|
|
|
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 |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
