|
|
|
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 |
| 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) |
|
|
