The Sheriff is correct in questioning the law. Conviction first, punishment later.
1 posted on
12/05/2022 4:04:43 AM PST by
marktwain
To: marktwain
I saw the headline, and thought: ,”What a sheriff actually protecting the constitution?”
I don't think the sheriff would have gone after this if it didn't affect him personally.
2 posted on
12/05/2022 4:28:20 AM PST by
Fido969
(45 is Superman! )
To: marktwain
There are few Americans who support 2A more than me (yes,I am from Massachusetts) but I,like many (most?),think that there are some people who should be denied access to firearms...in some cases temporarily,in some permanently. I think that having been indicted for resisting a police officer might qualify for "temporary".
And all you Freepers who cry "no restrictions on gun ownership!" can save it....I've heard it all before.
To: marktwain
This is just a red flag law variant.
If someone is a threat to themselves or others, they need to be locked up.
And you can be locked up awaiting trial (with bond).
6 posted on
12/05/2022 4:56:32 AM PST by
fruser1
To: marktwain
Indictment is not conviction. The Sixth Amendment insures a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Striking down this law might reinforce the Sixth Amendment.
15 posted on
12/05/2022 6:34:07 AM PST by
nagant
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson