Firearms: Authorizing a law enforcement officer acting in accordance with certain provisions to serve and execute a certain court order on any day and at any time; authorizing a law enforcement officer acting in accordance with certain provisions to use reasonable physical force to gain entry to the premises or any dwelling located on such premises and to take custody of the person who is the subject of such court order; authorizing a law enforcement officer taking custody of the person who is the subject of such court order to seize and hold the person’s firearms or ammunition or license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm under certain circumstances; authorizing a court to remove the right to purchase, own, sell, or possess firearms or ammunition or to possess a license to carry concealed weapons or firearms of a person found to be incapacitated, etc.
On first reading, it seems a “logical” bill with what appears to be execution of the confiscation by judge’s orders and return within 24 hours once the issue is over, but I am too paranoid to say good or bad. I’ll leave that to legal experts.
Re your last paragraph, may I suggest a rule of thumb?
If you can’t tell whether it’s a good or a bad bill, it should default to presumed bad until proven otherwise.
IANAL, but one thing I noticed is that it changes the loss of RKBA to apply not just upon being committed to a mental institution, but also if committed to a substance abuse treatment establishment. Does “committed” only cover the case where this is done by court order? It makes me wonder if you could lose your guns if you go to a drying-out establishment. Or if you get a DUI and the court orders you to undergo alcohol counseling.
I agree with Boris, and I would add that any bill that appears to add reasons to take your RKBA away (as this one does) must be judged with large amounts of salt.