Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick
If this law were passed you wouldn’t have to wait for the courts to decide. That frog in the hot water would finally jump up and spit some Beechnut that dude’s eye and shoot ‘im down with an ol’ Colt 45.
That law would violate all things Constitutional and war would begin shortly thereafter.
|
Several states already have some form of this in place. We've seen it advocated before that whacko's (who always turn out to be a person "known to authorities") shouldn't have weapons. So far I haven't heard of anyone who has petitioned on a rights violation based on not having opportunity to refute the allegation that caused their firearms to be pre-emptively confiscated. The absence of the opportunity for a person to refute or undergo an eval PRIOR to the taking of property by the State is troubling. And they vary, in terms of "safeguards" from state to state so the concept is - again - equal protection is out the window. Or maybe it's just that if a person got unjustly "swatted" under such a law they're currently broke from fighting it and can't afford counsel. (Hell, in a lot of jurisdictions one has to engage in separate court action to petition for the return of their firearm lawfully used in a self-defense situation.)
Hell... that's a whole 'nuther thread.
Oh. Wait....
