General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Violence Against Women Act Still Doesn't Address This Dangerous Issue [View all]Bow To The Robots
(20 posts)Though widely-acknowledged, my cleverness and education are also not the topic of this thread.
Like habeas corpus, we either believe in due process or we do not. The problem with your argument -- in my view -- is two-fold: First is the law of unintended consequences. If we can invalidate a person's constitutional rights by simply claiming "exigent circumstances," we establish exigency as the legal standard rather than duly-enacted law. A dangerous precedent, a very slippery slope. Second, tilting at windmills: Fine let's assume you can legally take the guy's guns. How do you know you got them all? His word? How do you know he can't get one from his buddy? And what about all the cutlery in house? Do we take his clock radio? Their hair dryer? His golf clubs? His baseball bat? His vehicle(s)? The ant poison under the sink? All of these items can be weaponized and can and have been used to kill.
And what about her guns? Do you confiscate those as well? He could get his hands on them, but she might need them to defend herself against him.
NB: A person convicted of a felony may not purchase a firearm, or possess one (legally - but they can certainly purchase one if they want one). Due process FTW.