Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
We have a bit of a can of worms here, because a Doctor's opinion does not deprive one of Constitutional rights. Only a court hearing, with full due process does that. So, while a doctor's report that they consider you a danger may start the process, it does not, and SHOULD not put you on the prohibited list, simply on their say so.
This is the claimed reasoning behind the push for "red flag" laws, so that one may be "legally" deprived of your property (and your rights) UNTIL a court hearing.
The HIPPA law further complicates matters.
I hold the opinion that we should not create "red flag" laws with their huge potential for abuse, but that if an individual is deemed a risk, they should be put through the existing system with full due process. If that isn't "fast" enough to make people feel safe, then they should put the money into expanding the existing system so it can handle the workload in a timely enough manner to meet public approval.
In other words, I think its wrong to create more laws and restrict rights because people are too cheap to spend enough money on the existing system to have it work properly.
And that's a big part of the problem, because given the choice, people will almost always choose the cheap way, over the best way...
|
Well said.
Too many people favor these unconstitutional red flag laws because they assume they (the red flag laws) will only affect other people, never themselves. They choose to ignore the rampant possibility (make that "probability," if not "certainty") for abuse because they are sure it won't ever bite
them in the butt. But our legal system was not supposed to be based on a program of Hoovering up bunches of people, depriving them of fundamental Constitutional rights, and then asking them to
prove why their rights should not have been taken away. (And oh, by the way, can I please have my property back, Judge? Pretty please?)