|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/8/2019)
|
"Critics of the bill, also known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), have said it is unconstitutional."
And it is. The due process burden for removing rights and property requires an adversarial hearing, not an ex parte hearing. The respondent must be given the opportunity to face accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and present witnesses and evidence in his own behalf, with a subsequent ruling that establishes probable cause for a search and seizure warrant. To constitutionally suspend a subject's rights, an actual crime (or criminal/violent mental history) must have occurred to begin that process, not a POTENTIAL crime.
No executive, legislature or court has the power to circumvent that constitutional guarantee. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
