Bullshit!
ERPO = "Extreme Risk Protection Order"
I've written about this before (almost exactly a month ago) since an ERPO law was enacted in Oregon.
Anyone who wants to take away your gun(s) can do so with no fear of consequences for their unilateral mischief. All they have to do is to convince a judge that they have a "close relationship" with you, and you are "a risk to yourself or others", and BINGO! ... the cops are at your door to search your home and confiscate every firearm you own.
(And when I say Anyone, even an "acquaintance" can trigger an ERPO.)
And you're not even invited to your own trial.
The only way you can get your guns back is by going before a judge and suing ... and proving that you're not crazy. Or a risk to yourself, or to others.
Now, just how are you going to do that?
The only crazy ones are the states who, like my home state of Oregon (where I've never been arrested or had police come to my place of residence), are empowered to compromise my civil rights without ever having met me.
How would you like it if the neighbor down the street, irked because you complained that his dog was pooping in your front yard, filed an ERPO on you? He could do that; and nobody would blink an eye. There is, apparently, no provision in the law for his investigating what is essentially an false arrest.
I'm a widower, and I've not remarried. I may date from time to time, but ....
That's all over, because one bad date and *the imaginary* she has the perfect tool for wreaking revenge on me. Just one little lie to any judge in the county. That's all it takes.
People say that gun-owners are paranoid; I've never been paranoid before, but this works for me.. Except the key definition of "paranoia" is the word "delusion". If someone is attempting to cause me emotional, fiscal or societal harm, being accused of being a threat to myself or others is not a delusion. It's a fact.
MSM Proposes Gun Confiscation Orders After Mass Shootings Continue:
ABC News recently published a piece focused on a gun control tool known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order, essentially a restraining order between gun owners and their guns, that would allow for the confiscation of their lawful property on the mere say-so basis from others like family members, acquaintances or law enforcement officials — without the gun owner’s knowledge or input.
ERPO laws are already in effect in such places as California, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington state, with similar legislation being worked on in a multitude of other states and Washington, D.C., as well as — to a lesser and limited extent — Indiana and Texas.
The way these laws work is by allowing family members or the police to express their concern about the potential imminent danger of an individual in a petition to a judge, who could in turn order the individual to surrender their lawfully possessed weapons for a temporary period of time.
Yes, I realize I've said much of this last month. But that's when it was just a flash in the pan. Now gun-grabbers in even more states are signing on to this unconstitutional injustice, and it's got to stop somewhere!
Is every state which is signing onto this gun-grabber bandwagon including that the accused will have his day in court? And is he/she assumed to be guilty without evidence? I don't see that in the versions of such bills I've seen yet.
As nearly as I can tell, this is just another arrow in the quiver of people who don't think the average citizen has a right to possess an object which they hate (that is ... a firearm.) So far, it has been a low-profile attack, and I have no idea how successful it has been. MSM doesn't keep a score card on this one.
Well, they wouldn't. It's a "Stealth Attack" on the 2nd Amendment, and opponents of the Constitution are well known for using any trick in the book ... and now, apparently, inventing new ones ... to achieve their goals of undermining the "unpopular" civil rights of Americans.
If they can't stay in the headlines, they can't be heard. It doesn't matter to them if they win or lose, they'll just turn a corner and find another unpopular cause.
But the Second Amendment is "A Big One", and they really want to score a win in this column.
They don't care about the harm they cause to honest people who think the Constitution is an inviolable part of their country.
No comments:
Post a Comment