search
top

Do They Believe in Due Process?

Sometimes they say and write things that make me question it. The other side, at least rhetorically, has claimed to have accepted the post-Heller realties, but I don’t think at root they’ve given serious thought to what that means. Under Heller, it’s accepted that it’s permissible to deny firearms to those mentally ill, but the recognition of the Second Amendment as a fundamental right means the process of finding someone mentally unstable enough to merit stripping them of their liberty has to meet due process requirement, and this requires an adjudication by a court or other lawfully composed body, in fair and open hearings where the accused has a right to be heard and have representation. Every state has a process for this. The Federal Government, including the Veterans Administration has a process for this. The question should not be why dangerously mentally ill individuals are not getting the help they need.

The Second Amendment being a fundamental right means that it is not sufficient to just merely add someone to NICS, with no due process, and that’s not dependent on any statistic, graph or anecdote. Heller should have ended that debate. What other fundamental constitutional right can be denied in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? I challenge our opponents to answer that.

8 Responses to “Do They Believe in Due Process?”

  1. Mike w. says:

    Short answer? No. Most ardent gun control supporters have little or no respect for the rest of our rights, including Due Process. This is particularly true when those other rights stand in the way of their goals.

  2. Heather from AK says:

    “What other fundamental constitutional right can be denied in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? I challenge our opponents to answer that.”

    Here, let me take a shot at that…

    “But…but… it’s GUNS and GUNS are different! Because GUNS are EVIL! And you’re RACIST!”

    Mike is right… these people don’t care about any rights, but especially gun rights. They would be fine making everyone criminals for anything.

  3. Jake says:

    Don’t forget their other favourite false analogy: “Freedom of speech isn’t absolute, either! You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater!”

    Supporting gun control requires one of three qualities: a lack of knowledge, a lack of the ability to reason coherently, or a lack of honesty.

  4. Sage Thrasher says:

    Doesn’t the “No Fly” list work like that, too? Not that I support it, just asking.

  5. ravenshrike says:

    “What other fundamental constitutional right can be denied in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? I challenge our opponents to answer that.”

    4th amendment. Specifically almost every asset forfeiture law on the books. The fact that deodands are alive and well today is simply sad.

  6. ravenshrike says:

    Note: I’m not an opponent, Merely pointing out that this is the case. Although if we consider the ’68 GCA to be when this started over the 2nd amendment, than the stripping of assets came after the encroachment on guns for the most part.

  7. Exodus says:

    “I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

    Gun ownership is symptomatic of ignorance and a lack of sophistication, in their minds, so I suppose they figure they’re shoving stupid people along the road to enlightenment. Bill Mahr said something like that regarding Obamacare, as I recall.

    I suppose that makes them “lightbringers.” :D

    I always wonder what other civil rights they find to be inconvenient, and also whether or not they realize that any “streamlining” of process to remove civil rights can oh so easily get turned back upon them with a change of administration?

    Or maybe that’s just me.

  8. Nate says:

    You’re forgetting that the Second Amendment is different because it’s the most dangerous right!!!!1!!

top