ERPOs Are Unconstitutional and Deny Due Process BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER
ERPOs Are Unconstitutional and Deny Due Process
BY TIM SCHMIDT - USCCA FOUNDER
I first wrote about so-called "red flag" laws (also known as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" or "ERPOs") back in January 2018.
My comments back then stemmed from an incident out in California that prompted the issuance of such an order — the first of its kind since the state established ERPOs back in 2016. (AB-1014, which passed in 2014 but didn't take effect until 2016, "allows family members, law enforcement officers and even roommates to file a petition with the court to deny a person access to guns and ammunition if they believe that person is an imminent threat to themselves or others," according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.)
Since then, we've seen debate about red flag laws in the news on a regular basis. Proponents of Extreme Risk Protection Orders — which, by the way, are in effect in varying forms in not only California but also Connecticut, Washington and Oregon — claim that such measures will help reduce suicides and mass murder. Even President Trump, who has "branded himself as ... pro-Second Amendment," urged Congress "to back efforts to encourage states to adopt red flag laws" in an effort to "make sure those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process." [San Diego Union-Tribune]
But that's the biggest problem with ERPOs: relying on feelings to potentially strip an individual of his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms — all while neglecting due process.
The Brady Campaign, notorious for its fight against so-called "gun violence," says in Bearing Arms that "almost half of mass shooters exhibited warning signs or concerning behavior before their crimes. They made threats or acted in a way that worried family or friends. But, more often than not, these family and friends had no official mechanism to prevent their loved one from obtaining or using firearms against themselves or others, leading to tragic consequences."
Let me repeat a few of those lines:
"Exhibited warning signs or concerning behavior."
"Acted in a way that worried family or friends."
You may feel differently, but I think there is an awful lot of room between "concerning behavior" and a legitimate threat.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Red flag laws are nothing short of anti-freedom tactics to seize your guns. These unconstitutional efforts can be abused on a whim to deny law-abiding Americans due process.
Interestingly, just a few days ago President Trump (ironically and likely unintentionally) made a case against red flag laws.
According to Concealed Nation, after CNN's Chris Cuomo "got into a nearly physical altercation" while out with his family, the president tweeted what he likely thought was a jab at Cuomo:
"Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn't be allowed to have any weapon. He's nuts!"
Dan Zimmerman points out the discrepancy: "Trump's tweet — no doubt meant to tweak someone who's been a consistent critic — was stupid and ill-considered. It's also extremely valuable as the perfect example of why red flag laws, which the president says he supports, are such a bad idea."
Take Care and Stay Safe,
Tim Schmidt
Publisher - Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder