In other words, they can’t justify their political biases scientifically but they still want the government to pass citizen disarmament laws over everybody. That’s even though they admit the problem is minimal and the latest findings conclude what they’ve been doing all along stigmatizes.Red flag laws are dangerous because rather than relying on proper due process to strip someone of his or her rights, these laws rely on the ancient system of j'accuse. Someone accuses a person in secret. A court holds a hearing in which the bias will be to find that the individual, who may not know that he is in fact on trial, sufficiently "guilty" to take away his guns.
The first problem is that the individual "flagged" is left to walk around on the streets. The second problem is that if, and that is a big IF, he wanted to commit a crime, guns are not the only weapon at his disposal. For that matter, again if he intends to commit a crime, he can obtain a gun through illegal means.
The hard but undeniable truth is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. In order to involuntarily segregate someone from society, full due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are called for. The say-so of motivated third parties who may have a conflict of interest may be enough to get an investigation started, but that’s all.As always, go read Codrea's article. I have written several times about red flag laws because I believe they are a step in the wrong direction. No body is "flagging" gang bangers and known criminals. Instead, they are "flagging" innocent people because such people are harmless and won't cap the accuser if they can find out who did it. This is nothing more that security theater; looking like the politicians are doing something without actually having to do anything. It's a way for politicians to harass the hated gun owners, who they look upon as putting a check on their power.
No comments:
Post a Comment