“Extreme Risk Protection Orders” ERPOs are designed to allow firearm rights to be removed from a person without the person having a chance to defend themselves in court. They can beg the courts to return their firearms and firearm rights after the fact, but a right delayed is a right denied.
The American Justice System is suppose to allow the accused to have competent representation, a chance to face their accusers, to know what they are accused of and to be judged by a jury of their peers. Red Flag laws turn that on its head.
-Newmarket73
The reasonable side of me appreciates red flag laws.
ReplyDeleteThe reality side of me understands the ramifications, few of which are reasonable.
Not sure why they can't use 72 hr psych hold - if they can take our guns, then certainly the armed govt thugs could use psych holds instead of all these "red flag laws".
In the end, almost all "mass shooters" were on the 3 letter govt agency's radar so.... I'm left with the conclusion absolutely little good will come from this.
We are a banana republic at this point.
ch
72 hour psych hold generally requires observed conduct sufficient to warrant an arrest, along with evidence showing that the person is / may be / tgreatens to be a danger to self and others.
DeleteThe legal standard tge police have to meet is much higher.
ERPIs were designed to be a tool of an opressive state, hidig as a (truly much needed) to protect victims of domestic violence and stalking. Both of which can also be prosecuted as crimes, but that depends on whethet the police and/ or Prosecutor will act. They are both busy / lazy, and an ERPO makes the issue a courts' problem, not theirs.
John in Indy
I'm clear on what the red flag laws are - lamenting how fked up the state is.
DeleteI guess my point is, if the person is unstable enough for the state to take their guns, surely that's enough reason for psych hold yes? Therefore no need for new laws.
I know, govt doesn't do logic...
ch
Gee, it's a good thing the constitution guarantees our firearm rights won't be infringed - removed, maybe - but not infringed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a wonderful new law for ex-wives.
ReplyDeleteEven though in the 80s and 90s I did not own any guns you can be assured my ex would still be heading to the sheriff at least once a month.
Lucky for me the devil called her back to his side back in 1996. If not, I am sure, especially now I own guns, that she'd keep on trying.
Yep vindictive miserable cunts love these kind of laws and swatting too. They lie and you will burn because the system is rigged, again. Now if there were stipulations that put their ass on the line for the lies, serious ramifications, the evil cunts might just think twice. Aaawww naw they’d still do it.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that someone has not taken this to court, and won. This rule or law, is so obviously against the 4th amendment, that there should be no way that it could be allowed to stand muster, in a fair court of law.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is so open to violation by some angry ex wife or girl friend, that it should never have been considered. And if someone has his or her, guns taken by this rule, they should be able to sue both the judge, and the police, for a violation of their constitutional rights.
The really shitty thing about any of this, is the danger of the person who loses their guns by this means, has the very real danger of losing their firearm rights taken away for good. And that would temper any legal action of even the most angry person of anyone.
I see violation of 2nd, 4th & 14th equal protection...
DeleteSCOTUS will probably decide the issue...
ch
"SCOTUS will probably decide the issue..."
DeleteA few years from now. Meantime, it's the law of the land.