(07-31-2018, 03:27 PM)copycat Wrote:

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

I have not seen the criteria that states what level of proof the state needs to deem you dangerous.  Where did find it?  In the example B2 gave the confiscatee has done nothing wrong.  I believe we all agree some people should not be in possession of firearms, the fear of abusing that concept is a valid concern IMO.

Law enforcement must petition the court system to issue a "temporary restraining order" on an individual's gun ownership and the court must sign off on each individual case.  Law enforcement must convince the court that the individual is a danger to himself or others. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...454395002/

A responsible gun owner who doesn't manage to convince law enforcement that he/she is a danger to themself or others should have no trepidation of such a law.

---