(07-31-2018, 05:33 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote:

(07-31-2018, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Your perspective is so skewed I’d need to catch a rocket to Saturn to begin deciding where to start explaining this to you.

All a person has to do is avoid being in a situation wherein a member of law enforcement, and subsequently a court of law are convinced you are a danger to yourself or others.  Is that too much to ask of a person owning firearms?  Of anyone?

I have no idea what these interviews you're going on about are.

Well, how do you propose to "prove" you are not a danger?  Aren't they going to ask you questions?  And how did "law enforcement" become convinced you were a possible danger in the first place?  

Hint:  It's because a neighbor or family member or spouse or former friend or romantic rival or hateful coworker decides to call the cops, say you threatened them and say you have a lot of guns.  At this point, the cops have to do something.  But by the time they bother asking YOU about it, they will have a warrant in hand and a SWAT team at your door.  Do you think you will convince SWAT that it's just your girlfriend mad because you broke off the engagement?  Or it's the jerk you work with who wants your job?  No.  They will trash your house, take your property and you might be able to get the stuff back someday, but again, how do you prove a negative?  If you've never had any history of violence, how do you prove you'll never be violent in the future?

If, during the risk protection order hearing, there is insufficient evidence that you pose a risk, you do not need to prove that you do not pose a risk. The burden is on the petitioner to provide sufficient evidence that you do pose a risk. As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, a petitioner would be discouraged in providing false testimony as that would be considered a third degree felony. 

Here is a link to the actual statute, since there seems to be a lack of understanding of what the law actually says.

---