Ck out this gun bill from Ind..

[bg]

What do you think about this ?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050427/NEWS02/504270415/1006/NEWS01

 

[Jeff]

It's preposterous.

If police believe an individual meets the bill's definition of dangerous and possesses a firearm, they can ask a court for a warrant to search the person's home and seize the weapon.

It's merely the latest subjective definition being used to create immoral legislation that leads to objective actions and personal rights violations. It stinks.

It's easy to paint with a broad brush here and say, 'Let's go after the gun owners.' No. Go after the guy that shouldn't be possessing firearms."

So does a crime need to be committed or what? The way this legislator speaks, it sounds as if the guns can be seized just because the individual poses some sort of threat to someone. Talk about prior restraint.

 

[Pointman]

Not exactly eloquent.... but...

Governor Daniels,

I respectfully ask that you veto House Bill 1776 as the affront to the rights of Hoosiers. To allow police agencies to confiscate firearms solely because they consider a person dangerous, whether they can charge that person or not, is unspeakably evil and denies due process to that individual.

I am all for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals but they MUST be criminals and not someone the local police have "bad feeling" about.

Thank you for your time.

http://www.in.gov/gov/contact.html

 

[beerslurpy]

So lets see... 14 days of holding onto the gun would have prevented a situation in which the guy committed a crime a year later and had the guns returned to him after longer than 14 days. It seems like a clear case of passing a law that does absolutely nothing except allow for abuse of police authority.

 

[El Tejon]

We had a thread on this bill when it was first proposed with some of the needed modifications to the legislation. Those modifications that did not get in will be proposed next year.