DK: I applaud Chief Justice Kilbride for pushing courts to protect public from dangerous people with guns. #goodidea
ME: DK, some questions, not criticism, even though we appear to be on opposing sides of the gun control debate.
What provisions are there to ensure people and their rights are protected from the following?
1) Mis-identification, like what occurred in New York very recently under their newly passed SAFE Act in which a man with a similar name was mistakenly reported to the police and had his 2nd Amendment rights revoked and lawfully owned firearms confiscated. Part of NY's new law appears to closely resemble what's being discussed in this article.
2) Financial jeopardy for those wrongly named to NICS or other databases when they have to get a lawyer and fight for the return of their rights or property.
3) Assurance that "a danger to themselves and others" is legitimate and not a matter of opinion or retribution. Under NY's SAFE Act, I believe it's not just doctors, psychologists or psychiatrists who make the medical determinations. It includes nurses and even administrators, which I believe to be wrong. There's also the case going on with the Veterans Administration now where more than 100,000 veterans have administratively been reported to NICS, many of which have not been a danger to themselves or others. And there's a trend among divorce lawyers to recommend to their clients that they get restraining orders against their former partners even when there have been no threats or history of violence.
I agree with your general statement in the article, “We can all agree that people who have been found to be a danger to themselves and others should not have guns or, even worse, be carrying loaded guns in public.” This is one of the current problems with the NICS system. The system itself is flawed in many respects and it should be FIXED before its use is expanded. Getting the RIGHT names into the database is essential. Getting the WRONG names into the database is inexcusable. Our justice system is supposed to presume innocence and our citizens are supposed to have inalienable rights that "shall not be infringed".
===
May 14, 2013
(Five days and still waiting for a response.)
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
I agree with your general statement in the article, “We can all agree that people who have been found to be a danger to themselves and others should not have guns or, even worse, be carrying loaded guns in public.” This is one of the current problems with the NICS system. The system itself is flawed in many respects and it should be FIXED before its use is expanded. Getting the RIGHT names into the database is essential. Getting the WRONG names into the database is inexcusable. Our justice system is supposed to presume innocence and our citizens are supposed to have inalienable rights that "shall not be infringed".
===
May 14, 2013
(Five days and still waiting for a response.)
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment