Posted on 03/13/2018 9:25:23 AM PDT by NobleFree
[...] President Trump’s Administration is calling on every State to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs).
The President is directing the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to States, at their request, on establishing and implementing ERPOs.
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.
ERPOs should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected. [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
And this will be run like FISA courts... where the one suspected has ZERO opportunity at defending themselves - and the evidence presented doesn’t (apparently) have to be vetted or even honest...
Are there protections in place to protect us from abusers of the 1st, 5th, or other constitutional amendments as well?
Why am I thinking "Insane Rage!!!" is a motive to overthrow the 2nd?
No thanks.
A court, and what court would that be. A court full of liberal judges who hate the 2nd amendment I bet. Not good.
Again, the only people the justice system is good at dealing with are the ones that can’t afford to defend themselves from it.
Can you imagine having to hire a lawyer to prove you are NOT a threat?
What would this permanently do to your ability to get and hold a job, to be able to take care of your kids?
This is a national version of CPS.
This is a very bad idea.
They’ll start with permit holders first.
It is way too early to speculate on the details of this, but have fun!
“with approval from a court”
That’s O.K. IF it means the person whom the ERPO is to be executed against is in the court hearing on the ERPO and has the right, with counsel, to defend themselves against the ERPO.
I can see a modified form of that as O.K. also, if the initial ERPO is without representation by and for the person who the ERPO is against, but is by law for a brief period only (days, not weeks) pending an ERPO full hearing as I first stated.
Otherwise, I am against ERPO orders where the person whom the ERPO is against is unable to first defend themselves, in court, BEFORE the ERPO can permanently take affect.
He is making it a states rights issue. And thus it is a state responsibility. Some states will get it right, others will be California.
WE can trust the government to NOT abuse a power like this, cant we?
If you don't already live in a "constitutional carry" State, fix that problem.
Anyone who would intend to use the Second Amendment as the Constitution intended would be deemed an “extreme risk” and disarmed.
The only “extreme risk” these elites really care about is the one to themselves.
I’m sorry but I don’t like the sound of this. What constitutes a “demonstrated threat to themselves or others”? Will that be up to the states to define? If so then how do you every have a common definition? And how can it be following “due process” if it’s based on some vaguely defined threat? Would they arrest someone on the same kind of information that they’ll deny firearms for?
“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.
ERPOs should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected. “
Anyone remember the Soviet Union (A.K.A. the Evil Empire)? There they put people in the looney bin for opposing the government, on the theory that anyone opposing an all-powerful government MUST be crazy. Well, here they might not lock you away...they’ll just take your guns.
What about redress? Is there a provision for a VERY timely hearing in which the property/gun owner can appeal the emergency order and get back ALL of their property? Is it in front of a jury, or just some judge with no accountability? If found to be competent, what means of reimbursing the person for the loss of their rights, and the hiring of attorneys and/or experts is provided? If none, then this law can be stuck where the Sun don’t shine.
. King George tried this
The 2nd Amendment already allows for Constitutional carry.
Eff the state.
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.