(09-08-2018, 08:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(09-08-2018, 08:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I would leave the sport hunters, target shooters, and the legitimate collectors alone. Someone who 'needs' a gun for protection (unless against bears) has a huge problem that needs a solution other than a gun. Defense against an abusive spouse? The gun could make the abusive spouse even more dangerous.
So long as there is some form of due process, some sort of evidence. In many cases when there is a domestic problem, the first thing that happens is that one partner alleges abuse, often lying, often committing perjury. Removing a constitutional right based on hearsay is a problem.
Were I a judge I would accede to a protective order that includes "no firearms in the house" just as I might sign off on a "no intoxication" (meaning alcoholic beverages) rule. Much abuse happens under drunkenness, right?
Not all claims of abuse are valid, to be sure. That is why there would need to be a sworn statement by the alleged victim that the abuse is of a sort that could lead to murder with a deadly weapon of any kind. Firearms typically have no dual use as might a rolling pin, golf club, kitchen knife, box-cutter, shovel, ice pick, etc.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.