You can hire your own attorney or if you can’t afford your own, one would be appointed.
Just like in criminal court, mental health determinations, and parental rights cases.
The 2nd amendment
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
You can hire your own attorney or if you can’t afford your own, one would be appointed.
Just like in criminal court, mental health determinations, and parental rights cases.
Not to derail this thread but I have a question.
Is 'one will be appointed to you' really the case? I was talking to our local district judge the other morning at breakfast and she said that you have to apply for a public defender as a hardship case. She said most but not all are granted. But if say I were to request an attorney be appointed to me - I'd be denied.
Somehow JD that really doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. "Affording" my own would most likely put me in the poor house because doubt I would be assigned a public defender.
Another problem I have is that any new laws once passed will remain with us, whether they work or not. Say they go with longer background checks and new red flag laws. The next mass shooting will herald calls for even more stringent laws. Until they enforce those on the books now and or take care of people already on their radar screen don't see where more or tougher laws will do anything but hamstring law abiding citizens.
Read my post again.
One will be appointed to you if you are unable to afford one.
The constitutional right to counsel is based upon indigency. Gideon v. Wainwright.
Again....I’m not arguing whether or not it would be good public policy.
I’m merely pointing out that it could be done constitutionally.
Again....AGAIN....I’m NOT trying to convince anyone this is a good policy.
I’m merely pointing out that it CAN be constitutionally done.
Speaking only for myself, I never thought anything else.
Nor did I. Just seems like a Pandora's box, with a plethora of unintended outcomes, without really addressing the real issues.
I kept pointing that out because everyone's responses to my constitutional law statements were all about whether or not it is good policy to have red-flag-laws in the first place.
I'm pretty much done discussing policy or opinion here. That's a swamp I'm not interested in wading into anymore. I still occasionally comment on strictly legal arguments/issues that interest me.
Was just trying to make that clear.
It's all good.
Similar threads
