If your idea iof a good RFL is one that will
...then you've substantively come to 44 AMP's position that,
Emphasis added. The heart of what is sold as RFLs are shortcuts around the safeguards listed in TG's list.
Tennessee Gentleman said:Use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that are based on objective criteria and that don’t treat factors such as lawful firearm ownership or political affiliation as presumptively suspicious;
Be temporary in nature, limited only to the period of time the person remains a danger to himself or others, and provide for the prompt restoration of firearms and corresponding rights when the danger no longer exists;
Afford strong due process protections, including burdens of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing evidence”), cross-examination rights, and the right to counsel.
Provide meaningful remedies for those who are maliciously and falsely accused, and expunge any records of petitions that are not granted;
...then you've substantively come to 44 AMP's position that,
44 AMP said:You keep asking "how do we write a better red flag law?" What I'm getting from that is "can we? and "how do we do it if we can?"
What I'm not getting is "should we?"
I don't think we should.
Emphasis added. The heart of what is sold as RFLs are shortcuts around the safeguards listed in TG's list.
Last edited: