Posted on 12/23/2023 7:24:04 PM PST by DoodleBob
Emergency risk protection orders: They are laws that temporarily remove firearms from the possession of a person who may be experiencing a mental health crisis. Supporters of these measures say they help prevent those in crisis from harming themselves or others.
These orders are commonly referred to as red flag laws. Opponents of them believe they infringe on the Second Amendment.
Soon, Kentucky lawmakers from both sides of the aisle intend to file a bill that would create one of these systems.
Across the country, 21 states and Washington D.C. have implemented some form of an emergency risk protection order. Indiana is one of those states — which passed its law in 2005.
One study associated a 7.5% drop in firearm suicides in the decade after the Indiana law was passed.
David Pucino, legal director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explains similar results have been found in other states too.
“Yeah, extremist protection orders have been shown to be really effective at reducing gun violence and in particular reducing suicides,” Pucino said. “When these policies are implemented effectively, when people know about them, when they have the avenues available to use them. They do, and they use them in ways that take guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them in particular moments.”
Nationally, exactly how these orders are enacted differs. Some states, like Indiana, only allow law enforcement to begin the process of enacting an order. Other states allow family or coworkers to petition the police for one.
Exactly how this process will work in the proposed Crisis Aversion and Rights Retention bill here in Kentucky is unclear as the bill’s language has not been made public.
The Giffords Law Center believes this kind of legislation doesn’t restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
“We all know people who are perfectly responsible gun owners, but we also know that people can endure moments of crisis where they don’t act the way they normally do when they are at risk of doing things they never normally would,” Pucino said. “And so this is an avenue that doesn’t restrict the rights of gun owners at large, but provides a path to keep people safe when they’re in those moments of crisis.”
Kentucky lawmakers begin the 2024 legislative session on Jan. 2.
The referenced study was conducted on Indiana AND Connecticut. The reporter cherry-picked by the results..
Whereas Indiana demonstrated an aggregate decrease in suicides, Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased nonfirearm suicides.
Completely unconstitutional. Punishment without due process.
Temporary that is semi-permanent while trying to get them back.
So libtards can claim anyone is crazy and take their guns without due process
So, libs are now unarmed?
They are totally unconstitutional violations of civil rights.
They are laws that temporarily remove firearms from the possession of a person who may be experiencing REVENGE FROM AN ANGRY EXWIFE!!!
Does having a hysterically anti-Trump and anti-gun liberal relative concocting stories about you out of whole cloth count to give them standing to take and keep your guns? Maybe, maybe get them back in a rusty pile years later with no damages?
Umm, unconstitutional?
Supporters of these measures say they help prevent those in crisis from harming themselves or others.
Like to see them prove that.
In the states that sell marijuana the dispensaries make you show an I D to purchase.
They are supposed to destroy their records at the end of the day.
My belief is that they are keeping the names and that some time in the future they will find the people mentally ill and the government will know where to look for weapons on a hit or miss basis
Why yes, it does. What a surprise!
And once these "laws" get established, there is invariably a push to widen the scope of who has standing to make a complaint. This would include any law enforcement official, or ex-spouses, or your doctor, or your neighbors, or your employer.
The ultimate use is to target political opponents of the Leftists. The "Progressives" want the public disarmed because they are already doing things for which they expect people may be shooting them.
If someone is a danger to themselves or others, they need to be locked up. Removing a gun just makes them look for something else to use.
These laws are more insidious than you think.
1) police are allowed to make the initial complaint, not just family members.
2) when police do it, it’s always outside of normal court hours so it’s given to magistrates, who are rubber stampers (no request will be denied)
3) since the case is handled in family court, the public does not have access to the proceedings or records thereof.
So the government can accuse you, search your premises and seize your stuff, all the while handled secretly.
Can’t get more Stasi than that.
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.