kind of statement is this? So you are saying if you are accused of a crime you automatically should be denied your rights? I've seen cops that have beat their wives and GF's. Do they automatically get fired even though not convicted of a crime? If they are not convicted they are not felons.
You ready for Minority Report in Hawaii aren't you....
I will give you a few examples of such situations.
1. Suspect violently assaults a tourist and robs them but the tourist does not want to prosecute. Class A felony and a crime of violence. The case could be open and shut, completely caught on camera, but the suspect will be released if the victim refuses to return to court to prosecute.
2. Mom and juvenile daughter live alone together. Mom gets a new boyfriend who sexually assaults the daughter and threatens the daughter with a deadly weapon to keep quiet. Cops are called and the guy gets arrested but the mom states that as the parent, her daughter does not have permission to testify in court. The boyfriend gets released because the prosecutors cannot proceed without the daughter being allowed to testify.
3. Suspect robs an elderly person at gun point but is caught and identified. Before the case can go to trial the elderly person dies of natural causes. The prosecution doesn't have a complainant and the suspect gets released.
Here are three possible scenarios in which there could be overwhelming evidence that the individual is violent and a real danger to society but because of a technicality they cannot be denied a firearm. Yes I agree that conviction should be the standard but there are certain situations where relying only on convictions as necessary proof of a violent tendency/history is inadequate. Do you see what I am getting at?
I wouldn't say that a denial of firearms should be automatic but perhaps there could be another court review process for when there is strong evidence they are a dangerous individual but there is no conviction due to some technicality. Imagine there was someone caught planning a mass murder event but a key witness called cops and foiled it but come to trial the witness has died or moved and can't be located for trial. This individual gets released without testimony from the key witness and thus has no criminal record. The next month he buys a bunch of guns and kills a bunch of people. How could we defend allowing him to purchase firearms simply because there was no criminal conviction?