Quote:
|
An arrest is an executive action, not a judicial determination that you've relinquished a right. Whether the process was adequate doesn't arise because there isn't any judicial process yet.
|
I get that, and executive and not 'judicial', but I see videos of people getting arrested all the time and the LEO, 'don't know the outcome, judge will decide', but they are in jail, nonetheless.
Quote:
|
"but", the defendant is present for that.
|
Isn't the defendant present when LEOs seize his weapons?
Not getting to argue(NOT an attorney) but the 2 'seem' quite similar..w/o the RFL 'victim' going to jail.
Quote:
|
ex parte. If you don't know what that means, it means that only one side appears before the judge -- the side making the complaint. The accused doesn't even know about the request or the hearing, so there is no opportunity to face his (or her) accuser, no opportunity to cross-examine, no opportunity to present a defense.
|
But isn't that the same as the girlfriend who calls the police about abuse? When he gets arrested and loses his 'rights', freedom? 'She' doesn't need to be there, does she?
I understand the initial seizure but like domestic abuse and RFL, they both get their 'day in court'..AND if the person can't make bail, they might be in jail for quite a long time....
Quote:
|
Remember -- the right to keep and bear arms is [supposedly] guaranteed by the Constitution. So we have a situation with these laws under which people can be stripped of their Constitutional RKBA on the basis of an ex parte hearing, which they don't attend and probably don't even know about.
|
Isn't 'freedom' also guaranteed?
Again, not looking to argue just this is interesting.