Posted on 03/12/2018 7:31:06 PM PDT by ricoshea
Edited on 03/12/2018 8:08:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Trump White House released policy papers Monday declaring full support for California-style firearm confiscation orders. Breitbart News has a copy of the release and it urges states to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). Such orders allow firearms to be confiscated with a judge’s approval.
The White House suggests that ERPOs “allow law enforcement, with approval from a court, to remove firearms from individuals who are a demonstrated threat to themselves or others and temporarily to prevent individuals from purchasing new firearms.” They stressed that the orders “should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected.”
California adopted similar gun confiscation laws in 2015 and Southern California Public Radio reports that 190 orders requiring confiscation were issued 2016-2017 alone.
sleeper agents and cell
The lede on FR says: “Breitbart News has a copy of the release and it urges states to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders without court order.”
Are you saying that’s not an accurate representation of the source Breitbart article?
If so, the Admin ought to pull it or correct it.
Because Breitbart is a NeverTrump hotbed?
AND, this thread as posted ALTERED the original Breitbart article to make it look like Trump supports confiscation without a court order.
That’s bullshiite there.
Clear violation of articles II and IV of the Bill of Rights, not that anybody cares these days.
“Because Breitbart is a NeverTrump hotbed? “
No.
Because the OP altered the original Breitbart article to stir sh!t.
No. Just because the report contents sound way out for DJT
The way I see it, these bureaucrats have become fat and lazy and want their jobs to be easy. I say screw that. As a bloated government agent, you're getting paid good money and to ensure that things are done by the letter of the law.
Anything less is fraud and theft against the American people.
“And what is the point of your query?”
The point is that an account may have been hacked. Sounding the alarm is legitimate to protect the integrity of FR. I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
The thread title and the excerpted text are the same here as it is on Breitbart.
I certainly will wait for a better source than Breitbart before getting bent out of shape about it though.
I don’t agree with what this individual has posted but the postings you have enumerated here hardly qualifies as a “troll” or trollish behavior.
Or is there another definition that no one else is aware of but only you?
No.
This exerpt says: “without court order”
The Breitbart article says: “with a judge’s approval”
That’s a court order.
And it’s not a match. It’s a deliberate alteration of the original text, forbidden by FR rules.
The original poster’s excerpt says:
Breitbart News has a copy of the release and it urges states
to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders without court order.
The text at the link says:
Breitbart News has a copy of the release and it urges states
to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs).
Such orders allow firearms to be confiscated with a judge’s approval.
You can’t see the difference???
When did Breitbart become an unreliable source?
The confiscation angle alone has been playing on the Left, since the words came out of his mouth. (That story and the Stormy Daniels carnival act.)
It is important for the Left to drive a wedge into Trump’s base and particularly to influence the silly women, in a blatant attempt to capitalize on their stupidity, and get their vote.
They’ve been flogging some poll that declares Evangelical women are leaning away from Trump. Go figure. More dirty tricks to come is their usual course of action.
it looks like you misquoted or misrepresented the article. if so, woe to you.
the actual article states.
“...allow law enforcement, with approval from a court, to remove firearms from individuals who are a demonstrated threat to themselves or others and temporarily to prevent individuals from purchasing new firearms.” They stressed that the orders “should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected.”
“Or is there another definition that no one else is aware of but only you?”
Lots of accounts on FR have been hacked. A post from an account rarely seen is a red flag. Try not to be a schwantz.
Sorry, you're both right. I missed that.
Several years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.