Summations Only

Given that I quote your statements in each of those posts, I don't see how there can be a lack of relation to what you are saying. You claim not to be talking about Luke and yet I quote your statements regarding Luke in the messages I respond to.In any event, I won't pursue this any further. I don't want to confuse you anymore.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This would certainly be problematic if the search were conducted not because the gun was evidence in a crime, but for other reasons because a gun can be anywhere and a search for a gun allows a search of the entire house.However when the gun is involved in a crime, the police certainly don't have to indicate that they know where the gun is when they search. They get a warrant that allows looking in any place big enough to hold the gun. Just specifying house and car is enough legally.

Explain how this would constitute 'due process'. What else, besides guns, could the police remove from the house because of a domestic violence incident. They are already likely to remove one or more of the participants and might, after a hearing, elect to apply a court order keeping them apart. But how is simply taking the guns away and keeping them any kind of due process?

After which the guns would be removed from the house? Or not removed from the house? You did not even hint at any due process here. Only one possible outcome, no standards for removal or not. Fight in house => guns removed is what you stated.To make this less about what you said or did not say, what kinds of things might be considered in a hearing that decides whether the police take away your guns after a fight in your house. Just establishing probable cause to believe there was a fight?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

All of which are substantially more than "fight" => guns removed and possibly not returned. But this is your proposal. You should be telling us what you mean before. In short, "I need the gun for self defense" would not be sufficient at a hearing. That's fine with me. But how about, "I have a constitutionally protected right to keep guns safely in my house and the state cannot take away my gun for any reasons less substantial than they would use to burden a woman's right to an abortion. And I already keep my guns under lock and key with ammo stored elsewhere?"Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. But if you post. Fight with your wife -> Police take away your guns, don't be surprised if people don't anticipate any details that you might want to put there. I still don't really know what we were supposed to make out of your post.

Wouldn't that make the shooting a criminal shooting? What did Wells mean here?

Your lack of detail might be one of the reasons why your proposal was found unacceptable by the other poster to respond. Taking away guns simply because a fight occurred at a house really is not an acceptable idea. On the other hand, taking the guns away because the wife and husband were sniping away at each other from behind the sofa is acceptable. But that was going to happen anyway.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

While that is true, the problem I find here is that the statement about looking into the criminal negligence of mom was a statement from the author of the article. While the other statement was a quote of Wells, the law enforcement guy. There is no indication that Well was even considering the issue of mom's criminal culpability.

meant to edit but created a dup.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The police are going to separate the participants. If the situation is dangerous, the police are not going to leave fighters behind together to continue a fist fight, let alone a shoot out. The house is of course full of potentially lethal weapons, most of which are in the kitchen and garage. Are the police going to take the next step of child proofing the house? Get rid of the rat poison?

Will you ever stop taking a disagreement as badgering? I don't think I continue the discussion any longer than you do. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I note here that Hydro added some detail that you did not. The principle behind his objection is pretty much the same as the one behind mine.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And in this corner, the West VA legislature going against the will of its citizens...

quote:

---

By more than a 2-1 ratio, lawmakers in West Virginia's House of Delegates have approved a bill that would allow gun owners to carry concealed handguns without a permit. The only concealed-carry permits would be for people who are 18-21 years old.

​

Delegates approved the bill despite a recent poll that found "84 percent of likely state voters and 87 percent of gun owners support or strongly support the existing law requiring a state permit and gun safety training to carry concealed firearms," according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

meant to PM. sorry.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.