|
|
|
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:
jac
(12/1/2018)
|
| I believe there should be a red flag law to remove politicians from office that break their oath to uphold the constitution. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/1/2018)
|
Barry Hirsh
Unless you enshrine due process guarantees in the text of the law itself, it will be unacceptable.
Due process means an adversarial hearing wherein the respondent can face his/her accusers, cross examine witnesses, and present witnesses and evidence on his/her behalf.
The problem with these laws is that they use ex parte hearings where the respondent often isn't even notified that one is taking place. That is an egregious circumvention of the commands in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
You can't take his liberty (i.e. his natural right to bear arms) or his property (i.e. his firearms) without an adversarial hearing and ruling based upon ALL the evidence. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
