(07-31-2018, 02:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-31-2018, 02:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: How is this being measured and what is considered “sufficient evidence”? What recourse do these individuals have to prove otherwise? I know what has been said and what the law is supposed to offer, but that seems to have been placed aside. Giving up rights for the perception of increased security appears flawed and does not scream common sense. 

Hey, I know you haven’t done anything wrong, but I’m going to come confiscate your vehicle because you’ve been a little stressed at work and like to enjoy a beer or two when you get home. No chance that you’ll drive intoxicated and kill someone using your car, if we have it. You can get it back in a year, maybe, if you promise to never attempt to unwind with alcohol again.

The red is where you're confused. 

If they are coming for your weapons because the state has deemed you dangerous, then you have in fact done something wrong. 

Is there a chance that some tiny percentage of these citizens are wrongly deemed a danger to themselves or others? Sure.  The system as a whole isn't perfect. But denying the right to own weapons to those deemed to be unable to own them responsibly makes plenty of sense.