That depends on the final resolution. Assuming everything is accurate, INCLUDING my understanding of the incident related- She was adjudicated mentally deficient, through an event that included Due Process.
She was a danger to herself, and a judge signed off on it. I'm ok with it there.
Quote:
|
took a attempt on her life. when she was taken to the hosiptol she refused treatment and she was orderd confinded into a mental facilty by the court(which was needed)
|
After the temporary mental issue was healed, her state removed her firearms disability- I'm fine there.
Quote:
|
we have had her states rights to own a firearm restored
|
IF it's a matter of the State not reporting this "restoration" as we'd call it, there's
This appeas process as well as more direct redress of grievances available through the court system on possible discrimination grounds.
I am not particularly happy this is happening to this woman. But there are avenues to redress the wrong being done. I see no functional difference between this, and getting a wrongful conviction overturned/repealed/whatever the technical term is. Both are travesties of justice. Both take time and action. Both usually end up costing the government a pile of money, and the person being screwed a pile of time and energy.