IMHO as long as there's due process it's a good idea. Almost all of these nut flakes gave out with many signals that they were going to commit mass murders before they acted.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Red Flag laws are characterized by the absence of due process. "Due process" after the tyrannical act is already complete (which is what the NRA was advocating in the video above) isn't due process.
If you respect due process, you understand that we've already had laws in place for a century or more for dealing with dangerously mentally ill, and it involves bringing them before a court and, before they are denied their rights, finding them incompetent to be free in a fair trial involving representation and facing accusers.
Red Flag laws are characterized by the absence of due process. "Due process" after the tyrannical act is already complete (which is what the NRA was advocating in the video above) isn't due process.
If you respect due process, you understand that we've already had laws in place for a century or more for dealing with dangerously mentally ill, and it involves bringing them before a court and, before they are denied their rights, finding them incompetent to be free in a fair trial involving representation and facing accusers.
This.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
Two things.........first, at some point in time, probably sooner rather than later, there will be some serious gun control legislation that will become the law of the land. In other words, it will pretty much do away with the Second Amendment.......and it will be supported by a majority of the politicians in BOTH parties, the SCOTUS, and the NRA. The NRA will say that it is necessary in order to hold onto the rest of our rights.
Secondly....I don't know of anyone, other than a fool, and there are quite a few of those around, who would not support a law that would keep guns, along with other deadly weapons, out of the hands of people who desire to use them to take the lives of innocent people. But, therein lies the rub......how do you determine who those people are? We do not live in a perfect world, one whereby we would know who is, and who isn't, a dangerous threat to society. I might get mad at my neighbor and decide to pay him back by falsely reporting that he is a dangerous man, and then he would be red flagged and could not buy a gun....when in fact, it would be that was the bad guy, and he the good one.
I can see all sorts of differing scenarios, but, I do agree with those who say something needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of someone who intends on using a gun to commit a crime with. I just don't know how you go about doing it without stepping on the rights of the innocent people.
Red Flag laws are characterized by the absence of due process. "Due process" after the tyrannical act is already complete (which is what the NRA was advocating in the video above) isn't due process.
If you respect due process, you understand that we've already had laws in place for a century or more for dealing with dangerously mentally ill, and it involves bringing them before a court and, before they are denied their rights, finding them incompetent to be free in a fair trial involving representation and facing accusers.
I would go along with this except for all the times it has failed. What is wrong with debating better ways to solve a problem?
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
What is the NRA's position on emergency risk protection orders (ERPOs)? The NRA’s position on emergency risk protection orders (ERPOs) has recently been mischaracterized by some who haven't taken the time to understand our position, including the anti-gun mainstream media and organizations that purport to support the Second Amendment. Many of the individuals mischaracterizing our position are using misinformation to simply attack the NRA.
The NRA fights for the constitutional freedoms, including the due process rights, of all law-abiding Americans, every day in Congress, the statehouses and the courts. Our record on this is clear. Due process of law is a bedrock of our constitutional freedoms. Without it, we would cease to exist as a free country.
All fifty states currently have civil commitment procedures and many lack basic due process protections. This is unacceptable. The NRA believes that no one should be deprived of a fundamental right without due process of law.
Some have raised the issue of current ERPO laws in California, Oregon, Vermont and other states, suggesting that the NRA supports those laws. This is false. The NRA strongly opposed these laws because they do not protect due process rights. We will continue to oppose confiscation schemes such as these.
In addition, the NRA opposes any effort to create a federal ERPO law, in which federal agents would be tasked with seizing firearms after a hearing in federal court. As states consider ERPO laws, the NRA will continue to push for the inclusion of strong due process protections.
The NRA believes that any effort should be structured to fully protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while preventing truly dangerous individuals from accessing firearms.
The requirements of an ERPO process that the NRA can support should include the following:
The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.
An order should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.
The process should require the judge to make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment. Where the standard for involuntary commitment is met, this should be the course of action taken.
If an ERPO is granted, the person should receive community-based mental health treatment as a condition of the ERPO.
Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.
There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon termination of an ERPO, when a person is ordered to relinquish their firearms as a condition of the order.
The ERPO process should allow an individual to challenge or terminate the order, with full due process protections in place.
The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms as a condition of the ERPO. The individual must also have the ability to sell his or her firearms in a reasonable time without violating the order.
Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The NRA believes that any effort should be structured to fully protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while preventing truly dangerous individuals from accessing firearms.
Yeah, well, that's just not gunna happen in the corrupt thinking of the left, their judges, and their tainted agenda of world domination, so if it's all the same to you, F.O., I'll keep my guns
_______________________________________________________ An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
Unless a person is mentally deficient enough to be placed on at least a 72-hour involuntary hold by authorities and then after having at least two mental professionals diagnosed and then in court adjudicated as such, they should not lose the right to keep and bear arms..
If you are not supporting of the NRA's position, I suggest you read it, and think this issue through.
These Red Flag laws are GOING to be passed in a lot of states. The only question is, will they be something reasonable designed to fufill their intended purpose and take this issue off the table for nuttly left to use against us, or will they look like what was just rammed down our throat here in Colorado.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
If you are not supporting of the NRA's position, I suggest you read it, and think this issue through.
These Red Flag laws are GOING to be passed in a lot of states. The only question is, will they be something reasonable designed to fufill their intended purpose and take this issue off the table for nuttly left to use against us, or will they look like what was just rammed down our throat here in Colorado.
I read the NRA position they don't protect our rights far enough.
Reread read what I just wrote, nothing less is acceptable
If you are not supporting of the NRA's position, I suggest you read it, and think this issue through.
These Red Flag laws are GOING to be passed in a lot of states. The only question is, will they be something reasonable designed to fufill their intended purpose and take this issue off the table for nuttly left to use against us, or will they look like what was just rammed down our throat here in Colorado.
I read their position they don't protect our rights far enough.
Reread read what I just wrote, nothing less is acceptable
And this from the NRA position:
The process should require the judge to make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment. Where the standard for involuntary commitment is met, this should be the course of action taken.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
