|
|
|
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:
MA: Baker Signs "Red Flag" Gun Bill
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker on Tuesday signed a bill that will allow for the temporary removal of guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others. The new law lets a relative or someone else with close ties to a legal gun owner petition a court for a 12-month extreme risk protection order if the individual is exhibiting dangerous or unstable behavior. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/4/2018)
|
"The individual can appeal the decision."
That does not satisfy due process. An adversarial hearing BEFORE a person's rights may be suspended is commanded by the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
Merely providing an appeal after an ex parte hearing does not vitiate the unconstitutionality of this nonsense. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
