What should be the standard for removing guns from people?

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, warns: “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected: “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”
Does this mean that Schumer thinks that the government should just remove guns from anyone without having to go to court?



Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Firearms are removed from citizens all the time without the benefit of warrants, or judicial oversight.

When this is done, yes, you have the right to go to court to retrieve your property, but the cost of doing this is so prohibitive that it's not feasible. Even if one was to succeed, and you get your firearms back, no punishment will me meted out to the officer who broke the law.

Somehow, someway, we have lost our protections from laws that are in conflict with the Constitution simply because the 'rules' say that you must fight bad laws through the court system, and individual citizens lack the financial resources to do so.

Schumer, and other so called lawmakers know this, and force their personal agendas upon us with the complete knowledge that it is wrong and against the Bill of Rights. Is this not what our Founding Fathers worked on so hard to prevent?

12/05/2012 10:56 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home