[drjimmy]

Now, with that said - let me re-iterate lest this point be forgotten. What this man did was recklessly abuse his Freedom of Speech, inciting others to commit murder. For this, he should be tried - and if found guilty, should be punished. As a part of his punishment - I have no issue with stripping his Gun License. But, that is not what has happened.

So, in your belief not unless and until someone is found guilty of a crime should they be deprived of any of their rights? That would certainly free up a lot of space in our jails, since most of that space is taken up by people who have only been charged but not yet convicted of a crime. Let's take Jared Loughner, for example. Under your understanding of due process, he would not only be free right now but he would also be able to keep his gun!

[Hodar]

Jared is being held, for a LIMITED time pending a court trial. He has been formally charged, and has been informed of the charges he faces. There is a glaring difference between arresting a murderer prior to trial, a drunk prior to trial, or anyone else. First off, the accused is ARRESTED!! This gentleman has not even been arrested. He's free to walk around, buy a gun, sell guns and do whatever he wants.

When you are arrested, then you have a formal action that can be defended. You are formally charged with a crime, and the legal system can move forward to a Preliminary Hearing to see if the arrest has merit.

The preliminary hearing is held within a reasonable period of time - this is due process. The accused is formally charged, is given time to form a legal defense, and will have a preliminary hearing in which they are able to present their side.

The man in this story was given no warning - no option to present his side, no legal defense. His rights were stripped immediately. Again, why stop at his gun license? Why not take his car licence, his driver's license, seize his bank accounts?

Thus far, no formal charges have been made - yet consequences have been issued. What if, taken in it's entirety the judge rules that this person is innocent at the Preliminary hearing? You can take sentences from the Bible - out of context - that paint a very unflattering picture.

Again, based upon an accusation - his personal property has been removed from him (hint: this is a violation of his 6th Ammendments rights, personal property seized without due process).

Apparently, you don't see a whole lot of use for that nasty ol' Bill of Rights. You seem willing to surrender them up - based upon nothing but accusations; forgive me if I opt to demand that the Gov't follow the Constitution. After all, the Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of Gov't; lest it turn into a Dictatorship.

Bear in mind, what you allow the Police to do to someone else; can be done to you under the same rules. You seem willing to surrender your property to unelected officials merely based upon an accusation.