Just asking, suppose that someone really did have or develop a problem that made it dangerous for them to possess a firearm? Is there any role at all for government to intervene?
If so, what procedure should they use? Perhaps one that requires an investigation, a warrant and judicial review?
If so, what procedure should they use? Perhaps one that requires an investigation, a warrant and judicial review?
How is threatening a violent act not breaking the law? Are you certain no laws are already in place to deal with such an occurrence?
What problem could not be considered dangerous to an injudicious judge? Is Christianity a problem to you? Is being a Muslim a problem to you? Just pick what it is and there you have it; now you can take away anyone's gun for any reason you wish. Just law must be clear and precise when identifying a potential threat instead of throwing an arbitrary blanket over the whole rights of the governed thing. If you really feel safer with no legal guns around just move to Chicago.
But unless and until someone is convicted of a crime, it is no less than armed robbery for the state to steal their property.
” Is there any role at all for government to intervene?
“
There is and it is an adjudication of mental competency. The idea that police have that power is unconstitutional.