|
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 |
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. — Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]. |
|
|