|
|
|
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:
WA: What It Takes To Get Guns Out Of The Wrong Hands
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“The system is reactive,” says Chris Anderson, a prosecutor in the City Attorney Office in Seattle, Wash. “The court says you’re prohibited from possessing firearms, and if you’re later arrested with a firearm, then you’re guilty … but there’s never been a mechanism in place to go get those firearms.”
For the last couple of years, Anderson has been part of a collaboration between the city and King County to curb gun violence. One of the first things the group did was measure the compliance rate for orders to surrender weapons. It turned out to be shockingly low. In 2016, 56 percent of the people who received the orders simply ignored them. And of those who did respond, a suspiciously small number actually surrendered any guns. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/27/2018)
|
| Sounds like a solution in search of a problem. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(1/28/2018)
|
The system works adequately.
You offend, you become a prohibited person, whether or not your offense has anything to do with your trustworthiness with weapons.
If, after you become prohibited, you and your arms become a problem to society, then you go to prison for felon in possession, and the problem you present has been temporarily solved. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
