Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 3140276" data-attributes="member: 7488">I&#039;d be REALLY curious under what grounds the minority that were not a previous history of mental illness were granted for.Considering the law states,Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondentI would hate for some arbitrary sense of a person being angry or threatening would be grounds for a complainant to speak to LEO and have another person&#039;s firearms seized, even if temporarily.&nbsp; &nbsp; It seems way too vague.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="inactive, post: 3140276, member: 7488"] I'd be REALLY curious under what grounds the minority that were not a previous history of mental illness were granted for. Considering the law states, [I]Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that [B]give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts[/B] by the respondent[/I] [I][/I] I would hate for some arbitrary sense of a person being angry or threatening would be grounds for a complainant to speak to LEO and have another person's firearms seized, even if temporarily. It seems way too vague. [/QUOTE]

Verification