|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/29/2019)
|
"...though it may stumble in the Republican-controlled Senate."
May? MAY? It's DOA, you idiot.
And yes, lawfully preventing people with histories of violence obtaining firearms is a laudable goal, but it can only be done strictly respecting constitutional guarantees of due process of law.
If one isn't a categorically prohibited person, the state must follow full due process BEFORE suspending his/her rights and taking property.
BEFORE, not after.
And that's the Achilles Heel of these laws - they are structured on ex parte hearings considering allegations. The standard for suspending rights is much higher than that. Seizing people or property demands probable cause of a crime HAVING BEEN COMMITTED.
There is no 'Minority Report' clause. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
