|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Red-Flag Gun Laws- Public Safety or Abuse of the Innocent?
Submitted by:
Robert Morse
Website: http://slowfacts.wordpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
They are called Extreme-Risk Protection Orders. Some people call them Red-Flag Gun Confiscation.
In practice, these laws are designed for abuse. We’ve already seen them fail to stop violent crime. At best, innocent individuals have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their rights restored after they’ve been served with a red-flag order.
Is that the unavoidable price of freedom, or is that the bigoted abuse of a disfavored minority for political gain? |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/17/2019)
|
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or " Property", without due process of law". Maybe it's time to remind these elected officials, that Government was not to exercise any power not delegated to it by the Constitution. Any person advocating gun control, gun registration, etc., of law abiding citizens without due process of law, does not deserve to be an elected representative.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(1/17/2019)
|
| Illegal confiscation of property. I have to wonder how many of these are the result of an angry wife getting back at her husband. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/18/2019)
|
Why is it that even the most cogent and thorough advocates for fundamental firearms and property rights persist in omitting the slam-dunk winning argument of the debate?
The Constitution says that it cannot be done without full due process.
The other arguments are superfluous, despite being germane. This is the first condition that must be met, before moving on to the others. Without the law first mandating due process, all ostensible justifications are moot. |
|
|
