View Single Post
Old April 18, 2019, 01:24 PM   #51
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,451

I have trouble imagining what it would be like for a layman to figure out how this works from reading the text of the bill.

There's a scene in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in which Eli Wallach makes a pistol from pieces and parts of the other pistols in the gun shop case; he uses existing components to get the product he wants. This law is like Tuco's pistol. The legislature built what they wanted from concepts familiar from other areas of law. It's easy to lose one's way in reading this thing if assimilating lots of new information.

The burden of proof is at all times in this process on the petitioner. Of course, if it's just the petitioner and the judge in the room, we expect the petitioner to carry that burden. If the respondent is in the room and doesn't say a word, does the Petitioner's evidence seem clear and convincing? It very well may, even if the petitioner's testimony is entirely erroneous. Unchallenged testimony can be clear and convincing evidence. Even in a criminal matter, one in which the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense will challenge the state's witnesses.

The respondent has no burden of proof whatsoever. Yet apart from any legal argot, one who has been accused of being a danger to himself and others (crazy and dangerous) and unfit to possess arms has both an interest and a burden to show that the accusation is false.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.03451 seconds with 8 queries