“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.
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.