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.
Due process for a GVRO/ERPO consists of,
“He has guns, he threatened me, I’m afraid for my life!”
Judge says, “So let it be written, so let it be done.”
SWAT team kicks in door. Any questions, citizen?
Maybe he’s just busier than the rest of us.
What difference does it make?
.
Posting FAIL!
You waited 5 months to post here
and then you screwed it up!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Try again in 5 more months.
“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.
Oh, yes, the mighty have decoded.
I’m not surprised by your name calling either. Pretty typical but not from a REAL Freeper or maybe a Creeper?
:( sorry for you. :(
Its right there in the rules...no personal attacks and no racism!
““He has guns, he threatened me, I’m afraid for my life!”
Your ignorance is speaking for you.
” Because Breitbart is a NeverTrump hotbed? “
No, but because this poster put up an ALTERED version of picked cherries.
Clue: See Jim’s administrator note below the thread title.
Yeah, um, no.
Go back to DU
Prove it.
Since not all of us are committed to the sea.
That statement begins with a false premise.
You’ll have to wait until 2019 for his reply.
Yah.
You’ve posted a total of FOUR TIMES over the years and we should believe you?
This isn’t DU, ya dope!
FAIL.
You jsut go to liberal judges and you get your endless number of court approved confiscation orders.
Gee, no problem.
Good to see you posting Praying for your Husband, lots of Trolls running around and seems like they have lots of help.
“““He has guns, he threatened me, I’m afraid for my life!”
It must be sworn, in writing, before a judge under threat of perjury.
Sure, some assh*le might try that, even get the order issued.
But when the court hearing comes up they’ll surely go to jail for it...if they lied.
.... It is an honest premise that will need to be addressed in a timely manner.
“I had no choice but to shoot him, judge, my wife was in danger.”
“Mr Redd, our records show you aren’t married.”
“Never said I was.”
“Are you Mr John Redd, of Hawaii?”
“Yes. Honowuwu.”
Your faith in the integrity of the California legal system is so touching. Peaceful be thy dreams.......!
What court hearing!!? Do you know what `ex parte’ means, troll?
;^)
Dont fear, this just 7D Chess
the devil is in the details of which are few here.
i think we agree that a threat of violence is/should be a crime supported by two or more unsolicited, disinterested or credible witnesses, credible reports of threat, or pieces evidence confirming that the threat was made by the suspect. that should demand an immediate investigation, and if the investigators have probable cause that the illegal threat was made, a judge ought to issue an immediate order for the arrest of the individual.
at that point surely the individual’s access to weapons should be prevented, by whatever effective means, for the duration of the subject’s trial. the subject should of course have recourse to insure that the responsibility for maintaining arms lies with the gov’t as the trial ensues and that they are returned undamaged if the subject is judged innocent. i don’t see how any of that would violate the subject’s constitutional right to due process or the bearing of arms.
i’m not a lawyer or legal expert. i’m just stating a lay opinion, and there could be some legal problem i’m not aware of.
anyway, if that is what is meant, i have no problem with it. certainly the kid in florida met that bar with ease if we are to believe all the media reports.
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.