Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
October 21, 2018, 05:23:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Time to wake the sleeping giant -SB83 (take your guns without due process bill)  (Read 26721 times)
groundgrid
Life Member
*****
Posts: 314


« on: May 06, 2015, 09:22:43 PM »

Link to the actual bill:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/SB+83/$file/legis.html?open

Link to NRA-ILA explanation of the bill:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150506/delaware-bill-that-violates-due-process-to-be-heard-in-committee-your-help-is-needed

Gabby Giffords will be in Dover today (Thursday) to lobby for the bill.

We need to have a massive presence at.the committee hearing (date currently unknown) .

It is highly likely that this bill was introduced based on the assumption that we have all lost interest in politics. Should it pass, it will be followed by many more. They will be pushed through on the fastest track possible.

Let's all shift back into high gear for the next few weeks & put a stop to it.

Call, write, e-mail & visit your senators as soon as possible.
Logged

Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it
(The reason why Liberal/Progressives have waged a war on Christianity)
Cbmarine
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1284


III Marine Amphib Corps


« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2015, 09:53:01 PM »

My letter to my co-sponsoring Rep with a copy to my Senator. The latter doesn't get involved until the bill is out of committee.

Rep. _______
  As a co-sponsor of SB 83 and my state Representative, please explain by return e-mail how removing this clause, (other than an ex parte order), from 11 Del C. §1448(a)(6) does not violate this sentence contained in the 14th Amendment Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In my reasoning, confiscating property from an individual based on an unsubstantiated charge violates due process.  What say you?
Logged

Smelly deplorable dreg of society clinging to God and guns
New Castle County
groundgrid
Life Member
*****
Posts: 314


« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2015, 10:20:37 AM »

Committee hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 13th at 1:30PM

Hopefully this will change but considering that the committee chair is one of the sponsors it may not.

As I suspected, bill is fast tracked.

Opposition now will go a long way toward getting it pushed back.
Logged

Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it
(The reason why Liberal/Progressives have waged a war on Christianity)
Cbmarine
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1284


III Marine Amphib Corps


« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2015, 10:19:47 AM »

Here are the sponsor and co-sponsors of the bill, followed by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contact them, especially if they represent your district, and voice your disapproval. Note our 'favorite' RINO is one of the co-sponsors. IMO, the offending piece is the removal of the 'ex parte' clause from 11 Del. C. §1448(a)(6).  Though IANAL, this means that if someone files a Family Protection Abuse order against you that you must surrender your firearms within 24 hours of notification and then you get to go to court to try to get them back.  If this interpretation is incorrect, please render the correct meaning.  

Senate Bill 83

Primary Sponsor(s):   Henry   Additional Sponsor(s):    Rep. Longhurst
Co-Sponsors:   Sens. Cloutier, Peterson, Townsend; NewLine, Reps. Barbieri, Baumbach, Bolden, Heffernan, Jaques, Keeley, Kowalko, Lynn, Potter, B. Short

Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman: Henry
Members:   Blevins, Lavelle, McDowell, Simpson, Townsend

You can search for the SB 83 bill description using Bill Quick Search (upper right). http://legis.delaware.gov

If you need to look up your senator and representatives names, you can navigate through the link above or, open your county parcel search and lookup your name/address
http://www3.nccde.org/parcel/search
http://kent400.co.kent.de.us
http://www.sussexcountyde.gov/name-search

« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 10:32:37 AM by Cbmarine » Logged

Smelly deplorable dreg of society clinging to God and guns
New Castle County
RetCapt1994
Life Member
*****
Posts: 327


« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2015, 03:31:12 PM »

The Progressives (Jack The Whack and Company) just have to screw with us. When I moved here in 1994 Dems and Repubs got along and it was very gun friendly. Then the liberal progressives took over and we now have problems. They brought  in Giffords this year and last year her husband, Kelly along with the Newtown Parents. IMHO this is despicable, outsiders have no business involving themselves in the  law making process in DE. It appears that  Bloomberg money has come and DE Progressives have their hands out. For me it is almost time to move to another state.
Logged

Glock Armorer - Tavor Level One Armorer
It is all about bullet placement                          Carry permits, de ccw,pa ccw and leosa/hr218  DELAWARE SUCKS----THE WORST STATE
SteveMiller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 150



« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2015, 04:36:18 PM »

The Progressives (Jack The Whack and Company) just have to screw with us. When I moved here in 1994 Dems and Repubs got along and it was very gun friendly. Then the liberal progressives took over and we now have problems. They brought  in Giffords this year and last year her husband, Kelly along with the Newtown Parents. IMHO this is despicable, outsiders have no business involving themselves in the  law making process in DE. It appears that  Bloomberg money has come and DE Progressives have their hands out. For me it is almost time to move to another state.

Yes, it is very upsetting
Logged

Steve Miller
DSSA
NRA Life Member
Gun Owners of America
Clarence
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1059


Liberty and Independence


« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2015, 05:46:33 PM »

I am not a lawyer.  This looks like it goes into effect AFTER the motion is considered:

(a) After consideration of a petition for a protective order, the Court may grant relief as follows:[/b]

Also what does ex-parte mean.

Is it really true that this goes into effect before a hearing?  I want to be right when I contact my representative as he could go either way I think.

Clarification please.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 05:51:05 PM by Clarence » Logged

DE PA VA AZ FL ccw. NRA Life Member.

For slavery fled, O glorious dead, When you fell in the foggy dew.
Cbmarine
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1284


III Marine Amphib Corps


« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2015, 06:10:14 PM »

Ex Parte (from dictionary.com): from or on one side only of a dispute, as a divorce suit; without notice to or the presence of the other party.

read this paragraph carefully.  The strikethrough wording is being removed from existing law.  The bold wording is being added. Short interpretation: your ex files and gets an abuse order on you. You have surrender firearms now and go to court later.  
§ 1448. Possession and purchase of deadly weapons by persons prohibited; penalties.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the following persons are prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling a deadly weapon or ammunition for a firearm within the State:
(6) Any person who is subject to a Family Court protection from abuse order (other than an ex parte order), but only for so long as that order remains in effect or is not vacated or otherwise terminated, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a contested order issued solely upon § 1041(1)d., e., or h. of Title 10, or any combination thereof. Such prohibition is effective immediately upon entry of the protection from abuse order as to purchasing or otherwise obtaining a firearm or ammunition and is effective as to owning, possessing, or controlling any deadly weapon 24 hours after personal service of the protection from abuse order upon the person;
« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 06:12:30 PM by Cbmarine » Logged

Smelly deplorable dreg of society clinging to God and guns
New Castle County
Clarence
Life Member
*****
Posts: 1059


Liberty and Independence


« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2015, 06:19:08 PM »

So entry of the order means when it is filed and not when it is approved by a judge?   

Wow.  No due process.

I guess in a perfect world taking  "vacation" from firearms could be a good idea if there is truly a valid threat of armed violence.  Unfortunately a vindictive spouse and lawyer can and do use the system to gain advantage in divorce and custody.

This is why a full hearing with facts and evidence needs to happen.

My wife and I are on this Monday with my representative ( forget my senator)
Logged

DE PA VA AZ FL ccw. NRA Life Member.

For slavery fled, O glorious dead, When you fell in the foggy dew.
groundgrid
Life Member
*****
Posts: 314


« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2015, 06:23:02 PM »

In this case ex=parte means that the order can be issued without all of the involved parties being given the opportunity to appear before the judge who is issuing the order.

Therefore, an order could be issued for a person to relinquish their guns without that person even knowing that a PFA order was being sought. For example, your ex from up to 5 years ago sees you out with a hot babe, gets jealous & tells the judge that you have guns and
that she feels threatened by you. Based on her statement alone the judge can issue an order for you to surrender your guns within 24 hours. You have no idea that this is happening until the police show up at your door.

This violates our constitutional protections on multiple levels & is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, the police bear no responsibility for the safe keeping of your guns. Should you eventually get them back who knows what damage you might find. Plus, you are forced to pay them and only them to store your guns. There is no limit to what they can charge & that amount may quickly exceed the value of your guns.

There are already procedures in place under which the police can disarm you, therefore the proposed law is absolutely not necessary.
IMO, if the bill cannot be defeated in its entirety, the following changes are necessary:
1). Leave in place the existing ban on ex-parte orders.
2). Make the request of a PFA order under false pretenses a felony & allow the falsely accused party to sue for damages.
3). Should the police need to take guns away from someone, they are fully responsible for the proper storage & handling of those guns.
4). No fees should be assessed for the storage of seized weapons & they should be automatically returned on the expiration of the PFA order. Furthermore, the police should be barred from destroying your property that is in their possession.
5). The 5 year time limit for someone to ask for a PFA order is ridiculous. The way that the bill is worded, someone that you lived with for a few weeks 4 years ago can still file for a PFA order. Once a relationship is over, its over, especially if you have no contact with that person.
Logged

Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it
(The reason why Liberal/Progressives have waged a war on Christianity)
groundgrid
Life Member
*****
Posts: 314


« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2015, 06:28:54 PM »

Another issue that I forgot.

In many messy divorces PFA orders are routinely filed by both parties even if there is no history of violence.
Most people simply abide by the orders & stay away from their ex.

The passage of this bill makes this a much more complicated matter. There is no consideration for these types of situations in the bill.
Logged

Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it
(The reason why Liberal/Progressives have waged a war on Christianity)
ChrisCar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 117



« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2015, 07:36:13 PM »

I'm not an attorney in Delaware, but for a bit of clarification, here's how a protective order can be obtained (this part is not affected by the proposed law):

One party (the Petitioner) goes to court and files and applies for an emergency protective order alleging that his/her partner (the Respondent) has engaged in domestic violence.  Pursuant to 10 Del C. §1043, the court conducts an ex parte hearing (meaning the Respondent isn't in court and doesn't get to tell his/her side; the court only gets one side of the story).  If the court determines that the preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation (i.e. if its more likely than not that it happened), the court issues the emergency order.   Then the Respondent is entitled to a hearing within 30 days.  At that time, s/he has an opportunity to tell his/her side of the story to the court, and the judge makes the decision to vacate the order or continue it.

Under this new proposed statute, the Respondent's firearm(s) would have to be confiscated pending that final hearing (and if the order is maintained after that).

So, let's say you've got a nasty break-up going on.  Your partner knows you love your firearms, so s/he goes to court and says you assaulted him/her and s/he needs protection -- oh, and you have firearms.  Without you being there, the court could grant the emergent order, removing you from the house and also ordering the seizure of your arms pending the full hearing. 

If it's any consolation (which it isn't), the new law doesn't apply if the basis for the protective order is: "engaging in a course of alarming or distressing conduct in a manner which is likely to cause fear or emotional distress or to provoke a violent or disorderly response;" or "Trespassing on or in property of another person, or on or in property from which the trespasser has been excluded by court order."  The allegation has to be something more serious.


If you don't think this is a potential problem, let me say that this is very similar to the way things work in New Jersey (where I am an attorney).  I can tell you, even if the order is later dismissed, it's a serious pain in the butt getting those firearms returned.   Of course, Jersey is still worse.  There, if an officer responds to a domestic violence call and the officer sees any signs of domestic violence (which could just be redness), the officer must arrest the suspect.  In addition, the officer must then inquire if there are weapons on the premises and "seize any weapon that the officer reasonably believes would expose the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury."  N.J.S.A. §2C:25-21.   So the officer gets to make the determination right there at the scene whether your firearms are going to be taken. 
Logged

New Castle County
DE CCDW,  PA LTCF,  UT CFP
NRA Benefactor Member
DSSA Member
RetCapt1994
Life Member
*****
Posts: 327


« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2015, 02:38:14 PM »

My state senator Sen.Gary Simpson was sent an email. A quick response was returned and the Senator will vote NO on SB 83. Sen.Simpson is very much aware of 2nd Amend. and respects the rights of the citizens. All I can say is thank you Sen.Simpson.
Logged

Glock Armorer - Tavor Level One Armorer
It is all about bullet placement                          Carry permits, de ccw,pa ccw and leosa/hr218  DELAWARE SUCKS----THE WORST STATE
SturmRugerSR9
Life Member
*****
Posts: 2261


Made in America


« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2015, 03:29:01 PM »

I too have written Sen. Colin Bonini asking for a NO vote on SB83.
Logged

I'D RATHER HAVE A GUN IN MY HANDS, THAN A COP ON THE PHONE!

I reserve the right to not be perfect.

PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

DECCW Permit Holder
Former PA (non-resident) Permit Holder
NRA Member
USAF Vietnam Era Veteran
Kent County
Christian/Conservative
groundgrid
Life Member
*****
Posts: 314


« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2015, 06:54:48 PM »

Here is a copy of a news release from SAF regarding a case that happened in another state. If this bill is enacted into law it will happen here soon:

Arizona Navy Vet Gets Guns Back, Thanks SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today.

SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Marc J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.

Bailey was generous in his praise of SAF’s intervention, noting, “I want to thank Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation for all the help in getting my firearms returned.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said he was honored to have been able to step in with support for what he called a “worthy effort on behalf of a deserving veteran.”

Bailey had complained to the City of Glendale about a neighbor’s habit of parking dump trucks used in his landscaping company. The dispute unfolded over several months until Bailey called police over concerns of toxic chemical odors apparently coming from the neighbor’s property. The neighbor apparently alleged that Bailey had threatened him, and the following day, he obtained a harassment order against Bailey.

“Mr. Bailey had been devastated by incident,” Gottlieb explained. “This all started because of a dispute with a neighbor that got way out of hand. Nobody should have their life turned upside down, and their property seized, because of an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated.

“I want to credit attorney Marc Victor for his work in this legal action,” he added. “He was on top of this case, and SAF was delighted to help out with funding.”

“Now that Rick Bailey has his firearms back,” Gottlieb observed, “perhaps his dignity can also be restored. This kind of silly season story should never happen in real life.”
Logged

Here’s the real issue: when your religion is government, and government is god, you cannot tolerate any other God before it
(The reason why Liberal/Progressives have waged a war on Christianity)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!