|
|
|
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:
FL: Risk orders are a risk to our liberty
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Risk Protection Order issued by a judge for law enforcement to seize someone’s firearms can be based on anyone’s report that anyone else might be a threat or risk to themselves or anyone else. It is not just based on perceived mental proble,ms but can be based on someone’s false interpretation, vindictiveness, or anger at someone else.
The person whose firearms are seized must then prove in a hearing that they are not a risk or a threat in order to get their firearms back.
Furthermore, the accused will most likely have to hire an attorney at their own expense and, if proven not a risk or threat, will have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic process to retrieve their firearms. |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/21/2018)
|
One more way for disgruntled wives to retaliate against their husband.
Don't think for a minute that this won't happen. |
| Comment by:
jdege
(7/21/2018)
|
These most definitely are people who pose a risk to other. But if they pose such a risk, we get to put them away, not just take their guns.
If there's not evidence that they pose such a risk, we've no business I taking their guns. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
