It sure seems like it protects your rights when you read it.
I don't think it protects a damn thing because I've seen how easy it is to get someone Baker Act'd.
It's easier than an ex-wife getting a restraining order so your guns get collected by the cops. We're all up in arms about how easy that is, so why are we so sanguine about this?
So far the people I've seen endorse this are lawyers, politicians or both.
Lawyers stand to benefit from this because the restoration of rights sure as hell will require them and won't be free.
The damn default should not be a revocation of rights without a damn trial! If a person can be released after a Baker Act examination, then they're good to go. If they can't be trusted with a gun after release, then there should be ample evidence to keep them restrained.
Revocation of rights by sworn testimony of a doctor and a judge. The word of two people. No trial and guilty until proven innocent standard to get your rights back. How hard do you think it will be to find a liberal in each position to reliably testify that every gun owner brought before them meets the criteria? Now all we need is a cop to make the initial contact and an anonymous concerned "friend" to bring the cops to the gun owner. OK, four people needed.
Slow clap for anyone who bought into this.
After watching all of the other "protections" built into many of the laws of this state fail; I fully expect this law to be very abused.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.