved and can't be located for trial. This individual gets released without testimony from the key witness and thus has no criminal record. The next month he buys a bunch of guns and kills a bunch of people. How could we defend allowing him to purchase firearms simply because there was no criminal conviction?

You mean like how the Clinton body count keep rising?  Look up the most recent person to be killed who was supposed to testify against them the next day.

All your examples are the reason why we have due process. It works both ways.  What if someone was making up a story about the person.  Should just the accusation be enough to take away the 2a right (red flag law)?

What can help reduce an active shooting is remove gun free zones and allow citizens to be armed.  Stats support that most active shootings happen in gun free zones.  I think Pittsburg just passed a law that will disarm law enforcement on school grounds.  IDK the details, but is it because they get their guns taken from them and used?

Where they convicted of a FELONY?

By your standards maybe they should round up all the Japanese because they might be spies, or incarcerate all the Arabs because they might be terrorists...Last time I looked this is still America, even if the Demorats want to make it into something else....

I gave you specific examples where an individual was not convicted of a felony however there is overwhelming evidence that the person is a violent danger to society. I am showing you situations where using only a record of conviction fails.

You analogy is flawed because it suggests I am giving you instances where there is only suspicion. Nowhere did I suggest anything akin to putting people in jail because there is some suspicion they are bad. I am talking about situations where there is strong evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual is a danger to society and yet get off because of a technicality.

You mean like how the Clinton body count keep rising?  Look up the most recent person to be killed who was supposed to testify against them the next day.

All your examples are the reason why we have due process. It works both ways.  What if someone was making up a story about the person.  Should just the accusation be enough to take away the 2a right (red flag law)?

What can help reduce an active shooting is remove gun free zones and allow citizens to be armed.  Stats support that most active shootings happen in gun free zones.  I think Pittsburg just passed a law that will disarm law enforcement on school grounds.  IDK the details, but is it because they get their guns taken from them and used?

I would really rather not get into conspiracy theories at this point because they really don't address the issue I am referring to.

I understand that the constitution grants individuals certain protections when accused of a crime such as the right to confront an accuser and the right to appeal their detention. I take very seriously the idea of revoking a constitutional right and utmost care should be taken to ensure an innocent person is not denied their rights. As they say, better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail. We know that guilty individuals go free all the time because victims don't want to prosecute, aren't allowed to prosecute, or end up passing away.

But the problem, the hole in the system that I am trying to illustrate is that our imperfect system allows certain individuals to slip through the cracks even though they are clearly guilty and dangerous. To be clear, I am not suggesting some individual government employee or police department gets to arbitrarily look at someone and take away their rights to own a firearm. Any additional system that could revoke someone's right to own and carry a firearm would still have to involve a legal court proceeding involving evidence standards and an appeals process before I could think of supporting it.

What do you think should be done about those types of situations? Do we just shrug and say nothing we could have done since the person wasn't convicted of something?

I gave you specific examples where an individual was not convicted of a felony however there is overwhelming evidence that the person is a violent danger to society. I am showing you situations where using only a record of conviction fails.

You analogy is flawed because it suggests I am giving you instances where there is only suspicion. Nowhere did I suggest anything akin to putting people in jail because there is some suspicion they are bad. I am talking about situations where there is strong evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual is a danger to society and yet get off because of a technicality.

In the examples you gave, if the individual has overwhelming evidence that the person is a violent danger to society, then it is the state who needs to pursue the case and convict the transgressor.  The individuals do not need to have a complainant file the case for the prosecution, it would be state vs. actor.  Therefore, if the violent individual was NOT convicted in such a manner, then they are NOT a felon.  No rights can be revoked.  Plain and simple.  If that person is still on the streets the state has dropped the ball, and the state is responsible for it.  Sad but a true fact and happens everyday , especially in this state. AND THIS is where our so called 'leaders' should be focusing their attention!

There can be no removal of one's rights just 'because' someone claims 'danger to society' or  'technicality',   there is too much room for abuse of power, and that latitude is specifically addressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the express reason for the creation of those documents to begin with.

What do you think should be done about those types of situations? Do we just shrug and say nothing we could have done since the person wasn't convicted of something?

The individuals do not need to have a complainant file the case for the prosecution, it would be state vs. actor.  Therefore, if the violent individual was NOT convicted in such a manner, then they are NOT a felon.  No rights can be revoked.  Plain and simple.  If that person is still on the streets, the state has dropped the ball and the state is responsible for it.  Sad but a true fact and happens everyday , especially in this state. AND THIS is where our so called 'leaders' should be focusing their attention!

This is getting way off topic.   If you wish to further debate, start a new thread specifically for the topic.

The individuals do not need to have a complainant file the case for the prosecution, it would be state vs. actor.  Therefore, if the violent individual was NOT convicted in such a manner, then they are NOT a felon.  No rights can be revoked.  Plain and simple.  If that person is still on the streets, the state has dropped the ball and the state is responsible for it.  Sad but a true fact and happens everyday , especially in this state. AND THIS is where our so called 'leaders' should be focusing their attention!

That is not always the case. In certain circumstances yes the state will assume the role of the victim and become the complainant. Murder is the most obvious example but the state also does this in domestic violence cases. Now it is possible that the state could be the complainant in a robbery case (for example) but for some reason it does not seem very common. You are right that this is a failing of our own government and our leaders should be doing something about this.

However there are still situations where even if the state became the complainant a prosecution is dropped without the actual victim. Take the case of a Japanese tourist, if they put on their statement that they will not cooperate with an investigation and that they will not return to testify in the trial then the state has just lost their key witness and the prosecution would have to be dropped because the accused has the right to confront the accuser and there would be no witness to attest to the crime. The same issue is present in the other examples I mentioned such as the death of a witness or a parent refusing to let their juvenile child testify.

I do agree that a simple allegation or probable cause (basically the same thing sometimes) is not enough justification to take away someone's gun rights. In my opinion the minimum standard should be the preponderance of the evidence. I will leave it there as you are right this is going a bit off topic. I just hope that I could establish why there is room for people to have some concern that maybe criminal conviction along might not be enough. I like to look for areas of commonality and build on that in order to get people on our side rather than a constant arm wrestle.

Make a new thread

I would really rather not get into conspiracy theories at this point because they really don't address the issue I am referring to.

When someone dies, it is a fact. When they die before they were supposed to testify, that is also a fact.  And so is what they were supposed to testify about.  All FACTS, and not a theory.

Look up the Clinton body counts, especially all those who were on their secret service detail.  I didn't know SS agents die in such high numbers.

I do agree that it is a hard decision to make where to take away someones rights for the better good.  But once you do, where does it end?  This is why we have due process.  To make sure peoples rights are not taken away just because.  But no law is perfect.  Because say we did take away rights with out due process, then innocent people would also lose their right.  So it works both ways.  What we can do is limit the exposure.  Remove gun free zones for 1.  That would be  a start in the right direction.

And red flag laws also endanger LEO's.  There have been incidents where newly passed red flag laws lead to shoot outs.  Imagine PD coming to your door wanting your guns.  And you had no chance to tell your side.  All you know is someone complained about you  and we're here to take your guns.  This is why the shoot outs happened (molon labe thought) was in their mind.  Could the out come happened with no violence if the people had their right to a court date?  We will never know.