[albie]

Seems to me that #5 would be implemented by a lot of gun owners.

[VTenigma]

#2 will never survive first contact with the Supreme Court.

[mikec256]

I thought they were recalling Governor Northam.

[SamuraiScot]

gives police and prosecutors the power to seize firearms based on the preponderance of evidence of a substantial risk of injury

I guess the Governor feels that the Lexington and Concord crisis needs to be re-examined, and any violators subject to prosecution. I wonder if he read about it for the first time recently, and it made him nervous.

[oldplayer]

“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means, “more likely than not.” That can mean just ever so slightly likely than not - and that often is applied by a judge when others would say that the circumstances are LESS likely than not.

[TexasGurl24]

#2 is wrong for the substantial risk order. The standard is not preponderance, it is clear and convincing.

“If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a substantial risk of personal injury to himself or to other individuals in the near future by such person’s possession or acquisition of a firearm, the court shall issue a substantial risk order.”

Doesn’t make it Constitutional, but C&C > than Preponderance.

[Lockbox]

#2 - Gee nothing like violating a citizen’s Procedural due process rights.