Should Due Process Really Be Optional for the Second Amendment?- TAH

Something IMO noteworthy happened the other day in Granola State, AKA the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. It’s actually been happening there for some time.

The police went to a person’s home and confiscated their firearms.

California requires registration of certain types of firearms. It thus maintains a database of firearms – close to one million of them at present.

Periodically, they also cross-reference this database against those recently convicted of felonies, and against those involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

In theory, there’s no issue. For convicted felons the Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly places this within the scope of state authority; their original criminal trial provided the due process required under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

And those who’ve been involuntarily committed “clearly” shouldn’t have access to firearms. Allowing that would be absurd – right?

And yet . . . .

via This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Should Due Process Really Be Optional for the Second Amendment?.

A nice piece discussing some of the current and potential problems with gun control and mental health care.

1 thought on “Should Due Process Really Be Optional for the Second Amendment?- TAH”

  1. I was shocked, but it does clarify the purpose of registration. Why do they need to register the guns? Simple. So they can confiscate them.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

Comments are closed.