Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

Of course this should be law. People should be able to lose their right to own firearms. I don't get why that's not common sense.

They lose their right to vote. Drive a car. Etc.

 

[Not]

Yeah, this would be abused so bad. They would end up basing it on skin tone. Good news would be less skin cancer for white people though.

Well, they already justify shootings based on skin tone. Maybe there'll be less shootings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/...e-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable.html?mcubz=1

 

[collige]

I feel like it should be pointed out that historically the police haven't been the best judges of when people (especially black people) are posing an imminent risk

 

[old]

It's not a right if it can be taken away.

 

[Not]

It's not a right if it can be taken away.

I agree. So I guess the only people who really have rights are the white billionaires who can't be imprisoned.

 

[NintendoGal]

I feel like it should be pointed out that historically the police haven't been the best judges of when people (especially black people) are posing an imminent risk

Please see what I said above.

 

[Horns]

Not sure a court would strike this down. A court is issuing the order. It makes sense if the family can present valid reasons. It would ultimately save lives.

 

[AxeMan]

They lose their right to vote. Drive a car. Etc.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
You have the right to apply for a license to drive but not to drive

 

[Oersted]

Its funny how America has more rules to restrict the right to vote than to own a gun.

Like a country run by white supremacists, pardon god loving, law abiding citizens.

 

[Hip Hop]

Hopefully it is struck down ASAP

 

[Madame M]

Is this like a Baker Act for people who should be Baker Acted's guns or something?

Better question if it's even for real or just conspiracy rabble rousing.

Who knows what's fake news any more.

 

[HardRojo]

Makes too much sense, which is why it won't stand a chance :/

 

[TheCochese]

It's not a right if it can be taken away.

There are cases where it absolutely should be taken away, and there are already.

 

[Ogodei]

Some states already have laws like this in place, but it can only come from a doctor or psychologist, not family. And even then the system has been problematic at best with the wrong people having their firearms taken, or petitioning to get them back and finding put the police already destroyed them or refuse to give them back. Honeslty, it's something that should exist but with the problems that have already been seen it certainly needs some work.

Also, that 'stored elsewhere' provision will bite them in the ass hard when they accidently violate the wrong persons 2nd amendment rights.



Many, many, many states prevent people with violent felonies from owning firearms.

Yup. The only question is whether the standard the law imposes is enough "due process" compared to the amount of the right being taken away, and it all seems on the up and up to me (deprived party can appeal within 30 days and a decision on the appeal delivered within 21 days).

 

[Stumpokapow]

As far as I can tell this is a 51-50 imminent danger law except applying to guns instead of people, right?

 

[Figboy79]

As many have echoed, it sounds sensible, but it's going to get struck down hard.

 

[Moppeh]

No thanks. Obviously this country needs more gun control laws, but we don't need confiscation laws.

Why not?

 

[geomon]

I'm really doubting the source on this.