|
|
|
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:
Do President Biden's new gun actions infringe on the second amendment? It might be too soon to tell
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
President Biden has announced plans for about half a dozen executive actions. Among them, he wants tighter regulations on buyers of ghost guns, or homemade firearms assembled from parts kits. He wants these treated under the Gun Control Act, and include a background check.
Other plans include a proposed rule regulating pistol-stabilizing braces. Biden said this was used in the Boulder, Colorado shooting last month, which left 10 people dead. He also urges states to adopt "Red Flag Laws," and will publish model legislation in the next two months. Red Flag Laws allow someone to petition a court to have weapons confiscated from someone who could be a danger to themselves or others. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/9/2021)
|
"Red Flag Laws require that there be a court hearing and due process."
No, they categorically DO NOT.
They provide for a hearing AFTER the right has already been suspended. Due process requires an adversarial hearing during which the respondent can refute allegations and provide rebuttal evidence, BEFORE his rights are suspended.
The guarantee of due process exists to PREVENT the violation of rights; a hearing after the fact cannot satisfy that requirement, Q.E.D.
Non sequitur. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
