Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Trump Administration is calling on every State to adopt Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)"
The White House ^ | March 12, 2018 | The White House

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2a; 2ndamendment; banglist; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
From "President Donald J. Trump is Taking Immediate Actions to Secure Our Schools".
1 posted on 03/13/2018 9:25:24 AM PDT by NobleFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

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...


2 posted on 03/13/2018 9:28:24 AM PDT by TheBattman (Voting for lesser evils still gets you evil...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

Are there protections in place to protect us from abusers of the 1st, 5th, or other constitutional amendments as well?


3 posted on 03/13/2018 9:30:29 AM PDT by Delta 21 (Build The Wall !! Jail The Cankle !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree
So ANY GUN GRABBING C#$KSUCKER CAN CALL THE COPS AND LIE ABOUT HIS NEIGHBOR'S "MENTAL HEALTH" AND TRUMP IS ALL GOOD WITH THAT???!!!

Why am I thinking "Insane Rage!!!" is a motive to overthrow the 2nd?

4 posted on 03/13/2018 9:30:52 AM PDT by jonascord (First rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is that you do not know you are in the Dunning-Kruger club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

No thanks.


5 posted on 03/13/2018 9:34:27 AM PDT by chris37 (Laws don’t prevent criminals from committing crimes. Guns prevent criminals from committing crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree
ERPOs allow law enforcement, with approval from a court

A court, and what court would that be. A court full of liberal judges who hate the 2nd amendment I bet. Not good.

6 posted on 03/13/2018 9:36:02 AM PDT by Licensed-To-Carry (Sessions isn't gonna do crap about Hillary, he is part of the Swamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

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.


7 posted on 03/13/2018 9:39:50 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

They’ll start with permit holders first.


8 posted on 03/13/2018 9:41:08 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

It is way too early to speculate on the details of this, but have fun!


9 posted on 03/13/2018 9:41:10 AM PDT by SgtHooper (If you remember the 60's, YOU WEREN'T THERE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

“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.


10 posted on 03/13/2018 9:45:34 AM PDT by Wuli (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

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.


11 posted on 03/13/2018 9:46:12 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

WE can trust the government to NOT abuse a power like this, cant we?


12 posted on 03/13/2018 9:48:11 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Florida school safety bill=gun grabbing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
They’ll start with permit holders first.

If you don't already live in a "constitutional carry" State, fix that problem.

13 posted on 03/13/2018 9:49:09 AM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree
ALLOW ERO to be applied for ILLEGAL ALIEN sexual assault of any kind on any age, druggie SALE, MS13 and other Gangs.
14 posted on 03/13/2018 9:51:30 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

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.


15 posted on 03/13/2018 9:55:44 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

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?


16 posted on 03/13/2018 9:56:34 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

“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. “


WHAT Due Process rights? Property AND the means to self-defense are taken...apparently without the person having the right to defend themselves. I do get that there are some sick individuals out there (we unfortunately see how sick every few weeks, as they murder a dozen or more innocents), and I’d love to get guns out of their hands before such an incident...but my greatest fear is that “mental health” will be utilized as the excuse to disarm virtually anyone.

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.


17 posted on 03/13/2018 9:57:53 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
Several years ago an “acquaintance” decided he wanted to take control of his elder “partner's” property. With a single phone call to the local police he had him “committed” for 72 hours of “Psychiatric Observation”. No recourse to an attorney, no “probable cause” hearing, just picked up by the Cops and locked up without even the phone call criminals get. Get ready, coming to a neighbor near you!
18 posted on 03/13/2018 10:01:22 AM PDT by Dracomeister (The older I get the less I care about what other people think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NobleFree

. King George tried this


19 posted on 03/13/2018 10:03:09 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ("Politicans aren't born, they're excreted." -Marcus Tillius Cicero (3 BCE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

The 2nd Amendment already allows for Constitutional carry.

Eff the state.


20 posted on 03/13/2018 10:06:38 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson