I was just reading an article on Reason.com, titled Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice, wherein it said the following about Red Flag gun confiscation laws and whether states allow someone who is served such an order, and then it is later determined that the person filing it lied to get the order enforced against the victim:
Do respondents have a civil cause of action against petitioners who lie?
No state lets petitioners sue their accusers for knowingly misrepresenting facts in their petitions. While dishonest petitioners could theoretically face criminal charges, Kopel says, such cases are hard to prove and are almost never brought. He argues that the threat of litigation is necessary as a deterrent to people who would otherwise abuse the system to hurt people they have a grudge against.
Is this actually true? Especially in Illinois, where we supposedly got a "decent" gun confiscation law that protects the rights of firearm owners from abuse of this Constitutional-mocking travesty of legislation, can a person who is lied about, and thus legally libeled, their civil rights abridged, and their reputations very likely damaged by such an action against them being in the public record, NOT file a lawsuit in civil court against a person who lied about them being a threat in order to get a Red Flag gun confiscation action against them?
How the &#<& is this possible? This, in itself, should result in a lawsuit against the state for depriving a harmed citizen of one of the fundamental avenues of redress against those who commit such damaging actions against them, their rights, and their reputations!
I think this needs to be addressed at great length, how it is allowed to be so, and what can be done to get this equally egregious affront to firearm owners destroyed, so that the threat of bankrupting litigation can be employed as a proper deterrent to false charges.