[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I personally don't have a problem with the concept, but it has to include notice and a right to be heard before a judge before any weapons are confiscated. With expedited appeals, and an automatic expiration of the order within six months unless there is a new hearing, finding, and order. Burden of proof has to be on the government, and should never revert to the citizen to prove that they should be entitled to possess weapons again.

[cuban leaf]

Generally, that is the way I see this. You can’t just take a guy’s guns on heresay of scared people. He has a right to a day in court before you simply take away his rights.

[circlecity]

"Burden of proof has to be on the government, and should never revert to the citizen to prove that they should be entitled to possess weapons again."

And the standard should be, at a minimum, clear and convincing rather than a preponderance of the evidence. And perhaps it should be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[mrmeyer]

This will be abused and used for political retaliation. No way would I trust any level of government to exercise this power.

[KrisKrinkle]

“I personally don’t have a problem with the concept, but it has to include notice and a right to be heard before a judge before any weapons are confiscated.” Etc.

What about proper storage and handling of the firearms? Some collectors firearms have a high value which could be diminished by improper handling and storage. Grandpa’s double barrel has a high sentimental value.