Representative Jinkins (D) let the Extreme Protection Order bill die in committee this last session. I-1491 has been introduced in it's place; bought to us by the same xenophobes who brought us I-594 (Universal BKGD Checks) http://ift.tt/1YYuAqX
Sec of State - Initiatives
I-1491 Text
Of course there are problems with this initiative and of course those people have been extremely reluctant to respond to questions and concerns I had about their efforts.
The respondent (the one whose guns are seized) is allowed to seek the advice of an attorney; but if they can't afford an attorney, shouldn't the state provide one?
Why are the protection orders limited to guns and not other weapons?
Why is the respondent required to wait an entire year prior to requesting that the protection order be terminated? Why not let the respondent petition anytime they want since they are the ones most interested in restoring their civil rights?
If the respondent is such a threat to someone that their firearms must be taken away, why not require that the state prosecute the respondent after the protection order is issued?
Would the respondent have to pay for the required bkgd checks prior to the police returning the seized firearms? Or will the state pay?
Considering the biased nature of the I-594 summary contained in the 2015 Voter's Guide, I plan on contacting the Secretary of State early to inquire about how they intend to word the description of I-1491.
Ranb
Sec of State - Initiatives
I-1491 Text
Of course there are problems with this initiative and of course those people have been extremely reluctant to respond to questions and concerns I had about their efforts.
The respondent (the one whose guns are seized) is allowed to seek the advice of an attorney; but if they can't afford an attorney, shouldn't the state provide one?
Why are the protection orders limited to guns and not other weapons?
Why is the respondent required to wait an entire year prior to requesting that the protection order be terminated? Why not let the respondent petition anytime they want since they are the ones most interested in restoring their civil rights?
If the respondent is such a threat to someone that their firearms must be taken away, why not require that the state prosecute the respondent after the protection order is issued?
Would the respondent have to pay for the required bkgd checks prior to the police returning the seized firearms? Or will the state pay?
Considering the biased nature of the I-594 summary contained in the 2015 Voter's Guide, I plan on contacting the Secretary of State early to inquire about how they intend to word the description of I-1491.
Ranb
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1QWzWjs
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire