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.”
“They stressed that the orders “should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected.”
That means the same standards as a search warrant...some evidence and a sworn affiant.
I’m OK with this as long as it’s temporary pending court hearing where rules of evidence apply.
And I believe it’s a tool that would have saved those kids in Fla, and before them Conn. Maybe others.
Everybody screams “Everybody knew the guys was nuts, including the cops...why didn’t they DO anything!?!?!?
And it’s a good question, answered, in theory, the the ERPO’s.